Kolkata Court August 1935 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Harnath Rai Binj Raj and ors. Vs. Sewi Prosad Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal230
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This is a border line case. It is true that the case resembles two other cases in which I have recently revoked the leave granted under Clauses 12 of the Letters Patent in that the only part of the cause of action which had arisen within the jurisdiction is the assignment by the original holders of the negotiable instrument in favour of the plaintiffs. There is also this to be said on the side of the defendants, that the majority of the plaintiffs reside in the same place as the defendants, and so they will not be put to any inconvenience if the leave is revoked. If the suit had not reached the stage, which it has in fact reached, I should probably have considered that the circumstances justified me in revoking the leave. On the other hand I have no reason to suspect, as I suspected in one of the previous cases, that the assignment was deliberately made in Calcutta for the purpose of embarrassing the defendants in their defence to the suit. So far as I can recolle...
Laxmi Bhander Ltd. Vs. Purna Chandra Dutta Banik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal770
ORDERKhundkar, J.1. The petitioners who are a company registered under the Indian Companies Act brought a suit against the opposite party for recovery of a sum of Rs. 42-14-3 alleged to be due on a bond. The plaint in the suit was signed and verified by the Secretary of the Company.2. By an order dated 13th March 1935, the learned Munsif directed that the plaintiff to file an affidavit testifying to the fitness of the Secretary to verify the plaint. The direction not being complied with the learned Munsif ordered the plaint to be struck off. It is against this order that the present rule is directed.3. On behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that the case of International Continental Caoutchous Compagnie v. Mehta & Co., 1927 Cal 758, referred to in the judgment, does not support the proposition that when a pleading is signed or verified by a person other than the plaintiff, the authority of that person to sign or verify must in every case be established by affidavit. That case pr...
Kusum Kumari Devi Vs. Gayanath Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal390,166Ind.Cas.814
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This Rule is on behalf of one of the creditors of opposite party No. 1. The other creditors of the said opposite party No. 1 are opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The opposite party No. 2 is however a secured creditor and the rule is not against her. The question raised in this rule is a question relating to rateable distribution not under the provisions of Section 73, Civil P. C., but on general principles of the surplus sale proceeds of a holding, which belonged to opposite party No. 1, but has been sold in execution of a rent decree obtained by the landlord against him. The holding was sold by the Munsif, 1st Court, Manikganj, on 24th September 1934, for a sum of Rs. 350. The whole of the purchase money was in Court on or before 14th November 1934. The claim under the rent decree was only Rs. 48 odd and after the satisfaction of that decree there remained a balance of Rs. 302 odd. Opposite party No. 2 had obtained a mortgage decree against the opposite party No. 1 ...
Badan Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1935
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.127
Derbyshire, C.J.1. In this case a number of persons convicted of taking part in a dacoity and conspiring to take part in the dacoity were convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 395 read with Section 120-B of the same Code. They were convicted before the Sessions Judge and a jury at Chittugong. In all, 20 persons were charged and a number of them, 17 were convicted. Four of them have not appealed against their convictions and sentences and 13 of them have appealed. Those who have appealed are as follows:1. Bakshu, 2. Abdul Sovan, 3. Ijjat Ali, 4. Makhalasar Rahman alias Bochaiya, 5. Ansur Ali, G. Ahmadar Rahaman, 7. Sona Mia, 8. Manirajjaman, 9. Badan Ali. 10. Abdul Latif choukidar, 11. Abdul Sobhan Serang, 12. Abdul Kader alias Rabijarbap and 13. Noa Mian.2. Badan Ali was represented before us by Mr. Hamidul Huq Chowdhury. The rest wereunpresented. The Crown was represented by Mr. Bhattacharji.3. The ground of the appeal as put, forward by Mr. Huq is that the ...
Mohammad Esahaque Mia Choudhury and ors. Vs. Ananda Chandra Saha and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.1042
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by defendants Nos. 2 to -1 in a suit instituted by the opposite party No. 1 in the first Court of the Munsif of Lakshmipore against them and opposite party No. 2, Jasada Nandan Bariikya, who is defendant No. 1 in the suit. The suit has been valued for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 300 only and the question in this Rule is whether the said valuation is correct. That question depends upon the nature of the suit. For the purpose of determining the question, the following allegations made in the plaint must be considered. The plaintiff admits in para. 1 that he borrowed Rs. 10,000 from Brindaban Chandra Banikya, father of defendant No. 1, opposite party, on Jaistha 12,1331, and on that date executed in his favour a mortgage bond which contained a clause for the payment of compound interest at the rate of Rs. 7-8 per annum. The other statements in the plaint material for the purpose of the question raised in the rule are that...
Bikram Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Jadab Chandra Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal817
1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff from a preliminary decree in a suit for accounts. During the pendency of the appeal a final decree in the suit has been passed. The facts necessary to be stated are the following: Defendant 1 was a mukhtear in the service of the plaintiff's father Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur, the Ruling Chief of Tippera. He was appointed as such mukhtear on 22nd December 1914 and for this service he executed a kabuliat on 24th December 1916. In accordance with an order made on 22nd December 1914, about the time when he was appointed, he furnished two sureties defendants 4 and 5, who executed a surety-bond on 18th April 1919. The Maharaja died on 13th August 1923. Thereafter the plaintiff, Maharaja Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya Bahadur succeeded to the Raj and on 31st March 1926 executed an Ammuktearnama in favour of defendant 1 authorising him to withdraw money and file petitions of satisfaction and also giving him certain other powers. On 2...
Moti Lal Daga and ors. Vs. Susil Kumar Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal114
McNair, J.1. A question has been referred to me by the learned Master which arose on the solving of the final decrees in two similiar mortgage suits. The circumstances were as follows. Property comprised in a mortgage was subsequently mortgaged together with other properties to a second mortgagee. The prior mortgagee sued on his mortgage and made the subsequent mortgagee a party to his suit. A preliminary decree was made and the property, the subject-matter of the original mortgage, was sold and was insufficient to satisfy the prior mortgagee's claim. The question arises on the drawing up of the final decree whether in this decree the second mortgagee is entitled to an order for sale of the remaining property in satisfaction of his mortgage. I have had the benefit of hearing arguments from counsel for the mortgagor and the second mortgagee. For the second mortgagee reliance is placed on the case of Kishory Mohan Roy v. Kally Churn Ghosh (1895) 22 Cal 100, where Sale, J., held that it h...
Srimati Susumabala Dassee Vs. Purna Chunder Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.461
ORDERMcNair, J.1. This is an application by the Receiver in Suit No. 410 of 1934 for payment of a sum of Rs. 1,133-14-0 with interest, at 6 per cent, per annum from August 1932 until realization, and for payment of the sum of Rs. 2,278-14-0 with interest at 6 percent, from June 15, 1933, for taxed costs and for payment to the applicant's attorney and to the attorney for the guardian ad litem of their costs of the execution proceedings.2. By an order of July 27, 1934, certain attached properties were directed to be sold for the recovery of the above-mentioned sums and for the cost of the execution proceedings. The sale was effected by the Sheriff who sent in a statement of amount deducting from the sale proceeds (1) the Sheriff's poundage based on the total amount of the sale proceeds and (2) the charges of the Corporation of Calcutta for owner's and occupier's share of taxes.3. The questions which are now before me for determination are:(1) Whether the Sheriff is entitled to charge pou...
Mono Mohan Vs. Kali Kinkar Chakravarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal751,159Ind.Cas.696
1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor arising out of an application for execution of a decree passed on 21st September 1932. The decree-holder prayed for attachment of a decree obtained by the judgment-debtor on 15th June 1932, against one Naba Chandra Choudhury in Account Suit No. I89 of 1928, in the second Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chittagong. Objection was raised under Section 47, Civil P. C, stating that a preliminary decree for accounts could not be attached, as such a decree was not assignable under the law, according to the judgment-debtor, as mentioned in his petition of objection filed in Court, it was a mere right to sue. The objection as raised by the judgment-debtor was overruled by the Court of execution; and hence this appeal.2. The question for decision in the case before us is whether a preliminary decree in a suit for accounts is liable to attachment, regard being had to the provisions contained in Section 60, Civil P. C, regarding the liability of property...
Durga Charan Das and anr. Vs. Chairman of Labonga Samabai Samity
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal171,162Ind.Cas.135
Lodge, J.1. This appeal arises out of orders passed on an objection under Section 47, Civil P. C. The material facts are these: Defendant 1 took a loan from the Labanga Samaboy Samity on mortgage of his share of a certain holding. Defendants 2 to 7 stood surety for defendant 1 and gave their shares in the same holding as security for the repayment of the loan. On application being made to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies a decree was passed against defendants 1 to 7 on 15th July 1928. In the decree it was found that Rs. 1,312-8-0 was due from defendant 1 to the Labanga Samaboy Samity; and he was directed to pay the amount by 7th January 1929. In the event of his failure to pay the decretal amount within the time fixed, it was ordered that the mortgaged property be put to sale; and that if the sale proceeds were insufficient to satisfy the decretal debt, the Society would be at liberty to apply for a personal decree against defendants 1 to 7. Defendant failed to pay the decretal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »