Kolkata Court May 1936 Judgments
Ashutosh Das Vs. Keshab Chandra Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal488,166Ind.Cas.193
Cunliffe, J.1. The opposite party in this case was convicted and fined in the Magistrate's Court under Section 483, I. P. C. for counterfeiting a trade mark. When the matter came on appeal to the Sessions Judge of Howrah, for the reasons which commended themselves to him, he ordered the acquittal of the opposite party and reversed the conviction and the sentence. The learned Sessions Judge took the view that the dispute between the parties (the complainant and the accused) was in reality a civil dispute and not a criminal one.2. The facts revealed in the trial Court were somewhat curious. The, complainant, it appears, inherited a business from his father, a concern of manufacturing weights and measures with a special trade mark stamped on the various articles of weights and measures with the fattier's name incorporated in the design. It appears that the complainant carried on the business for a short while and then he abandoned it owing to extreme competition. The trade mark on the wei...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Latif Vs. J.R. Percival, Receiver and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal573,166Ind.Cas.509
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The appellant before me got a decree for money against one Abdul Hamid on 4th November 1933. Later on, on 22nd December 1933, the said Abdul Hamid was adjudicated an insolvent on the application of another creditor and the respondent, Mr. Percival, was appointed Receiver. He however failed to apply for his discharge with the result that on 15th August 1934 his adjudication was annulled. On that date, however, the Court did not vest his properties in any person, but later on a creditor moved the learned District Judge for making an order under Section 37, Provincial Insolvency Act, for vesting his properties in a person to be appointed by him. The learned District Judge on 18th September 1934, made such an order appointing Mr. Percival, as the person in whom the properties are to vest. The appellant before me filed an application for execution of his decree against Abdul Hamid on 28th January 1935, in the 4th Court of the Munsif at Chittagong. In the said application h...
Tag this Judgment!Ashutosh Chattopadhyay and ors. Vs. Nalinakshya Bandopadhyay and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal467
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for khas possession by ejecting the defendants from the land in suit. The trial Court decreed the suit. The decree was affirmed in appeal. Upon hearing the learned advocates it appears that the land in suit is an area of four cottasin the town of Rampurhat. On it the defendants have a residential house. Defendant 1's uncle, Bishnu Ch. Chatterjee, who was a mukhtear at Rampurhat, long ago took lease of the land from the plaintiff's predecessor at a rent of Rs. 3 a year and erected a house and lived there. After he had retired from his practice as a mukhtear, a suit was brought against him for rent. On denial of relationship by the tenant the plaintiff's predecessor instituted a suit for ejection. That suit was compromised in 1903 and by the compromise the tenant agreed to pay enhanced rent at Rs. 5 a year and the landlord granted him mukarari right to the land. Afterwards in the Record of Rights the tenant's right was descri...
Tag this Judgment!Gulzarilal Marwari Vs. Ramgopal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal765,173Ind.Cas.263
Lort-Williams, J.1. The plaintiff, Gulzarilal Marwari, carries on business in Calcutta and describes himself as a Hindu trader; presumably he is the proprietor of that business. He sues Ramgopal Choteylal, Fulchand, Baluram and Murlidhur who he alleges were lately carrying on business under the name and style of Ramgopal Choteylal at Chinsurah, and he describes them as Hindu traders. The plaint therefore is embarrassing because the plaintiff does not make clear whether he is suing them as members of a contractual partnership firm; or secondly whether he means that they are carrying on a joint family business, of which joint family they are the only members; or thirdly whether he is suing them as managing partners of a joint family business, of which joint family there are other members not named in the plaint.2. As the case progressed, counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff appeared to be a little uncertain about the position, but gradually came to adopt the position that these p...
Tag this Judgment!Kalikumar Deb and ors. Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal528
Edgley, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff sued the defendant for ejectment from his homestead. The defendant contended that he should not be ejected, inasmuch as he had acquired occupancy rights in certain other lands in the village and this being the case he was entitled to the benefit of Section 182, Ben. Ten. Act. He also contended that the ejectment notice, which had been served upon him, was defective. It has not been urged before me that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act apply in this case. The Courts below have both held that Section 182, Ben. Ten. Act, has no application in a case of this sort, because the agricultural land, in respect of which the defendant claims to have occupancy right in the village, was acquired after the acquisition of the homestead by the defendant. It has however been decided by this Court in Pulin Chandra Daw v. Abu Bakhar Naskar, (1936) 163 I C 406 that, when a raiyat holds his homestead otherwise than a part ...
Tag this Judgment!Sachindra Kumar Roy and ors. Vs. Purna Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal541,166Ind.Cas.1008
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for rent. The question in controversy between the parties is as to the rate of rent. The plaintiffs claim rent as Rs. 8-5-6. The defendant stated the rent was Rs. 8-2-10. The difference between the parties is a sum of annas 2 and pies 8. It appears that the howla of the defendant was created by a patta dated 29th December 1869. The relevant portions of the patta are in these terms:In respect of the total 2 kanis 3 karas 2 kags 15 tils of land I appoint you howladar by settling the total jama at Rs. 8-5-6 altogether made up of Rs. 8-2-10 per year calculated at the rate of Rs. 4 per kani and 2 annas 8 pies as moltana costs at the rate of 4 pies per rupee.2. The question is whether the 2 annas 8 pies as moltana costs is to be considered part of the rent or as an abwab which is offensive under Section 74, Ben. Ten. Act. In the kistibandi of the patta the instalments are put down thus: Rs. A. P. P.Kist Ashar ... Mokrari 2-0-0 Mo...
Tag this Judgment!Anukul Chandra Haldar Vs. Gurupada Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal643
D.N. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by Anukul Chandra Haldar, one of the claimants in proceedings before the President, Calcutta Improvement Tribunal, arising out of acquisition of certain premises in Mudiali Road for a project of the Improvement Trust known as a Street Scheme No. 33, Southern Avenue, Section 1, in Ward No. 27, Calcutta Municipality. The President has awarded the entire compensation money in accordance with his award which comes to about Rs. 3,54,000 odd to claimant No. 1 (a) Gurupada Haldar and his wife claimant No. 1 (b) Sukumari Debi. It appears that the present appellant Anukul Chandra Haldar put in a statement of claim under Section 9, Land Acquisition Act, before the Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, on 30th May 1932 in which he alleged that the famous goddess Sri Sri Iswari Kali Mata Thakurani, and the gods Sri Sri Iswar Shyam Roy Thakur and Sri Sri Iswar Nakuleswar Thakur are the sole owners and proprietors of the premises proposed to be acquired. He stated...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K.P. Sinha Vs. Jatindra Nath Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1936
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.921
McNair, J.1. In this application a preliminary, objection is taken by Mr. C.C. Biswas for the respondents that the petition has not been filed within the 8 days prescribed by Section 46 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. Section 2d, Sub-section 8 of the Act provides for the publication of the names of the successful candidates in the Calcutta Gazette and Section 46 provides that any person enrolled in the electoral roll may at any time within 8 days after the said publication apply to the High Court within the terms of Sections 46 and 47.2. The names in this instance were published on April 9, 1936. The High Court was closed for the Easter Vacation from April 10 to the 17 inclusive, that is to say, from Good Friday until the end of the following Friday, April 17. Now that is in accordance with Rule 2 of Chap. III of the Original Side Rules of this Court. The following day was Saturday on which the offices of the Court were open, but the Court did not in fact sit.3. The question, therefore,...
Tag this Judgment!Aymamud Sarcar Vs. EbaruddIn Sarcar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal537
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether respondent 1 can execute a mortgage decree for the full amount mentioned in the said decree, against all or any of the mortgage properties, or is he entitled to levy execution only for a proportionate amount and confine his execution to properties Nos. 2 to 4 of the mortgage decree.2. The question is one on which the High Courts of India have taken divergent views.3. Respondent 2, Hiralal Shaha, advanced money to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 3 to 9 on the security of some properties, which may be called properties Nos. 1 to 4. He obtained a mortgage decree in the year 1928 on this mortgage, which decree has been assigned to respondent 1 who has applied to execute the same, limiting his execution in the first instance to property No. 1 in pursuance of the order of the Court made on 18th January 1929 at an earlier execution. Hiralal had taken another mortgage from the same person for another loan, but that mort...
Tag this Judgment!Rakhaldas Mukherji and ors. Vs. Kalipada Bhattacharji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal534,168Ind.Cas.164
Edgley, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiffs sued the defendants for a declaration of their right of easement in respect of a certain pathway leading from their house in the direction of Maheswarpassa Main Road to the south. This pathway passed to the west of a certain tank belonging to the defendants and that path is said to have been obstructed by defendant 11 acting on behalf of the other defendants. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance and the plaintiffs thereupon appealed to the lower appellate Court where their appeal was contested by defendant 11. One of the points taken by the contesting defendant was that the appeal to the lower appellate Court was incompetent, because the appeal had abated as against the heirs of defendant 8. This being the case it was urged that, even if the plaintiffs succeeded in their appeal, any decree which they might obtain would be infructuous. This point however was decided in favour of the plaintiff-appell...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »