Kolkata Court May 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.
The Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Foolcoomari Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1936
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.474
Williams, J.1. The plaintiff Corporation claims the sum of Rs. 394-14 on account of the consolidated rate payable in respect of land and buildings in premises No. 16-1, London Street, Calcutta. Further they claim a declaration of first charge on the premises for that sum with costs and interest, and a decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Form 5-A in Appendix D to the First Schedule.2. The sum claimed represents arrears of the occupiers' share of the rate payable in respect of these premises, and the defendant contends that the Corporation cannot obtain a declaration of first charge on the premises in respect of the occupier's share, because by so doing they would be levying the entire consolidated rate upon the owner of the premises: whereas the scheme of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. is to divide the incidence of the rate between the owner and the occupier.3. Section 205 of the Act provides that the consolidated rate due from any person in respect of ...
In Re: Natore Kamala Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal124
ORDERLort-Williams, J.1. The petitioner was a depositor in the Natore Kamala Bank, Ltd. and instituted a suit for realisation of the sum of Rs. 425-5-0 being his deposit money. A consent decree was made on 21st June 1933, whereby the Bank was ordered to pay to the petitioner Rs. 87-2-6 within a month and a balance of Rs. 400 by two equal instalments in Sept./Oct. 1933 and March/April 1934. In default of such payment the entire decretal amount became due. Pursuant to the decree the company paid to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 87-2-6 as the first instalment. On 18th July 1933 a notice was sent to the petitioner by the Secretary of the Bank intimating that by an order of 10th July 1933, Ameer Ali, J., had directed that a meeting of the depositors of the company should be held on 11th August 1933 for the purpose of considering, if it thought fit, approving, with or without modification, a scheme of arrangement proposed to be made between the company and the depositors. A copy of the schem...
Uday Chandra Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Ambika Charan Chakravarty and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal455
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for enhancement of rent by the landlords under Section 7, Ben. Ten. Act. The facts are that formerly the plaintiffs and the defendants together had a tenure under Bhulua Estate at a rent of Rs. 18-4-0 per annum. The tenure had been created in 1850 and it was held on ticca terms for four years and thereafter it was held at a rate of Rs. 18-4-0. The record of rights of the area was finally published in 1917. The landlords, the Bhulua zamindars made a case under Section 105 asking for enhancement of rent of the tenure. The suit was contested. While the matter was being contested by the defendants the plaintiff's predecessor made a compromise with the landlords and obtained an intermediate tenure at an annual rent of Rs. 36 and thereafter in March 1920 the case under Section 105 was withdrawn by the landlords. The present suit for enhancement was instituted by the plaintiffs in 1932. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit...
Gobinda Prosad Dalal Vs. Brindaban Chandra Nasipuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal7,167Ind.Cas.600
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. The question involved in this Rule is whether the petitioner has the right to maintain an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., to set aside a Court sale at which Opposite Party No. 1 purchased the property of Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 6. The facts are simple and are not disputed. The petitioner brought a suit to recover a sum of money from Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 6 (Money Suit No. 70 of 1933 of the 2nd Court of the Munsif at Rampurhat). He applied for attachment before judgment of the property of Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 6, which is the subject-matter of this Rule. He got an order in his favour from the Court and in March 1933 the peon went to the locality, proclaimed the prohibiting order by beat of drum and affixed a copy of the same on the property, but he omitted to affix a copy of the order on the notice board of the Court. The provisions of Order 21, Rule 54 of the Code accordingly were only partially complied with. The petitioner ultimate...
L.A. Creet Vs. Firm Gangaraj-gulraj and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal129
D.N. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1, the representatives of defendant 2 and defendant 3 against the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Asansol dated 6th June 1933, by which he decreed the suit for ejectment and recovery of mesne profits in respect of a coal mine consisting of 1,124 bighas of land in the village of Sathgram. The plaintiff who instituted the suit claims by right of auction purchase all the right, title and interest of the Limited Company known as the Sathgram Coal Company Limited. Mr. A.T. Creet, defendant 3 in the suit took a lease of 2024 bighas of coal lands in the village Sathgram from the Searsole Raj for a period of 999 years on 18th September 1919. On 2nd July 1920 defendant 3 let out to the Sathgram Coal Company Limited the whole of the lands covered by his lease for 999 years. Some of the questions which are raised by this appeal are dependent on the construction of this sub-lease and on its true legal effect. The document is printed at...
Bulanda Bashini Dasi Vs. Pran Govinda Dhar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal547,166Ind.Cas.388
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. The Secretary of State for India in Council, who is opposite party 2 in this rule, obtained a decree for rent against opposite parties 3 and 4, Hatu Dutta and Sudhangsu Bhusan Dutt. In execution of his decree the defaulting holding was sold and purchased by the petitioner, Bulanda Bashini Dasi, on 27th May 1935. It is this sale that the opposite party 1, Pran Gobinda Dhar, wanted to set aside by making a deposit under the provisions of Sub-section 1, Section 174, Tenancy Act. His application for setting aside the said sale was refused by the 1st Court but has been allowed by the lower appellate Court, and the said sale has been set aside. The question raised in this rule is whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the said application of opposite party 1. This question depends upon the question as to whether he is a person whose interest has been affected by the rent sale.2. The answer to this question depends upon the following facts which are not dispute...
Mukti Devi Vs. Monorama Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal490
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. This case raises interesting points of law and some of them are points of first impression. The matter has been very ably and fairly argued by Mr. Ahmed appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and although I am in substance holding against him it must not be taken that I have not taken into consideration the arguments he has advanced. Three points have been raised before me which I will state hereafter after setting out the relevant facts which are as follows: Abdul Malek Molla held an occupancy holding under a large number of co-sharer landlords. He sold a portion thereof by a registered instrument to the petitioner before me, Mukti Devi. The notice of transfer was duly served and within two months of the service of the said notice two sets of co-sharer landlords made two independent applications for pre-emption under Section 26.F, Ben. Ten. Act. The first of these applications was filed on 20th November 1934 by three of the co-sharer landlords, Sudhir Kanta Ghos...
Raikhon Boro and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal469,166Ind.Cas.364
Cunliffe, J.1. The four appellants here were tried before the Assistant Sessions Judge of the Assam Valley Districts (Gauhati) on charges of abduction and rape. The appeals were admitted by our predecessors on this Bench. The main, I may almost say, the only argument advanced on behalf of the appellants was that the learned Judge misdirected the jury in relation to the admission of certain evidence with regard to an earlier incident in which these four appellants were concerned.2. The girl, who was the victim of the attack, had been sent by her parents to work off a debt by acting as a domestic servant to appellant 1 who was a married man and before the debt was discharged under the arrangement, she ran away from appellant 1's house, as she told her parents when she arrived that appellant 1 was bothering her to marry him. She stayed in her parents' house for a short time and then appellant 1 turned up one day, accompanied by his friends appellants 2, 3 and 4, and forcibly took her away...
Abdul Gafur Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal418,165Ind.Cas.415
Cunliffe, J.1. The petitioner here obtained a rule against his conviction and sentence under Section 82, Registration Act. When he was tried before the Magistrate of Comilla, there were two other men with him as co-accused and they were convicted of abetment. On an appeal being heard on the part of the three persons before the Sessions Judge at Tipperah, the two persons who were charged with abetting the petitioner were acquitted. The sentence, the petitioner received in the trial Court, was one year's rigorous imprisonment and before the appellate Court this sentence was reduced to six months.2. The actual charge against the petitioner was that he made a false statement before the Sub-Registrar in relation to a certain deed. This is how the lower appellate Court describes the material facts. The learned Judge says One Asafali executed a deed of gift in favour of the sons of his only son Abdul Gafur (who is the petitioner here). But before the deed could be registered, Asafali died. On...
Prosanna Kumari Mazumdar Vs. Tripura Charan Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal470,166Ind.Cas.543
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the plaintiff in a suit to recover a sum of money. It has been dismissed by the Court of first instance on the ground of limitation. The suit was instituted on 17th July 1935. The plaintiff's case in the plaint is that the defendant borrowed money from him on 11th January 1932 on a promissory note executed on the said date. In the promissory note there is a stipulation to pay interest at the rate of 3 pies a day. Then the plaint recites that on 3rd July 1933 there was a settlement of accounts between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the dues of the plaintiff were calculated at a rate of interest which was not the rate of interest provided for in the promissory note. The rate of interest on which the calculation proceeded was at the rate of one anna per month. On that date the sum of Rs. 137-8-0 was found due from the defendant to the piaintiff. Rs. 100 on account of the principal and Rs. 37-8-0 on account of interest. Then the plaint...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »