Kolkata Court January 1937 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.
Monmohan Sanyal Vs. Khalishkhali Co-operative Bank
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal236
1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of an execution proceeding. The appellant borrowed some money from the respondent bank. On his failure to pay off the debt the respondent submitted the dispute and the arbitrators made an award in favour of the respondent on 21st November 1927 under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act (Act II of 1912). The respondent bank made several applications in the Court of the Munsif at Satkhira for execution of this award as a decree of the said Court under Rule 22, Clause 7 of the Rules framed under Section 43, Co-operative Societies Act. The last petition for execution was filed in 1931. The appellant thereupon pleaded an adjustment and wanted to have it recorded under C. 21, Rule 2, Civil P.C. The dispute between the parties in the execution case was settled by a compromise under which the appellant undertook to pay the money due under the award by several instalments spread over a period of nine years. It was also settled by the...
Rakhu Sarif Vs. Panchanon Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal256
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned District Magistrate of Burdwan. One Panchanon Mondal was convicted by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Asansol and then he appealed to the Sessions Judge and the appeal was dismissed. His case is that he subsequently came to learn that the Subdivisional Officer was exercising powers of a Magistrate of the Second Class and he then filed an appeal in the Court of the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate then made this reference. I must point out that the reference is misconceived and irregular. The learned Magistrate has not sent up, for the consideration of this Court, some proceedings that arose in another Court subordinate to him; he is really asking the advice of this Court on the question whether he ought to hear the appeal or whether he ought to dismiss it. Technically, the reference might fail on that ground; but inasmuch as the case is bound to come before this Court sooner or later I do not propose to take that ...
Bimal Krishna Ghose and ors. Vs. Shebaits of Sree Sree Iswar Radha Bal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal338
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. These two appeals are by different parties against the decision in the same suit which was commenced by the plaintiff for settling a scheme in relation to a private debutter. The facts which are material for our present purpose may be briefly stated as follows; Three brothers, namely, Nabin Krishna, Raj Krishna and Gopi Krishna installed two deities to wit Radhaballav Jew and Radha Rani Jew in a Thakurbati which they erected close to their residential house. There was an Ekrarnama executed by and between the brothers on 15th April 1852 which recited inter alia that the brothers had contributed a sum of Rupees 1,500 each and certain ornaments and utensils for the Seva of the idols and that with this money certain immovable properties would be purchased, the income of which would be sufficient to meet the expenses of worship. So long as such property was not purchased, the Seva would be carried on with the interest of this money and in case it was found insufficient,...
Re. Arbitration: Priyabrata Bose Vs. Phani Bhusan Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal523
ORDERAmeer Ali, J.1. This matter arises out of certain partnership. I have already ruled that partnership in Bengal is a relationship based upon mutual mistrust, and when the business is in musical instruments as here, one can be certain that there is going to be long and lucrative discord. That has happened. The partnership deed is dated 10th March 1933. C1. 15 of the deed is a submission to two named arbitrators Mr. H.K. Mitra and Mr. H.N. Bose, Mr. Mitra being a barrister, Mr. Bose being an attorney. Mr. Bose was in fact the attorney for Mr. Ghose, and that is one of the points taken, the question being, whether that relationship was known to the parties at the time. There was a dissolution in December 1933 and this dispute relates to a sum of Rs. 7,000 which Mr. Bose claims that Mr. Ghose agreed to pay him in addition to taking over the liabilities of the partnership on Mr. Bose's retirement. The arbitration commenced in May 1936 the first meeting being on 22nd May 1936 and the las...
Bhusan Chandra Ghose Vs. Kanailal Sadhukhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal241
ORDERD.N. Mitter, J.1. Two questions fall for determination in this Rule: (1) the question of limitation and (2) the question of the maintainability of the suit. The facts which are relevant for the purpose of determining the first question are as follows: It appears that on 23rd March 1936 the plaintiff who is now the opposite party, applied for permission to sue in forma pauperis for recovery of a certain sum of money. He was examined on 24th. His petition was immediately rejected and thereupon he asked for permission to put in the full court-fees on the plaint and he was given a month's time from that date to put in the court-fees. He did actually put in the whole court-fees on 15th April 1936. It is contended that money having been borrowed according to the allegation in the plaint on 24th March 1933 the suit was barred by limitation as the full court-fees were paid on 15th April 1936, more than three years after the date of the bond. This contention was negatived by the Small Caus...
Administrator-general Vs. Sachindra Kumar Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal237
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the landlord in a suit for additional rent for additional area in possession of the tenant. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants' predecessor, Gour Kishore Roy, in the year 1806, executed a kabuliyat in respect of the tenure whereby he paid a rent of Rs. 35 per annum for an area of 67 bighas odd. It is stated that in the Record of Rights which was finally published in 1907 the area in possession of the tenants was found to be over 1,800 bighas. The defendants denied the genuineness of the document of 1806. The trial Court held that the document Ex. 5 was a genuine document. The Court decreed the suit and allowed an additional rent of over Rs. 800. In appeal, the decision was reversed, the Court holding that Ex. 5, the alleged kabuliyat of 1806, was at best a memo executed by the tenant and that it was not worthy of belief that the tenant who had got settlement of 67 bighas in 1806 would venture to hold over 1,800 bighas of land for a long ti...
Mohini Mohan Basu and ors. Vs. Rashbehari Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal229,169Ind.Cas.519
B.K. Mukherji, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 who are the principal defendants in a suit commenced by the plaintiffs for declaration that a rent decree obtained by them against pro forma defendant No. 5 is not liable to be attached in execution of a money decree obtained by the principal defendants against one Hiralal Roy in Money Suit No. 560 of 1919. The material facts which are not in dispute stand as follows:2. The property in respect of which the rent decree was obtained belonged to one Rajballav who made a gift of the same along with other properties to his widowed daughter Nistarini. The deed of gift purported to create a life estate in her favour and after her death the property was to go to Rajballav's heirs. Hiralal was the grandson and heir of Rajballav and he adopted a son named Radhika whose wife is Prafulla Bala, plaintiff No. 2 in the suit. Nistarini died in the month of Pous 1335 B.S. leaving behind her a will by which she disposed of amongst...
Sm. Umarani Bose and anr. Vs. Modern India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal243
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is a claim by the widow of one Promotho Nath Basu and her minor son against the Modern India Life Insurance Co., Ltd., in respect of certain policies of insurance taken out by her husband. The policies were six in number and were for a total sum of Rs. 3,000. She claims this sum and interest. The only defence is that the plaintiffs have failed to fulfil certain conditions which formed part of the policies and were the basis of the contracts, but the only condition upon which the defendant company has relied at the hearing is that the plaintiffs failed to give reasonable evidence of the age of the assured at the time the policies were issued, and the contention put forward on behalf of the defendants really means, though evidence of age has been given of a person named Promotho Nath Basu, the plaintiffs have failed to identify that person with the assured.2. The issue therefore which I have to try is whether the company acted unreasonably in refusing to pay the ...
Asrabulla and ors. Vs. Kiamatulla Haji Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal245
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of some of the defendants in a suit commenced by the plaintiffs on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of the inhabitants of Kedupur village, for establishment of a right of pasturage over the lands in suit. The defendants are residents of an adjacent village named Daudpur where the lands in dispute are situated, and they too have been sued in a representative capacity, as representing all the villagers with requisite permission under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C. The case of the plaintiffs in substance is that from time immemorial the inhabitants of village Kedupur having been grazing their cattle in the disputed land openly and uninterruptedly and thereby acquired a right of pasturage therein. The right is claimed on the basis of a custom, as well as on immemorial user giving rise to a presumption of lost grant. It is claimed also as an easement of necessity. The suit was contested by some of the defendants, who traversed the material al...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›