Kolkata Court January 1936 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: Ramesh Chandra Sen Gupta, a Pleader
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal205
Mukerji, Ag. C. J.1. Babu Ramesh Chandra Sen Gupta, a Pleader practising at Patuakhali in the District of Bakarganj was on 22nd September 1929 elected a Director of the Patuakhali Loan Office Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, and has been acting as such Director from the date of his election. On 3rd February 1935 he was also appointed Assistant Secretary of the said Company and in that capacity he receives an allowance of Rs. 25 per month. Since 1929 he has been a member of the Committee of Management of the Patuakhali Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., and also its Secretary; and in April 1935 he has, in addition, been appointed its Insurance Director; but as regards any of these appointments no question arises now. It is his connection with the Patuakhali Loan Office Limited as a Director, and also as its Assistant Secretary, that has given rise to the present matter. The appointments in the Loan Office aforesaid having come to the notice of this Court, the f...
In Re: Matter of N, an Advocate
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal158
1. Mr. Niharendra Dutt Mazumdar, a Barrister of the Middle Temple, was enrolled under the Bar Councils Act, on 11th January 1933 and was admitted as an advocate of this Court, his name being entered in the roll of advocates entitled to appear and plead on the original side of the Court on 17th January 1933. It is his case that soon after his enrolment as aforesaid he began to take a prominent part in Labour and Trade Union movements and became, as he says, an 'Honorary Trustee,' some sort of a principal officer of a Trade Union of the labourers of the Port and Docks of Calcutta registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1926. In 1934, between 3rd March and 2nd December, he delivered a number of speeches at certain meetings of the Union held at public places. For three of the speeches, said to have been made on 3rd, 4th and 18th March respectively, proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P. C., were taken against him and the Magistrate ordered him to be bound over to keep the peace...
Dharani Mohan Roy Vs. Pramatha Nath Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal283,165Ind.Cas.332
1. This appeal has merged out of a suit for enforcement of an equitable mortgage. The plaintiff Dharani Mohan Roy is the appellant. On 15th August 1919 plaintiff's adoptive mother purchased from defendant 2, Khitipati Roy, a property known as Ayma Roy Chak subject to an agreement that the price to be paid would be ascertained within a year, and' on that basis executed a promissory note in favour of the latter for Rs. 50,000. On 27th August 1919, Khitipati borrowed from one Mohendra Nath Kundu a sum of Rs. 25,000 on executing a pro note for the amount and depositing certain securities and title deeds in respect of some properties amongst which were premises No. Section 25 and 26 Joy Kissen Street in Uttarpara in the District of Hooghly. These promises will hereafter be called the Uttarpara property. On 8th September 1919, Khitipati endorsed over the promissory note of 15th August 1919 in favour of Mohendra and Mohendra returned to him some of the securities which he had previously taken...
Gajendra Nath Mandal Vs. Kunja Behari Mistri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal388,166Ind.Cas.492
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This Rule is directed against the order of the learned Munsiff of Tamluk, Third Court, by which the application for pre-emption made by the petitioner before me, Gajendra Nath Mandal, under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act, has been dismissed. Opposite Party 14, Promotha Nath Dass, who is the tenant of an occupancy holding, sold 8 acres of land out of his holding to opposite party 1, Kunja Behary Mistry, by a registered conveyance dated 10th October 1933. Gajondra Nath Mondal is the patnidar under one Lilabati Debi, who has 6 annas odd share in the zemindari, and her co-sharers are the opposite parties 1 to 5, 6 (a) to 6 (f), 7 (a) to 7 (c), 8 (a) to 8 (e) and 9 to 13. Promotha Nath Dass held the occupancy holding under the patnidar and under opposite parties 1 to 5, 9 to 13 and under Bankubehary Chatterjee, Sankhu Behary Chatterjee and Natbar Chatterjee, the predecessors in interest of opposite parties 6 (a) to 6 (f), 7 (a) to 7 (c) and 8 (a) to 8 (e) respectively. Nataba...
Bejoy Lal Mukherjee Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal550
Costello, J.1. The learned Judge in the Court below summarised the main issue which he had to determine in these words:The company invokes the special period of limitation provided by Clause 13 of the policies in case of the claim having been rejected. The plaintiff on the other hand claims that an arbitration under Clause 18 having taken place and the suit having been instituted within three months of the date of the award the suit is within time. The substantial question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to invoke the arbitration clause at all in the circumstances. If he is not, then the fact that he did so and obtained an award in his favour will not help him.2. The real and indeed the only question, which we have to determine, in my opinion, is this, namely, whether in the circumstances of this case the plaintiff was entitled to say that it was right and proper that an arbitration should take place between him and the defendant company. If the plaintiff was entitled to call upon...
Calico Printers Association Vs. Jeevanram Gangaram and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1936
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.560
ORDERCunliffe, J.1. This is an application put forward on behalf of the defendants in an action brought against them for alleged infringement of trade designs, against the plaintiffs asking for security for costs in the sum of Rs. 5,000; or any other sum which is fit and proper.2. The application is made Under the provisions of Order XXXV, Rule 1 of the 1st Schedule to the Civil Procedure Code which lays down, inter alia,where at any stage of a suit it is shown that the plaintiff is residing out of British India and that the plaintiff does not possess immovable property within British India other than property in suit, the Court may order security for costs to be given.3. The application is put forward upon affidavits although the first affidavit appears to be made on behalf of the plaintiff firm in answer I suppose directly to the petition. That affidavit is replied to by an affidavit sworn on the defendants' behalf in Calcutta.4. The provisions of Order XXXV, Rule 1, are Said to be i...
In Re: N, an Advocate
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1936
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.170
1. Mr. Niharendra Dutt Mazumdar, a Barrister of the Middle Temple, was enrolled under the Bar Councils Act, on January 11, 1933, and was admitted as an Advocate of this Court, his name being entered in the roll of Advocates entitled to appear and plead on the original side of the Court on January 17, 1933. It is his case that soon after his enrolment as aforesaid, he began to take a prominent part in Labour and Trade Union movements and became, as he says, an ''Honorary Trustee,' some sort of a principal officer of a Trade Union of the labourers of the Port and Docks of Calcutta registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1926, In 1934 between March 3 and December 2, he delivered a number of speeches at certain meetings of the Union held at public places. For three of the speeches, said to have been made on March 3, 4 and 18, respectively, proceedings under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, were taken against him and the Magistrate ordered him to be bound over to keep the peace...
Saladurjaman Chowdhury and ors. Vs. OazaddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal46
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit by the villagers of Satgaon for declaration of their right of pasturage based upon custom in seven plots of land specified in the plaint. The area of the seven plots according to the record of rights is about 38 acres. In the record of rights which was finally published in 1919 six of the plots were recorded as cattle pasture and one of the plots was recorded as a khal. The trial Court found that the plot was recorded wrongly as a khal in the record of rights; it was really a piece of land. The defendants resisted the suit on various grounds. The trial Court decreed the suit and that decree has been affirmed in appeal.2. The Courts below have held that the right of the plaintiffs to pasture their cattle on the defendants' land is a right which can be acquired as an easement. This view was held in 1889 in Secretary of State v. Mathura Bhai (1889) 14 Bom 213 where certain tenants of Government claimed a right of pasturing the...
Nitai Charan Ghose and ors. Vs. Kshetra Nath Ganguly
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal147,162Ind.Cas.102
ORDER1. In these cases rules were issued to show cause why certain orders should not be set aside. These orders were the subject of one judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Burdwan. The matter arose out of a civil suit tried by a Munsif. It was alleged that certain of the parties were guilty of an offence under Section 196, I. P. C. An application was made to the learned Munsif, asking him to make a complaint against these persons under Section 476, Criminal P. C. The Munsif held an inquiry and eventually made a complaint against the defendants Satya Kinkar Ghosh and Amrita Lal Ghosh: but he refused to make a complaint against the pleader Haradas Banerjea or defendants 3 to 5 in the suit, because he considered that no prima facie case against them had been made out. There was an appeal to the Sessions Judge, and he agreed with the Munsif in making a complaint against Satya and Amrita, but disagreed with him with regard to the pleader and the other defendants, because in his opinio...
Radha Nath Maity Vs. Krishna Chandra Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal249,165Ind.Cas.682
D.N. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal dated 31st January 1935 and arises out of a dispute with regard to apportionment of the compensation money which has been awarded by reason of compulsory acquisition under the Calcutta Improvement Act of 1911. It appears that the land in question, which consists of about six bighas in area, was required for the purposes of a certain improvement scheme, and the value of the land, which is premises No. 25, Lake Road, was assessed at (including the statutory allowance) Rupees 1,12,700, and the value of the structures and trees in the premises in question with the statutory allowance was assessed at Rs. 1769-12-10. At the time of the declaration the tenant one Radhanath Maity who was claimant No. 2 before the Collector, was in poisession. The whole of the sum of Rupees 1,12,700 was awarded to the landlord claimants who are the respondents before us and the sum of Rs. 1,769-12-10 was gi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »