Kolkata Court December 1936 Judgments
Chandra Kishore Mandal Vs. Shasindra Kumar Roy Choudhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal174
Jack, J.1. This is an application under Section 107, Government of India Act, against the order of the District Magistrate of 24-Pergannas declining to interfere under Rule 1-A of the Rules under the Local Self-Government Act, with the order of Mr. B. Sinha, Sadar Sub-divisional Magistrate of Alipur, rejecting the application of the petitioner Chandra Kishore Mandal for nomination as a candidate for election to membership of the Sadar Local Board, on the ground that Rule 1-A did not apply. Our interference is sought on the ground that the learned Magistrate erroneously refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law in declining to entertain the petitioner's application. Rule 1-A is as follows:All disputes arising under these rules other than objections under Rr. 15 and 42 shall be decided by the Magistrate of the district and his decision shall be final.2. The application is opposed on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order inasmuch as the lea...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Kishen Rathi Vs. Gopeswar Deghuria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal177
ORDERD.N. MITTER, J.1. The question which falls for determination in this Rule is as to whether an appeal lay to the District Judge against the order made by the Munsif setting aside a sale which was held on 11th December 1935 in circumstances to be presently mentioned. It appears that the petitioner before me having obtained, on 8th June 1934, a money decree against opposite parties 1 and 4, Gopeswar Deghuria and others, filed an execution case in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bankura and attached a mortgage decree obtained by the judgment-debtors, opposite parties 1 to 3, Gopeswar Deghuria and others, against one Ramratan Singh, and started proceedings for execution of the decree in the third Court of the Munsif at Bankura. It also appears that one Nibaran Chandra Chatterji instituted a mortgage suit in the first Munsif's Court at Bankura against the same judgment-debtors, that is, Gopeswar Deghuria and others, and obtained an order of attachment before judgment on 16th Febru...
Tag this Judgment!Burhan Mirdha Vs. Mt. Khodeja Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal189
D.N. Mitter, J.1. The question of law which falls for determination in this Rule is one of considerable importance and relates to the jurisdiction of civil Courts in suits relating to the dissolution of Mahomedan marriages. It appears that a suit was instituted by Mt. Khodeja Bibi against Burhan Mirdha, the petitioner in the rule, for a declaration that her marriage with the petitioner was dissolved by divorce given by the petitioner or in the alternative for a dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of desertion, cruelty, etc., and for an injunction. The suit was filed in the Court of the District Judge of Burdwan. By his written defence the husband, amongst other defences, raised the contention that the suit should have been instituted in the Court of the lowest grade, viz. the Court of the Munsif and not the Court of the District Judge, the suit being valued at Rs. 10 for the declaration and dissolution and Rs. 5 for the injunction. The learned District Judge framed an issue on t...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Raman Saha Vs. Makhom Lal Ganguly and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal461
1. The facts which give rise to this appeal are as follows: The appellant purchased certain properties belonging to the respondent on 5th December 1931 for Rs. 2,795 at an execution sale held in execution of a decree obtained by him against the respondents. The judgment-debtors made an application for setting aside the sale under 0. 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., on 13th January 1932. On 4th June 1932 a petition was filed by the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor in the case arising out of this application stating that the case was compromised on the following terms: (1) That decree-holder will withdraw out of the money Rs. 2,995 deposited by him. (2) That sale will be set aside if the judgment-debtor pays the decretal amount in three kists, namely Rs. 500 on 30th Ashar 1339 corresponding to 14th July 1932, Rs. 400 on 12th Aswin 1339 corresponding to 20th September 1932 and the balance, namely Rs. 3,575, on 29th Poush 1339 corresponding to 13th January 1933. (3) In case of default in the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mymensingh Loan Office Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal667,175Ind.Cas.892
ORDERLort. Williams, J.1. The points raised on this petition are the same as in the case of In the matter of The Nattore Kamala Bank Limited Reported in : AIR1937Cal124 decided by me on 25th May 1936. The facts are similar. The petitioner was a depositor of the Mymensingh Loan Office Limited, and obtained a decree in the Munsiff's Court at Jamalpur on 6th February 1932 for the amount of his deposit with interest and costs. Subsequently he received a notice dated 20th July 1933 intimating that by an order dated 17th July 1933 Ameer Ali, J. had directed a meeting of the depositors of the Company to be held on 20th August 1933 for the purpose of considering and approving the scheme of arrangement annexed thereto. The petitioner attended that meeting and after filing a written objection stating that he was a creditor and not bound by this scheme, he departed without taking any further part in the proceedings. At that meeting the scheme was modified by adding that 'the depositors shall incl...
Tag this Judgment!Brindaban Chandra Putatunda Vs. Kashi Chandra Putatunda and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal201
Jack, J.1. These proceedings have arisen out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to have an award filed and judgment pronounced in terms of the award under the provisions of para. 21, Sch. 2, Civil P.C.2. The plaintiffs' case was that they and the defendants were five brothers. Owing to dispute between them in connection with their moveble and immovable properties, they unanimously nominated one Bepin Behari Putatunda as arbitrator to settle the disputes. Thereupon the arbitrator heard the parties, considered the evidence adduced by them and executed an award on 15th Agrahayan, 1338. It was duly pronounced and the plaintiffs asked for an order of the Court under para. 21, Sch. 2, Civil P.C., that a decree be passed in terms of the award.3. On various grounds the parties appealed against this decree in the Court of appeal below; and there has also been an appeal to this Court. But under the provisions of para. 16 (2), Sch. 2, Civil P.C., no appeal lies from such a decree except in ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Haridasi Debi Vs. Manufacturers Life Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal379
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this suit, as originally instituted Sm. Haridasi Debi, a Hindu widow, was the plaintiff and the Manufacturers Life Assurance Co., incorporated in Canada, a limited liability company, carrying on its business in India were the defendants. The plaintiff claimed a sum of money under a policy of insurance effected by her husband upon his own life and expressed to be for the benefit of his wife, the plaintiff; that is to say it was a policy issued under the provisions of Section 6, Married Women's Property Act (Act 3 of 1874).2. After the institution of the suit the defendants raised the point that even if the policy money were payable, it could not be paid to the plaintiff, because Section 6 provides that any such money shall be deemed to be a trust for the benefit of the wife. Consequently an application was made to Panckridge, J. to appoint a special trustee within the meaning of the section. This application was granted and a special trustee was appointed by the C...
Tag this Judgment!Annakali Debi and ors. Vs. Gyanendra Chakravarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1938Cal22,173Ind.Cas.318
Henderson J.1. These Rules were issued on a highly technical point which merely amounts to this. The form of the learned Judge's order was not correct. He should have left it to the Magistrate to select the particular form of enquiry instead of directing him categorically to issue a summons against the petitioner. We think that this technical ground is correct; but if the Magistrate in the exercise of his own discretion chooses to issue a summons immediately instead of wasting time over a possibly useless enquiry, he is quite at liberty to do so. We therefore make these Rules absolute and direct that the order of the Sessions Judge be modified and direct the Magistrate to make a further enquiry.Cunliffe, J.2. I agree....
Tag this Judgment!Raj Ballav Mondal Vs. Rajendra NaraIn Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1936
Reported in: 170Ind.Cas.641
Mukherjea, J.1. This rule was obtained on an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and is directed against an order passed in a proceeding under Section 26(C) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The opposite party is cue purchaser of an occupancy holding which comprises a tank, and in the notice which was served on the petitioner landlord under Section 26(C) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the price of one Holding was stated to be Rs. 66 and it appears that the landlord's transfer fee paid by the opposite party was also calculated on that amount.2. The landlord presented his application for purchase on March 10,1936, and he deposited the amount of consideration money as stated in the notice together with compensation at the rate of 10 per cent, upon the same. The purchaser resisted the application of the landlord substantially on the ground that the deposit was inadequate, the contention being that the total value of the holding as set out in the kobala was Rs. 395 and that, ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadamba Prosad Lala Vs. Badri Prosad Jhunjhunwala and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal203
1. The plaintiff in the suit in which this appeal has arisen prayed for a declaration of his right to the half-share of the Patni Lot Bamantore described in Clause 2, Sch. 1 to the plaint, and for confirmation of possession, or if the Court found that the plaintiff was out of possession of the whole or any portion of the property in suit, for recovery of possession thereof. The case of the plaintiff may be briefly stated: The Patni Lot Bamantore belonged to one Ram Bandhu Chatterji; Ram Bandhu mortgaged the same to defendant 2 and one other person; the half of the amount of the consideration money for the mortgage was paid by defendant 2 from out of the fund owned by the joint family consisting of defendant 2, his brother defendant 3, and his three step-brothers; there was a sale in pursuance of a decree for enforcement of the mortgage, passed in 1914, and the property was purchased by defendant 2 with his own money; defendant 2 then obtained possession of the property as purchaser at ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »