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.
In re. Inland Steam Navigation Workers' Union
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal57
Derbyshire, C. J.1. This matter comes to us by way of appeal from the Registrar of Trade Unions for Bengal. The appeal is brought under Section 11, Trade Unions Act of 1926. [Sub-sections 1 to 3 read as follows:]2. 'Any person aggrieved by any refusal of the Registrar to register a Trade Union or by the withdrawal or cancellation of a certificate of registration may, within such period as may be prescribed, appeal (a) where the head office of the Trade Union is situated within the limits of a Presidency town or of Rangoon, to the High Court, or (b) where the head office is situated in any other area, to such Court, not inferior to the Court of an additional or assistant Judge of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, as the Local Government may appoint in this behalf for that area. (2) The appellate Court may dismiss the appeal, or pass an order directing the Registrar to register the union and to issue a certificate of registration under the provisions of Section 9 or setti...
Maharajadhiraj Kameshwara Singh Bahadur of Darbhanga Vs. Pherozsha Mer ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1935
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.121
McNair, J.1. This is a suit by the Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga to recover nearly Rs. 71,000 for arrears of rent and taxes in respect of certain premises in the Ultadanga Main Road.2. There was a registered lease made in Calcutta on July 4, 1928, between the Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga and Merwanji Nanabhoy Mehta since deceased and Pherozsha Merwanji Nanabhoy Mehta. Under the lease the lessees jointly and severally covenanted to pay rent, and interest or any rent in arrear, and to pay the occupier's share of all Municipal rates. The lessees were also monthly tenants under the Maharaja in respect of premises Nos. 81-1-1 and 81-1-2 Ultadanga Main Road on a monthly rent of Rs. 50. That tenancy expired on December 14, 1929, but certain arrears of rent are still due. One of the lessees Merwanji Nanabhoy Mehta died on July 14, 1928, and the present three defendants are the two executors and the executrix of his last will, and they obtained probate on September 9, 1929. No rent has been paid s...
Gopinath Motilal Vs. Ramdas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal133
McNair, J.1. This is a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,000 odd stated in the concise statement to be due from the defendants to the plaintiff firm on the khotor patta account and for costs. The defendants are said to be members of a joint Mitakshara Hindu family who carried on business under the name of Ramdas Bhagwan Das. There were various loans and adjustments alleged and the sum which is claimed is the sum which is said to be due after giving credit for moneys received. The plaint was filed on 21st November 1934. A written statement was put in on behalf of defendants 2, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 12. Another written statement was put in on behalf of defendants 1, 3 and 9, both on 4th April 1935. There was also a written statemant 'on behalf of certain minor defendants. About 20th May the plaintiff firm applied to amend their plaint by adding details of certain transactions and by referring to the defendants as a Mitakshara joint family and not as a firm. The order was made and it wa...
MahatabuddIn Mia Vs. Mahammad Nazir Joddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal170,166Ind.Cas.152
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff's case is that on 14th Chaitra 1334, corresponding to 28th March 1928, the defendant borrowed from him a sum of Rs. 629 and executed in his favour a promissory note for the said sum of money on the same date with a stipulation to pay interest at Rs. 3-2-0 per cent per month. He filed his suit on 5th March 1931, and in the plaint as originally filed he based his claim on the promissory note. But as the promissory note was insufficiently stamped, and so inadmissible in evidence he applied for amendment of the plaint. The said application for amendment was allowed by the Court on 25th February 1,932. The amended plaint proceeded upon the footing that the plaintiff was entitled to recover back the money lent independently of the promissory note. The learned Munsif held that the sum of Rs. 629 had in fact been lent by the plaintiff to the defendant. He accordingly made a decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 629, but reduced the rate of interest to Rs. 1-...
Ajit NaraIn Chattopadhya Vs. Achinta NaraIn Chattopadhaya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.530
D.N. Mitter, J.1. Three questions emerge for determination in these two appeals which arise out of a suit for partition of the estate of Rakhal Kristo Chattopadhaya, an inhabitant of Howrah, and the father of the plaintiff and two defendants to the suit. One is a question of fact, and the other two are questions of law. The question of fact arises out of Issue No. 6 which runs as follows:Did the defendant No. 2 advance any money to his father Babu Rakhal Krishna Chattopadhaya for the, acquisition and subsequent construction and repair of the Benares house. If yes, what amount.2. The questions of law may be formulated thus:(1) Is the debt due by defendant No. 2 from the father barred by the statute of limitations ?(2) Whether defendant No. 2 is to get 2/3rd of the money advanced by him to his father although such debt has become barred by the statute of limitation.3. On the question of fact the Subordinate Judge, has come to the conclusion that the amount advanced to the father was Rs. ...
Maharaja Bahadur Guru Mohadev Asram Prosad Sahi of Hathwa Vs. Hastings ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.907
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of Mr. Justice Panckridge dated June 5, 1935, in which he decreed that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs. 16,200 from the defendant as damages for breach of contract. The plaintiff was formerly in the Indian Civil Service. He retired from that service some years ago. The defendant is a gentleman of considerable means who has a large estate at Hathwa in the Province of Bihar. He has residence at Hathwa. He has also houses at Sewan, Chapra, Patna, Benares, Calcutta and Kurseong. On May 4, 1934, the plaintiff had an interview with the defendant at Hathwa with the result that the defendant engaged the plaintiff as his agent. The engagement is set out in the letter printed at page 5 of the paper-book and is headedThe Palace Hathwa May 4, 1934. To H. E. Beal, Esq.,Dear Sir,With reference to the interview you had with me to-day I have much pleasure in appointing you in place of Mr. E. Abbott who has been retir...
Sekendar Ali Mridha Vs. SadaruddIn Bhuniya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal792,159Ind.Cas.1008
1. These two appeals have arisen out of a preliminary decree in a suit for partition. The facts of these cases are very complicated and the calculation of shares which is involved in the claims put forward by the respective parties is a matter about which no very clear idea can be had unless the various documents upon which the Court below has relied are brought before us. For the purposes of the appeals however it will not be necessary to go very much into details. The facts, so far as they have got to be recited for the purposes of appreciating the contentions that have been put forward before us, are the following:2. One Mariam Bibi was owner of a 4 annas share in an Estate Touzi No. 9954 of the Dacca Collectorate. She had three nephews, Golam Hossain, Delwar Ali and Enayet Hossain. Enayet died leaving as his heir his daughters' son, one Syed Bakhar. In 1269, Mariam Bibi executed a wakf deed in respect of the said 4 annas share of Estate Touzi No. 9954 and also of some other propert...
Jagabandhu Misra Vs. Manager, India Jute Mills, Serampur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1935
Reported in: 161Ind.Cas.338
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, made by the learned District Magistrate of Hooghly, recommending that an order passed by the Deputy Magistrate, of Serampur, under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, be set aside for reasons stated by the learned District Magistrate in his Letter of Reference to this Court.2. Three different grounds have been stated in the Letter of Reference, on which the order passed by the Deputy Magistrate could be set aside. The first of these grounds was that in the case before us, it was not possible to hold that there was any apprehension of a danger of a breach of the peace, justifying a proceeding Tinder Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is necessary in this connection to refer to the finding arrived at by the Deputy Magistrate on the materials before him. According to the Deputy Magistrate, it was clear that there was a dispute regarding the alleged right of user of a pathway over a stri...
Sm. Hemlata Dasi Vs. Bengal Coal Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal738,159Ind.Cas.575,160Ind.Cas.1080
Nasim Ali, J.1. The facts which give rise to this rule are as follows: One Rasaraj Biswas and his wife Promodini borrowed a certain amount of money from the petitioner on mortgage of some properties belonging to them on 23rd May 1923. Thereafter Rasaraj died. The petitioner obtained a mortgage-decree against the sons of Rasarai and Promodini Dasi on the basis of the said mortgage in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipur. In execution of the said decree the mortgaged properties were sold. The sale proceeds, however, not being sufficient to cover the decretal amount, the petitioner obtained a money decree under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C., for the balance of the decretal amount, viz. Rs. 10,221-15-9 on 11th February 193l against Promodini and the sons of Rasaraj.2. The opposite party obtained a money decree for Rs. 31,405-6-9 against Rasaraj during his life-time and certain other persons in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hazaribagh and applied for execution of the said dec...
Kusum Kamini Roy and ors. Vs. Apurba Kumar Hazra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal743,159Ind.Cas.1074
Nasim Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for setting aside the sale of Touzi No. 4977 of the Dacca Collectorate under the provisions of Act 11 of 1859. It appears that the arrears for which the estate was sold were for three years, 1928, 1929 and 1930. In the notice under Section 5 of the Act the arrears not only of the year 1928 but also of the year 1929 were included. Plaintiffs' case is that this notice being contrary to the provisions of the Revenue Sale Law the sale was without jurisdiction and void. The trial Court did not give effect to this ground. Other grounds were also taken by the plaintiffs for setting aside the sale. The trial Court however found against the plaintiffs on the other grounds as well. The suit was accordingly dismissed by the trial Judge. On appeal by the plaintiffs to the lower appellate Court the learned Judge affirmed the decision of the trial Court. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiffs.2. It is contended by Mr. Gupta appearing on behalf of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »