Kolkata Court March 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.
Bhadreswar Coal Supply Co. Vs. Satis Chandra Nandi and Co. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal353,165Ind.Cas.390
R.C. Mitter, J.1. In this case a suit was brought for the recovery of the price of coal supplied to the defendants who were partners of a firm carrying on business under the name and style of Satis Chandra Nandy and Company. The cause title of the plaint was as follows:Bhadreswari Coal Supply Company through Manik Lal Roy, plaintiff v. Satis Chandra Nandy and Company represented by Jnanendra Nath Nandy and others, defendants.2. At the date of the suit three persons namely Manik Lal Roy, Sripati Charan Mukherjee and Bhujendra Nath Bhadra were partners of a firm carrying on business under the name of Bhadreswar Coal Supply Company. They were also partners of the same firm carrying on business under the same firm name when the defendant Company bought the coal. The finding of the learned District Judge is that the said partnership of Manik Lal Roy, Sripati Charan Mukherjee and Bhujendra Nath Bhadra commenced under a deed of partnership and the partnership was still continuing at the date ...
Jitendra Nath Gorai Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal294,163Ind.Cas.238
Henderson, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of the 24-Parganas to show cause why an order summarily dismissing the petitioner's appeal should not be set aside. The learned Magistrate in reply says that he has no cause to show and the Crown does not oppose the Rule. The petitioner filed this appeal through a pleader, After hearing the pleader, the learned Judge thought it necessary to call for the record and fixed 24th September. On that date, without giving the pleader an opportunity of being heard, he dismissed the appeal summarily. We do not think there was much use in calling for the record, if the learned Judge was not prepared to hear the pleader. We are of opinion that before dismissing the appeal summarily, he ought to have given the pleader an opportunity of arguing the case. In his explanation the learned Judge says that had the pleader followed him to his chamber at the end of the day and asked for a hearing, he would have been prepared to consider his...
In Re: P, a Pleader
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal372
ORDER1. This is a rule upon Babu Probhat Chandra Bhattacharya, a pleader of Rangpur to show cause why he should not be suspended or dismissed under Section 13 (f), Legal Practitioners Act. The facts on which the rule was issued by this Court are these: Babu Probhat Chandra took Moulvi Md. Shafiuzzaman as a probationer for one year from March 1933 to 1934. The said probationer accepted the whole time appointment of a teacher in the Kailash Ranjan High English School in Rangpur from 1st August 1933. On 10th December 1934, the pleader granted the following certificate to the probationer: I Probhat Chandra Bhattacharya, a pleader practising in the District Courts of Rangpur certify that M. Shafiuzzaman has duly and faithfully served me as a probationer for the period required by the rules and in my opinion he is a fit and proper person to be admitted as a pleader in the District Courts of Rangpur subordinate to the High Court. The rules referred to in the certificate are the revised rules ...
In Re: P.A. Pleader
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1936
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.426
ORDER1. This is a Rule upon Babu Probhat Chandra Bhattacharya, a Pleader of Rangpur to show cause why he should not be suspended or dismissed tinder Section 13(f), Legal Practitioners Act. The facts on which the Rule was issued by this Court are these: Babu Probhat Chandra took Moulvi Mohammad Shafi-uz-zaman as a probationer for one year from March 1933 to 1931. The said probationer accepted the whole-time appointment of a teacher in the Kailash Ranjan High English School in Rangpur from August 1, 1933. On December 10, 1931, the Pleader granted the following certificate to the probationer: 'I Probhat Chandra Bhattacharya, a Pleader practising in the District Court of Rangpur certify that Mohammad Shafi-uz-zaman has duly and faithfully served me as a probationer for the period required by the rules, and in my opinion, he is a fit and proper person to be admitted as a Pleader in the District Courts of Rangpur subordinate to the High Court. 'The rules referred to in the certificate are th...
Ananda Prosad Ghose Vs. Ronendra Lal Choudhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal342
Jack, J.1. This appeal relates to a money suit for recovery of landlord's fees. The suit was dismissed in the trial Court as being not maintainable and this view was also taken in the Court of appeal below, the learned Subordinate Judge holding that since Section 26-J, Ben. Ten. Act, expressly provides for such a case and lays down that the landlord should come to Court and file an application under Section 26-J, a suit for recovery of fees is not maintainable. In support of this view he cited the case of Md. Ismail v. Lal Mia 1933 Cal 784, where it was held that such a suit was not maintainable. In that case the earlier cases of Srinath Bose v. Debendra Nath 1933 Cal 24 and Aghore Chandra Jalui v. Rajnandini Debi 1933 Cal 283 were referred to. But on referring to those cases and also to the unreported case of Hari Mohan Sarkar v. Lokenath Mukherji Civil Revision No. 768 of 1931, which was referred to in Aghore Chandra Jalui v. Rajnandini Debi 1933 Cal 283, I find that in those cases a...
Aditendra Nath Mitter and ors. Vs. Bhupati Bhusan Sen Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal373,166Ind.Cas.457
ORDERJack, J.1. This rule was issued calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta as well as upon the Chairman of the Calcutta Improvement Trust to show cause why the convictions and sentences under Section 171, Calcutta Improvement Act, passed upon the petitioners should not be set aside. The offence complained of was that the accused had put up structures in premises Nos. 14 to 23, Jackson Lane, Calcutta, without the permission of the Improvement Trust and without an agreement as required by Section 63 (8), Improvement Trust Act. The question is whether the accused have infringed the provisions of Section 171, which lays down that:If any person, without the permission of the chairman required by Section 63, Sub-section (8) erects, re-erects, or adds to any wall (exceeding ten feet in height) or building which falls within the street alignment or building line of a projected public street shown in any plan sanctioned by the Local Government under the said section shall be ...
Debendra NaraIn Roy Vs. Jogendra NaraIn Deb and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal593,167Ind.Cas.615
1. These two appeals have arisen out of two suits which were instituted by the respective plaintiffs for recovery of possession of properties which, even apart from the entity which they collectively form under a recent enactment, have for a long series of years been popularly known as constituting the Bijni Raj. The properties, with the exception of a few solitary items which are comparatively recent acquisitions, lie in the Province of Assam and are extensive and valuable, covering an area of 1200 sq. miles and yielding a gross annual income of over 5 lacs of rupees. The Rajas of Bijni belong to a very ancient house which may be traced as far back as the fifteenth or sixteenth century. The Maharaja of Cooch Bihar in Bengal still represents the main line of this dynasty, and the Rajas of Darrang, Sidli and Bijni also belong to the same stock. History traces the House to an aboriginal tribe of Kochos or Rajbansis who rose to power and who on the dismemberment of the ancient Hindu kingd...
Ananda Prasad Ghose Vs. Ronendra Lal Choudhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1936
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.715
Jack, J.1. This appeal relates to a money suit for recovery of landlord's fees. The suit was dismissed in the trial Court as being not maintainable and this view was also taken in the Court of Appeal below, the learned Subordinate Judge holding that since Section 26-J, Bengal Tenancy Act, expressly provides for such a case and lays down that the landlord should come to Court and file an application under Section 26-J. a suit for recovery of fees is not maintainable. In support of this view he cited the case of Mohamad Ismail v. Lal Mia : AIR1933Cal784 , where it was held that such a suit was not maintainable. In that case the earlier cases of Srinath Bose v. Debendra Nath : AIR1933Cal24 , and Aghore Chandra v. Rajnandini Debi : AIR1933Cal283 , were referred to. But on referring to those cases and also to the unreported case of Hari Mohan Sarkar v. Lokenath Mukherji Civil Revision No. 768 of 1931 which was referred to in Aghore Chandra v. Rajnandini Debi : AIR1933Cal283 , , I find that ...
Bhabani Prosanna Lahiri and anr. Vs. Chairman, Municipal Commissioners ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal542,166Ind.Cas.333
1. The plaintiffs are the owners and occupiers of certain premises situated within the Municipality of Rangpur. They instituted the suit against 5 defendants: No. 1 the Chairman of the Municipality: No. 2, Jogendranath Chatterjee, in his individual capacity and also as the Chairman; No. 3, Phanibhusan Majumdar, in his individual capacity and also as the Vice-Chairman; No. 4, Narendra Mohan Chatterjee in his individual capacity and alsoas the warrant officer; and No. 5, Rishikesh Dutta Gupta, in his individual capacity and also as the tax collector. The suit was commenced as one for recovery of damages on the ground that certain goods of the plaintiffs had been wrongfully and maliciously seized and detained by the defendants, causing them annoyance, disturbance, mental worry and loss of prestige and reputation. It transpired after the plaint was lodged that the goods had already been sold and so the claim for damages was also pressed on the ground that the sale was wrongful and unauthor...
Gopal Chandra Chanda and ors. Vs. C.K. Nag and Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal375
1. These 21 appeals arise out of as many suits for recovery of arrears of rent. Plaintiffs' case briefly stated is as follows : Plaintiffs are the proprietors of 4 mouzahs in Touzi No. 98 appertaining to Pergana Salimabad. These 4 Mouzahs constitute Bandabasti Taluk Bisweswar Ray Chaudhury. Under the said Taluk there are tenancies of different grades held by the defendants in these suits. By a Robakari of the Commissioner of Sunderbands dated 1st July 1850, the rates of rent per standard bigha of 80 cubits payable by the tenants of different grades in respect of all the tenancies under this taluk are fixed. During the last settlement survey the lands of the tenancies in all the suits except suits Nos. 46 and .51 have been found on measurement by the same standard to be in excess of the area which were assessed at the rates fixed in the year 1850. Plaintiffs therefore are entitled to get additional rent for the unassessed lands of their tenancies according to the rates mentioned in the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »