Kolkata Court February 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.
Provat Kamal Basu and anr. Vs. Phoenix Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal246
1. Plaintiff's case is that he was appointed an agent by the defendant Life Insurance Company on 29th October 1918 in order to do work of Life Canvasser. He continued in the service until there was trouble between him and the company as he began to work for another Insurance Company also. The defendant company objected to this and finally terminated his services by a notice as from the end of December 1926. Plaintiff sues claiming damages for the renewal commissions which were due for the renewal of policies by clients introduced by the plaintiff, and for a further declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to such renewal commissions in future. The defence is that the plaintiff is not entitled to renewal commissions after the termination of his agency. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit accepted the defence and gave a partial decree for the sum of Rs. 33-5-0 which the defendant company was willing to pay. The plaintiff appealed and the District Judge upheld the decree of...
Nityananda Poddar and anr. Vs. Rupai Bepari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal261
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The petitioners before me have been convicted under Section 379, I. P. C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30 each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four weeks. They have also been convicted under Section 447, I. P. C., and each of them sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two weeks. It is against both these convictions that the two petitioners have moved this Court. In my judgment, on the findings arrived at by the Courts below, these convictions are not sustainable in law. The position is this: that the complainant Rupai, his brothers Serajuddi and Sonajuddi, and other were the owners of a plot of land situate in Anguria Bazar, and they were also joint owners of some huts which were on that land. The complainant's case is that this piece of land and the huts standing thereon were inherited from their father Osimaddi, not only by the complainant but also by Sonajuddi. For the purpose of this case, it is no...
Secy. of State Vs. Bhupati Nath Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal346
1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council, against a decision of the President, Calcutta Improvement Tribunal, enhancing an award of the Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, made in favour of the claimant, by Rs. 25,645, for reasons stated in the judgment of the learned President. It appears that the President granted certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal on the ground that the Tribunal had for the first time perhaps extended a principle of valuation which the Collector had adopted in regard to small plots of land, to the determination of the market value of a fairly large-sized land on a common passage. In this connection it has to be mentioned, that the acquired premises were described in the Collector's award as 'premises No. 670, Beadon Street formed out of No. 67 Beadon Street, (portion),' comprising an area 1 B 12c. 2ch., 36 sq. ft. of land, could be approached by a common passage varying from 12 to 16 feet in width and apart from that they...
Suresh Chandra Dam Vs. Sm. Marani Dassi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal378,166Ind.Cas.843
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for enforcement of two mortgages purported to have been executed by defendants 1 and 2. One of these mortgage bonds in suit was dated 19th July 1926, and it was in favour of the father of the plaintiff; the other mortgage bond dated 15th August 1927, was in favour of the plaintiff himself; and the plaintiff prayed for a mortgage decree on the footing of the two afore said mortgages. The claim in suit was resisted by defendant 2, the wife of defendant 1, on the ground that she had no knowledge of the contents of the two documents in suit, and that she had not executed them. On the pleadings of parties, the question for decision in the case was whether defendant 2 executed the mortgage bonds with full knowledge of the terms of the bonds and with full knowledge of the transactions. The decision on that question arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge in the trial Court was against the plaintiff and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed, so ...
Gurupada Haldar Vs. Manmohan Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal215
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of about 5 cottas of land together with a house and a Siva temple standing thereon. The property originally belonged to one Pran Krishna Haldar who died in 1868 leaving him surviving his widow Nitambini Debi and his mother Biswamoyi Debi. Nitambini died in 1919 and Biswamoyi died in 1899. On 26th March 1868, Nitambini mortgaged the disputed property reciting in the mortgage deed that she had to pay the decretal debt of Pran Krishna Haldar amounting to Rs. 200 and to raise Rs. 250 for her own maintenance. Subsequently the mortgagee brought a suit and obtained a decree and on 30th December 1870, Biswamoyi auction-purchased the property in execution and obtained possession on 2nd March 1872. In September 1889 she executed a deed of gift or endowment in respect of the disputed property in favour of the Siva idol established by her and appointed one Jadu Nath Mukherjee as the first shebait. In ...
Saila Bala Roy and on Her Death Malti Rose Vs. Chairman, Darjeeling Mu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal265
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This rule, which has been obtained by the defendant, relates to the claim of the opposite party to minimum charges for the supply of electric energy. Dr. D.N. Roy was the owner of a house within the limits of the Darjeeling Municipality known as the 'Roy Cot.' The said Municipality obtained a license in the year 1913 from the Local Government for the supply of electric energy in Darjeeling. It constructed a plant and began supplying electric energy. Dr. Roy applied about fifteen years ago for the supply of electric energy to his premises and he was required to enter into a written contract before he was allowed the supply. This written contract must have been entered into in pursuance of 01. 6 of the schedule annexed to the Indian Electricity Act of 1910. At the time when the contract was entered between Dr. Roy and the Municipality, there was no clause in the said schedule which, subject to such additions and modification as may be made by the Local Government, was i...
Amarendra Nath Mallick Vs. Balai Chand Ghatak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal267
Edgley, J.1. This rule is directed against the order of Babu D.N. Pal, Munsiff of Krishnagar, dated 15th July 1935, in which he directed that a certain execution case should be dismissed for non-prosecution. The facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner's mother obtained a money decree against the opposite party on a promissory note in the Court of the first Munsif at Krishnagar. This decree was then put into execution, but during the course of the execution proceedings a brother of the judgment-debtor and certain other people filed a claim case in respect of the property against which the decree was sought to be executed. This claim case was allowed on 17th November 1934 and it is contended on behalf of the opposite party that, as a result of this claim case being allowed, there remained no property against which execution could be taken.2. On 1st April 1935, the petitioner applied for amendment of the execution petition by including therein certain other property not within ...
Chormal Balchand Firm Vs. Kasturi Chand Seraoji and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1938Cal511
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted to enforce a foreign judgment,namely a judgment pronounced by the Additional Naib Akhilkar of the Court of Danhata in Cooch Behar State. The Additional Naib Akhilkar in Cooch Behar Courts exercises the same functions as a Munsif in a British Indian Court. The plaintiff has lost in both the Courts below. Hence this appeal has been preferred by him. In the beginning of 1927, the plaintiff sued the two defendants in the Danhata Court for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 400 as damages for breach of contract. The defendants are residents of British India and they resided at the date of the suit and at all material times in the Districtof Gauhati in British India. The contracthowever was formed in Cooch Behar. The plaint was filed in the Danhata Court with defendant 1 described as a major, and defendant 2 as a minor, but no guardian was proposed by the plaintiff at the time when the plaint was filed. Defendant 1 was later on propos...
District Board of Chittagong Vs. Sasi Bhusan Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal225
Bartley, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chittagong, affirming a decree of the Munsif, Third Court, which declared a resolution of the District Board, Chittagong, dated 24th February 1931, to be illegal and ultra vires, and restrained the Board from taking steps to acquire lands in pursuance of the said resolution. The succinct history of the case, as found by the Courts below, is that rivalry between the Choudhuries of Chittagong and Paragalpur on the one side and the Roy Choudhuries of Dhoom on the other, resulted in the establishment by the former of a Hat called Santi Hati, close to a long established Hat owned by the Roy Choudhuries, known as Mahajan Hat. In 1928, the site of Santi Hat was moved to the Ganekchara Khal. There is a road, known as the Khan Saheb Serajuddin Road, which was khas mahal property, but enlisted as a Local Board Road in 1924, which runs from the road to Mahajan Hat to the Leake Road, a distance of 1 miles. Ab...
Ramshashi Ghose Vs. Mohendra Nath Sinha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal223
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. In these three Rules the petitioner applied for pre-emption under the provisions of Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act. He and the opposite parties are co-sharer landlords in respect of three occupancy holdings which are the subject matters of the three pre-emption cases out of which these Rules arise. Later on there was a proceeding under the Estates Partition Act and two of the holdings were allotted exclusively to the allotment of the petitioner, but the third holding was allotted partly to the petitioner and partly to the opposite parties. The opposite parties instituted suits for rent for these three holdings for a period anterior to the partition. In those suits the petitioner was not impleaded as a party. Decrees were obtained and in execution thereof these three holdings were purchased by opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2. On that the present petitioner applied for pre-emption. These facts are not challenged and the decrees are therefore money decrees. In this view ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »