Kolkata Court June 1936 Judgments
David Elias Duek Cohen Vs. Baidyanath Mukerji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal646
R.C. Mitter, J.1. In this appeal, which has been preferred by the mortgagor, the legality of the appointment of a receiver by the mortgagee is in question. The Court of first instance declared the said appointment illegal, and restrained the person so appointed from taking possession of the mortgaged premises and from realising rent from the tenants in possession. The learned District Judge has however held otherwise and has dismissed the appellant's suit. Premises No. 57 (formerly No. 28) Ballyganj Circular Road, which comprised an area of 10 bighas 10 cottas 13 chittaks with buildings originally belonged to Miss Mary Jones. She had mortgaged the same to the Administrator-General of Bengal, who is the executor to the estate of Sagore Dutt, deceased. She sold the said premises, subject to the said mortgage to the appellant. The appellant executed on 27th July 1928 a mortgage in favour of her of the said premises for a sum of Rupees one lac. One of the clauses of the mortgage bond, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Siddhesswar Dutt alias Sidhu Dutt Vs. the Hon'ble Maharaja Sir Manmath ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1936
Reported in: 172Ind.Cas.800
Panckridge, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants and all other members of the Council of the Indian Football Association, and all officers and servants of the said Association from preventing the plaintiff from attending the meetings of the Council and from participating in the management and administration of the affairs of the funds of the Association and from otherwise exercising his rights as a member of the Council.2. The plaintiff has been a member of the Council of the Indian Football Association since the beginning of 1935. The constitution of the Indian Football Association is as follows:3. The object of the Association under Rule 3 isthe promotion of the game of Association Football in India by organisation, management and control of football leagues, tournaments and matches and also by exercising control over clubs and association affiliated thereto and in every other way that the Association may think proper...
Tag this Judgment!Khoka Das Vs. Mahendra Nath Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal656,165Ind.Cas.462
1. This is an appeal by a decree-holder from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Khulna dismissing an application for execution of a decree for costs. The question which arises for consideration in the appeal is one of some nicety. The decree was passed in a suit which the decree-holder as plaintiff had instituted for recovery of possession of four items of property and also for certain other reliefs. There was a very large number of defendants in the suit. As regards property No. 1, the suit was dismissed. One Jogendra Nath Shome, who was defendant l in the suit, claimed 8 annas share in properties Nos. 2 and 3 and the other 8 annas share in those properties was claimed by defendants 2 to 6. In property No. 4, the said defendant 1 claimed to be owner of the landlord's interest and in that property the tenants' interests were claimed by certain persons amongst whom were defendants 22 and 22-Ka. The plaintiff succeeded in obtaining a decree for possession in respect of propertie...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Akhil Bandu Guha ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal680,166Ind.Cas.163
Cunliffe, J.1. This is an appeal by the Crown against an acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge at Dacca. The learned Judge himself was dealing with an appeal from convictions and sentences passed upon three respondents here by a Local Magistrate for offences under the Companies Act. The facts which led up to this prosecution are, I think, not in great dispute. It is the construction to be put on those facts which formed conflict between the prosecution and the defence in the trial Court and which has been the subject of an elaborate argument both in the lower Court and before us at the hearing of the appeal. Now, the facts are shortly these: The three respondents Akhil Bandu Guha, Surjya Kumar Bose and Rajani Mohan Basak, were Managing Directors of a concern known as the Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. They were appointed to this responsible position out of a large Board of Directors amounting sometimes to as many as 17. The Company appears to have been a flourishing one paying dividends...
Tag this Judgment!Jaques and ors. Vs. Narendra Lal Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal653,166Ind.Cas.529
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for damages. The plaintiff is a man of Habigunj. Defendant 1 was the Assistant Superintendent of Police of Sylhet. Defendant 2 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Habigunj. Defendant 3 was the Sub-Inspector in charge of Habigunj Police Station.2. The plaintiff's case is that from April 1930 peaceful and well-regulated processions and meetings were held in Habigunj Sub-Division according to the programme of the Indian National Congress; that on 18th June 1930 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Habigunj without any justification issued an order under Section 144, Criminal P. C., prohibiting such meetings and processions and that the people of Habigunj considered the order to be illegal and unjustifiable and were determined to disobey the same. Accordingly at 3-30 p.m., on 1st July 1930, nine civil resisters called Satyagrahis started in procession through the principal street of Habigunj town, followed by a motor lorry i...
Tag this Judgment!Dharanikar Parah and ors. Vs. Chairman of Commissioners of Tamluk Muni ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal641
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit against the Commissioners of the Tamluk Municipality. The suit was instituted by eight persons for a declaration that a resolution of the Commissioners passed on 23rd February 1934 was ultra vires and illegal and without jurisdiction and was the result of an illegal proceedings of Commissioners; that the assessment lists as made were illegal that the plaintiffs are not liable to be assessed in the manner indicated in the said resolution. The suit was instituted under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C. Many other rate payers joined as plaintiffs until the plaintiffs numbered no less than 269. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. That decree was affirmed in appeal. Upon hearing the learned advocate for the plaintiffs-appellants the facts appear as follows:2. The plaintiffs are the occupiers of lands within the Municipality. They use the lands for the purpose of cultivation, growing paddy and other crops therein. They pay rent...
Tag this Judgment!Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta Vs. Purna Chunder Sinha and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal654,173Ind.Cas.311
Lort-Williams, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case are the Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta. There are three defendants. Purna Chunder Sinha, defendant 1, is the only one who contests the suit. By a registered indenture of mortgage dated 14th March 1927 made between the plaintiffs and defendant 1, defendant 1 mortgaged by way of first charge a piece of land, to secure payment of Rs. 36,250 being the price payable by him to the plaintiffs for the purchase of the said property, with interest and costs as provided in the deed.2. The deed provides inter alia that defendant 1 shall pay a yearly rent charge of Rs. 2,175 representing interest on the said sum of Rs. 36,250 @ 6 per cent. per annum on the first day of April in every year. That if this payment remains unpaid for 15 days, then the whole sum of Rs. 36,250 shall become due and payable with interest thereon @ 6 per cent, and that it shall be lawful for the plaintiffs to enter into and upon and to hold all or any part of the mort...
Tag this Judgment!Jogneswar Ghosh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal527
Henderson, J.1. This appeal raises a point which had not come to us before, although it might be expected to be raised every week, if not every day. The appellants with certain other persons were put on their trial, charged with offences punishable under Sub-section 395 and 399, I. P. C. They were further charged with a conspiracy to commit both those offences. The jury brought in a unanimous verdict of 'not guilty.' The learned Judge acquitted all the accused persons of the main charges and then proceeded to convict them of an offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 120-B, holding that the Jury were assessors and that he was entitled to take a contrary view. The first point taken on behalf of the appellants was that these gentlemen were not assessors but Jurymen and that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to convict them in the face of the verdict of acquittal. In view of the provisions of Section 269, Criminal P. C., there can be no doubt that the normal procedure u...
Tag this Judgment!Jogneswar Ghose and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1936
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.418
Henderson, J.1. This appeal raises a point which had not come to us before, although it might be expected to be raised every week, if not every day. The appellants with certain other persons were put on their trial, charged with offences punishable under Sections 395 and 399, Indian Penal Code. They were further charged with a conspiracy to commit both those offences. The jury brought in a unanimous verdict of 'not guilty.' The learned Judge acquitted all the accused persons of the main charges and then proceeded to convict them of an offence punishable under Section 395 read with 120-B, holding that the jury were assessors find that he was entitled to take, a, contrary view. The first point taken on behalf of the appellants was that these gentlemen were not assessors but jurymen and that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to convict them in the face of the verdict of acquittal. In view of the provisions of Section 269, Criminal Procedure Code, there can be no doubt that the normal ...
Tag this Judgment!Sylhet Municipal Board Vs. Firm Harish Chandra-ram Kanai Bhuiya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal750
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the Sylhet Municipal Board in a case brought against them by the plaintiff for a declaration that the action of the Municipality in levying a tax of Rs. 23 odd per quarter upon municipal holding No. 190 was with, out jurisdiction. The trial Court dismissed the suit. In appeal, the decree was reversed. The facts of the case appear to be as follows: The plaintiff firm have their main business at Kazirbazar in the town of Sylhet. In 1930 they opened a branch shop at Zindabazar for the sale of petrol, motor oil, etc. The branch shop was managed by Khetra Mohan Saha. The Municipal Board levied a tax on Khetra Mohan Saha for the branch shop in the belief that he was the owner of the shop. They numbered the shop holding as No. 86 and levied tax as follows: inhabitant tax 6 annas, latrine tax 13 annas 6 pies, water tax Re. 1-20 totalling Rs. 2-5-6 per quarter. This continued till January 1933, when the Municipal Officers came to know that the shop did not ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »