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.
Secy. of State Vs. Hiru Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal752
1. This is an appeal preferred by the Secretary of State for India in Council from a final decree for mesne profits passed in accordance with Order 20, Rule 12(2), Civil P.C. In order to appreciate the contention that has been urged on behalf of the appellant in this appeal it is necessary to set out a few facts. The plaintiff Hiru Mandal instituted a suit in 1920 for recovery of possession of 138 bighas of land together with mesne profits against the Secretary of State for India in Council as the first defendant and four other persons as defendants 2 to 5. The allegations in the plaint were that the plaintiff was the owner of a holding bearing No, 17 in the rent roll prepared according to the rules and orders of the Board of Revenue; that the said holding consisted of about 200 bighas of land and the rental thereof had been fixed at Rs. 237-8-0 exclusive of cesses which were fixed at Rupees 7-6-9 pies; that he was in possession of the lands but that a Kanungo of the Government had for...
Secy. of State Vs. Lal Mohan Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal746,159Ind.Cas.1078
1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State, the defendant in a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents in this Court for establishment of their jote right to the lands described in Schedule 1 to the plaint, and for recovery of possession of the lands described in Schedule 2, or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the said lands. The allegation of the plaintiffs on which their claim for relief in suit was based, was that the lands in question appertained to a lease granted to them by the Government on 8th November 1920. It was asserted by the plaintiffs that by subsequent unauthorized action on the part of the Government officers, they were deprived of 2.07 kanis of land out of 10 kanis odd, settled with them. The case of the Secretary of State was that from the settlement granted to the plaintiffs 2.07 kanis of land had to be excluded subsequently in view of a decree passed by the civil Court in Title Suit No. 214 of 1919; the aforesaid quantity of land had to be ex...
Nemai Chandra Dey Vs. Brojendra Nath Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal723,159Ind.Cas.376
McNair, J.1. This is an application by an attorney for review of taxation of his bill of costs, under Ch. 36, E. 72, Original Side Rules. The items objected to and which are now before me fall into two categories. In the first are items 41, 42, 43 and 44 in the exceptions. They refer to 'drawing observations, making a copy of brief, delivering the same and paying counsel's fees.' The suit in which these costs were incurred was for the construction of the will of Hiralal De and for a declaration that on the death of his widow the plaintiff Nemai Charan De as the sole reversionary heir became entitled to his residuary estate. Amongst the defendants were three ladies, Sm. Santimoyee Dassi, Sm. Sudhamoyee Dassi, and Sm. Narayan Dasi and at a subsequent date Bivash Chandra Mazumdar, a minor who was represented by his father and guardian ad litem. The suit was eventually settled by a consent decree. Items 41 to 44 have been disallowed by the learned Taxing Officer on the ground that this was...
Lal Behary Saha and anr. Vs. Bimalapada Majumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal728,159Ind.Cas.420
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit on a mortgage bond. Two persons Radharaman Majumdar and Mohini Mohan Majumdar executed the mortgage bond. Afterwards the two mortgagors deposited a certain sum of money in Court under Section 83, T.P. Act, stating that was the sum which was due from them to the plaintiff who appeared and stated, after notice was issued upon him, that the amount was not sufficient and he refused to accept the tender and thereafter the plaintiff instituted the present suit on his mortgage bond. When the suit was pending defendant 2, Mohini Mohan, died and the plaintiff did not bring in his heirs, in good time, upon the record and the suit as against him abated. After the suit had abated against Mohini Mohan the plaintiff brought on the record Bimalapada Majumdar, a son of the said Mohini Mohan on the ground that he was in possession of part of the mortgage property.2. The Court refused to consider him as a representative of the deceased defen...
Serajgunj Loan Office, Ltd. Vs. Nil Kanta Lahiri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal777
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The Serajgunj Loan Office Limited, a banking corporation registered under the Companies Act, found itself in financial difficulties, but no winding up proceedings were taken. Instead of that a composition with its creditors was proposed, accepted and sanctioned by the Court under Section 153, Companies Act. The relevant dates on which the respective contentions of the parties have been advanced before me are the following:8 th January 1933.-A meeting by the share-holders of the Bank for the purpose of devising means for stopping payment of interest and withdrawal of deposits.21st February 1933,-A resolution was passed by the share-holders authorising the filing of an application on behalf of the Bank in the High Court under Section 153, Companies Act, proposing an arrangement between itself and its creditors.20th April 1933.-The said application was moved and the preliminary order was passed by the High Court directing a meeting of the creditors to be held.21st May 19...
Jyoteswar Banerjee and anr. Vs. Surendra Nath Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1935
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.625
ORDERMcNair, J.1. This is an application by a decree-holder that orders passed by the Court of Small Causes at Calcutta on March 6 and 11, 1935, should be set aside, and that Court directed to execute a rent decree which had been made on June 20, 1932, by the Court of the Second Munsif of Jessore.2. On July 20, 1934, there was an application for execution, and a notice was issued on the judgment-debtor under Order XXI, Rule 22, of the Code of Civil Procedure. That notice was served on September 10, and thereafter the decree was transmitted to the Court of Small Causes at Calcutta for execution.3. On January 25, 1935, an application was made for attachment, and on January 28. certain movables were attached by the Registrar of the Calcutta Small Cause Court.4. On January 31, the judgment-debtors applied for leave to pay the decretal sum by instalments, and on February 15, they applied for removal of the attachment on the ground of want of jurisdiction. Both the applications were ordered ...
Hem Chandra Chongdar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal681,159Ind.Cas.31
Lort-Williams, J.1. The appellant in this case was charged under Section 6, Bengal Act 6 of 1930, read with Section 109, I.P.C., and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. It was alleged that he received letters addressed to certain persons detained under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act. One of the conditions of such detention is that the persons detained are not allowed to communicate with one another or with other persons without the correspondence being inspected by the police. It is alleged that the accused facilitated the conveyance of letters or information from such a detenu to other people. The accused was not aware of the contents of the letters.2. It seems to me that a series of mistakes have been made by the authorities in connexion with this prosecution. The accused made a statement before a Magistrate. In that, it is true, he began by saying that he was guilty. But the body of the statement shows fairly clearly that what he meant was that he was not gui...
Haridas Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Manmatha Nath Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal1
Ameer Ali, J.1. Having received so much assistance from counsel on both sides in this case, from Mr. H.D. Bose, the most experienced Hindu lawyer at the Bar, for the plaintiffs, and counsel, both senior and junior for the various defendants I would have liked to consider my judgment. I do not do so because in the circumstances of this case, it is desirable that parties should have my decision before my impending departure. I state the facts only so far as may be necessary to explain the points of law which have been discussed before me This case and the two cases which follow in the list turn on the effect of an adoption made somewhere about 1850. There was a man called Ramgopal who died in 1860 leaving a very valuable estate. He had a brother Shib Kisen married to a lady Annapurna. Ramgopal had only daughters. One daughter married Shib Nath Chatterjee, and they had a son Noni Mohan. Shib Kristo and Annapurna had no male child. They therefore adopted or purported to adopt Noni Mohan. I...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Kali Raman Bhatta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal414,166Ind.Cas.297
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Government of Assam by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, against the order of the Second Additional Sessions Judge of Sylhet, dated 13th February 1935, acquitting the accused-respondent on appeal from the order of the Additional District Magistrate of Sylhet, who had convicted him under Section 20 (1), Assam Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1934, and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was served with a notice under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Act on 7th August 1934, directing him to notify his residence and any change of residence to the Superintendent of Police, Sylhet. The appellant was then residing at Sylhet town and he notified his residence duly. On 21st October 1934 he wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Sylhet, to say that he was starting for Bombay that evening to attend the Congress Session as a representative of a local weekly, and he left Sylhet o...
Makhan Lal Chatterjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.377
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case a Rule was issued to show cause why a certain order should not be set aside.2. The accused was charged with cheating or, alternatively, criminal breach of trust. During the investigation it appeared that the accused had an account with a Bank, and the Police served a stop order on the Bank to prevent the accused from operating on his account.3. The Magistrate modified this by making an order that Rs. 75 out of the account might be paid to the petitioner for the purposes of his defence, or otherwise; but the rest of the money would be detained pending the disposal of the case.4. There seems to be no jurisdiction in the Magistrate for making any such order. Sections 516 and 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code are clearly not applicable, and neither party has been able to direct our attention to any other appropriate section of the Code dealing with matters of this kind. The position in law is that the accused had lent this money to his bankers upon the und...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »