Kolkata Court August 1936 Judgments
Bengal Assam Steamship Co. Ltd. Vs. Owners and Parties Interested in S ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal122
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiffs for an order that the owners of the S.S. 'Shanku Maru' do give security within three days of the date of the order for the sum of Rs. 2,47,426 and Rs. 4,000 and failing such security that a warrant do issue to arrest the S.S. 'Harve Maru' belonging to the same owners. The plaintiffs are the owners of a steam vessel named 'India' and two flats 'Basildon' and 'Kinsale.' On 24th February 1936 ''Shanku Maru' came into collision with the 'Kinsale' and in consequence of the collision the 'Kinsale' with its cargo was sunk and the 'India' and 'Basildon' suffered damage. 'Shanku Maru' returned to Calcutta for minor repairs, but shortly afterwards sailed from the Port and has not since returned. The defendants say that the 'Shanku Maru' has been transferred to another run in the ordinary course of business, and the plaintiffs have expressly disclaimed any allegation of bad faith on the defendants' part as regards the use it appears t...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs. Monglu Shaik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal631,173Ind.Cas.598
ORDERLodge, J.1. This Rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Maldah modifying the judgment and decree of Babu Upendra Chandra Majumdar, Munsiff, First Court, Maldah, should not be set aside. The petitioner was plaintiff in the original suit. He sued the defendant for recovery of Rs. 49 as damages on the allegation that the defendant had out down and misappropriated a mango tree. The learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the value of the mango tree had been rather over estimated and he decreed the suit at Rs. 47 with proportionate costs. Against that judgment and decree, an appeal was filed and was heard by Mr. Syed Amjad Ali, Subordinate Judge of Maldah. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the appeal in part and directed that the plaintiff would get Rs. 7 on account of damages with proportionate costs. The defendant also would get some costs from the plaintiff-respondent. The petitioner plaintiff has obtained this Rule on ...
Tag this Judgment!Debendra Nath Sadhu Khan Vs. Rai Ramprotap Chamaria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal812
Lodge, J.1. This rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why an order passed by the Munsif, 2nd Court, Howrah on an application under Section 144, Civil P. C., should not be set aside. The material facts are as follows: The petitioner was defendant in Title Suit No. 57 of 1927 in the Court of the 2nd Munsif at Howrah. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 8th September 1928 and on 30th September 1928 the plaintiff in that suit obtained delivery of possession execution of the decree. An appeal against that decree was filed and the appeal was decreed on 12th August 1932, the plaintiff's suit being dismissed. A Second Appeal being second appeal No. 1943 of 1932 was filed which was dismissed on 6th March 1935. In the meantime on 26th April 1933 the petitioner applied under Section 144 for recovery of possession of the property from which he had been dispossessed. He made no application at that time for mesne profits and no order for mesne profits was passed but an ...
Tag this Judgment!Barodaprosad Sukul Vs. Sahanlall Boid and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal658,173Ind.Cas.341
Edgley, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiff Baroda Prosad Sukul sued the defendants for a declaration to the effect that a decree obtained by them against the plaintiff and his brother Kamada Prosad Sukul was fraudulent and inoperative against him because it had been obtained in contravention of certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code which have been enacted for the protection of minors. It appears that on the 1st September 1926 the defendants instituted a suit (No. 141 of 1926) against the plaintiff and his brother for the recovery of the sum of Rupees 9,779-4.9 which represented debt which had been incurred by the plaintiff's father on a hatchita. The plaintiff was a minor at the time when the suit in question was instituted and on 20th December 1926 a pleader was appointed to act as his guardian in the suit. This pleader does not appear to have done anything in his capacity as guardian beyond submitting his final reports and on 4th March 1927, it a...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Matimala Debi and anr. Vs. Surendra Nath Mudi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal802
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by judgment-debtors against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Howrah, dated 16th March 1936, rejecting their objections to the attachment and sale of certain properties in an execution proceeding. One Jyotish Chandra Banerji was owner of these properties. He died having made his last will and testament, on 9th September 1917. By the said Will, after making specific bequests, the residual estate was granted to his wife for life, then to his daughter for life, then to her husband for life, and then to certain persons absolutely. By a codicil dated 5th May 1918, the residual estate was bequeathed by the testator to his daughter absolutely. The testator left surviving him his widow, Motimala Devi appellant 1, his daughter Anila Bala Devi and her husband Mrigendra Nath Mukerji, appellant 2. Probate of the Will was granted in due course. Thereafter, the daughter of the testator died intestate leaving her husband, appellant 2, as her sole heir. The respond...
Tag this Judgment!Nazar Khan Kabuli Vs. J.J.S. Barrclough and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal807
1. This appeal has arisen out of an application made in an insolvency case by a person claiming to be a creditor and praying for inclusion of his name as such in the schedule of creditors. The application was made on 16th June 1934, before the learned District Judge, Midnapur, after a conditional discharge had been granted to the insolvent by the Court, on 26th May 1934. The application was rejected on 14th July 1934, on the ground that no sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay in making the application was made out. The order of 14th July 1934, mentioned above, was passed after hearing the objections raised by the creditors who had appeared in the proceeding before the Court. In our judgment, the order rejecting the application of the appellant for inclusion of his name as a creditor was not properly made, in view of the admitted position that his name was not included in the list of creditors, and seeing that no opportunity was given to the appellant to explain the delay in ma...
Tag this Judgment!Ramsaroop Mamohand Vs. Chajuram and Sons.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1936
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.827
Panokridge, J.1. This is a claim by a firm of brokers for Rs. 9,715-3-9.2. The case for the plaintiffs is that they entered into various contracts of sale of jute fabrics on behalf of the defendants between December 1934 and March 1936. The brokerage provided by the contracts is at the rate of one half per cent, on the value of the goods so sold at the sale rates. The plaintiffs state that the brokerage earned in this way amounted to a sum of Rs. 9,088-9. It is also stated that the plaintiffs presented their brokerage bills amounting in all to that sum to the defendants for payment and that the defendants accepted the claim as correct. There is, moreover, a claim for interest.3. It is not now suggested that there has been any express admission of liability on the part of the defendants, and the question is whether or not the plaintiffs earned the brokerage which they are claiming.4. On the first day on which the case was heard, it became necessary to amplify the pleadings by written st...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Jardine Skinner and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal14
Guha, J.1. This is an appeal by the Corporation of Calcutta from a decision of the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, under Section 142, Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, in a case under Section 141 of the Act, in which the respondents in this Court, Messrs. Jardine Skinner & Company, challenged the assessment of rates and taxes as made by the Corporation of Calcutta of premises No. 4, Clive Row, Calcutta, of which the respondents were the owners. The respondents were served with a notice under Section 136, Calcutta Municipal Act, for furnishing a return for the purpose of assessment of the premises No. 4, Clive Row. A return was submitted in pursuance of that notice, stating the value of the land as Rs. 22,000 per cotta; the value of the building standing on the land was separately shown as Its. 2,86,000. Objections were raised to the assessment as made by the Corporation on the return submitted by the respondents; and as the result of the hearing of the objection...
Tag this Judgment!SahabaddIn Sarkar and ors. Vs. Moulvi KafiladdIn Tapadar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal18
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The subject matter of this appeal is a parcel of land admitted by both parties to be land gained by accretion from the river Meghna. The plaintiffs and the defendants are tenants of the same landlord. The plaintiffs are the tenants of the asli lands shown as dags Nos. 682, 718 and 702 in the Cadastral settlement map and the defendants are tenants of asli lands depicted in dags Nos. 701 and 717 of the said map. The river Meghna originally flowed by the east of all these plots and it is admitted by the parties that the land in suit has accreted to the lands of both parties. The controversy between them is how the land is to be divided between them. To follow the contentions raised by the plaintiffs and the defendants a rough sketch of the locality is necessary.2. The subject matter of contention before me is the triangular piece of land enclosed by the letters A, B, C in the above sketch. There is no dispute now with regard to the rest of the char land in front of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Chandra Nag Vs. Subodh Chandra Nag and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal67
1. (6th August 1936).-This is an appeal by five of the defendants in a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C. In connexion with the appeal there is a cross-objection by the plaintiffs. The suit related to an Asram known as the Asram of Baba Lokenath Brahmachari in Borodi in the District of Dacca, said to be an endowment for public, religious and charitable purposes. The plaintiffs are residents of village Barodi and other villages adjacent to it. They claim to be entitled to perform, and allege that they do perform, the worship of Baba Lokenath who lived and died in the Asram, and to have contributed funds for its improvement and maintenance; and some of them were also on a committee which was in existence for its administration at the time when the cause of action arose. The Asram is situate on a piece of land of which the superior title belongs to one set of co-sharer zamindars, the Nag Babus, the said set of co-sharers being known as the Madhyam Hisya or Panch Hisya, the other two sets o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »