Kolkata Court November 1937 Judgments
D.E.D. Cohen Vs. Baidyanath Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal507
McNair, J.1. The plaintiff Cohen on 27th July 1928 executed a mortgage of the premises 57, Ballygunge Circular Road in favour of Miss Mary Jones. The property was already subject to prior mortgages in favour of the Administrator General of Bengal, but the rights of the prior mortgagee are not in dispute in the present action. The mortgage in suit inter alia provided that it should be read and construed as an English mortgage as defined by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and that the power of sale and all other powers and provisions ancillary or auxiliary thereto conferred upon a mortgagee by the said Act or by Sections 6 to 19 inclusive of the Trustees and Mortgagees Powers Act (28 of 1866) or any statutory modification thereof should be incorporated therein, (which includes the power to appoint a receiver) but without the restriction in the last mentioned Act contained as to giving notice. On 16th June 1933 interest on the mortgage was admittedly over six months in arrears, and Mi...
Tag this Judgment!Sayed Ahamed and ors. Vs. SamsuddIn Ahamed and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal275
Nasim Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for setting aside the revenue sale of noabad taluk No. 20302 of the Chittagong Collectorate. The trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal the lower Appellate Court has dismissed it. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiffs. The point for determination in this appeal is whether upon the facts found by the lower Appellate Court the revenue can properly be said to have been in arrear so as to justify the sale under Act 11 of 1859. The facts found are these: The last date for payment of revenue, namely Rs. 3-7.0, was 28th June 1933. The plaintiffs sent from Rangoon by money order (not in rave, nue money order form) Rs. 3-7-0 on 8th June 1933. The Collector received it on 28th June 1933. In the coupon, number of the Taluk was correctly given, but it was stated to be 'P.S.', that is, 'permanent settled' and not 'noabad'. This money could not be credited to the account of the disputed noabad taluk on account of this mistake in the description ...
Tag this Judgment!BasiruddIn Mahammad Vs. Prasanna Deb Raikat and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal282
B.K. Mukherjea, J. 1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit commenced by him for declaration of his title to the disputed property and for confirmation of possession in respect of the same. There was also a prayer for a permanent injunction restraining defendant 1 from interfering with the plaintiff's possession.2. The facts which gave rise to this suit may be shortly stated as follows. The subject-matter of the dispute is a tenure which was held admittedly by the pro forma defendants 2 to 21 under defendant 1, as landlord. On 21st February 1919 the tenure was put up to sale in execution of a rent decree and purchased by one Basiruddin who in his turn sold it to one Garibulla on 16th July 1919. Garibulla, while in possession of this tanure, mortgaged it together with an occupancy holding to the plaintiff by a mortgage deed executed in April 1920. The plaintiff secured a mortgage decree on the basis of this mortgage bond and on 24th June 1931 both the ...
Tag this Judgment!Pacific Minerals Ltd. Vs. Singhbhum Mining Syndicate
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal343
Williams, J.1. This is a suit for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 5500 as damages sustained as the result of breach of a contract to deliver 2000 tons of manganese ore. The defendants carry on business, inter alia, in the district of Singhbhum and own a manganese mine in the district of Vizagapatam. Apparently, the price of manganese ore varies considerably, from time to time, and when prices are low it is not profitable to work a considerable number of mines actually existing in this country. In recent years however, the price of manganese has risen, with the result that a large number of small mines which had not been worked for years, were again brought into operation, and a considerable number of new firms and companies sprang up, dealing in production and sale of manganese ore. The ore varies in quality, that is to say, the actual amount of manganese in the material taken from the mine varies from 40 to 50 per cent. English and European buyers are interested mostly in ore of the hi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramendra Nath Mondal Vs. Dhananjoy Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal261
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the opposite party decree-holder to show cause why an order rejecting an application made by the petitioner under Section 151 and Order 9, Rule 8, Civil P.C., and an order con-firming a sale held in execution of a decree should not be sot aside. The opposite party obtained a decree against the petitioner for Rs. 546.4-9 on 27th January 1934. Execution proceedings were started and in Miscellaneous Case No. 589 of 1934 certain property was put up to sale and purchased by the opposite party for Rs. 315. The petitioner then filed one of the usual sort of applications under Order 21, Rule 90. As is frequently the case, he failed to appear on the data fixed for hearing on a plea of illness and the application was dismissed. Ha then filed his application under Order 9, Rule 8 and Section 151 of the Code on 28th January 1937. It was dismissed on 13th March and the sale was 'confirmed on 15th March. In the meantime the petitioner had made an appl...
Tag this Judgment!Gobardhan Chandra Ray Naskar Vs. Kanai Lal Banduri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal373
Nasim Ali, J. 1. This appeal is against the order of the Additional District Judge of Howrah, dated 23rd December 1925 and arises out of a proceeding under Section 4, Provincial Insolvency Act. The learned Additional District Judge has made an order under Sub-section 3 of that section and has directed the receiver in insolvency to sell whatever right, title and interest the insolvent might have in the property which was the subject-matter of the proceeding under Section 4. Sub-section 3 of Section 4, Provincial Insolvency Act, is in these terms:Where the Court does not deem it expedient or necessary to decide any question of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1) but has reason to believe that the debtor has a saleable interest in any property, the Court may without further inquiry sell such interest in such manner and subject to such condition as it may think fit.2. There is no express finding by the learned Judge that he had reason to believe that the debtor has a saleable interes...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Chandra Das Vs. Parashmani Dasya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal252
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a rule obtained by an auction-purchaser calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why an appellate order made by the Subordinate Judge setting aside a sale should not be set aside and the order of the Munsiff rejecting an application under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C., should not be restored. The sale was held on 18th March 1936, and the property purchased by the petitioner for Rs. 160. The judgment debtor filed an application under Order 21, Rule 89 on 8th April 1936. She de-posited five per cent. of the purchase money to be paid to the petitioner. She did not deposit anything to be paid to the decree-holders because she asserted that she had settled their claim out of Court and nothing further was due to them. The pleader who was acting on their behalf gave a receipt for Rs. 100. On 20th April the petitioner filed on application objecting to the petition. On 18th June, another application was filed on behalf of the minor decree- holders in which th...
Tag this Judgment!Gopinath Shah Vs. First Land Acquisition Collector
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal250
Nasim Ali, J.1. This rule was issued under the provision of Section 115, Civil P.C. upon the Land Acquisition Collector of Calcutta to show cause why his order dated 24th November 1937 rejecting the petitioner's application for reference under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, should not be set aside. The Collector refused the petitioner's prayer for reference on the ground that he had received Be. 300 out of the compensation money awarded to him with, out protest. A preliminary objection has been taken by the Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the opposite party that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Collector under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, in revision under Section 115, Civil P. C and consequently the application for revision is not maintainable in law.2. Section 115 of the Code authorizes this Court to revise the orders of the Court subordinate to this Court. In order to enable this Court to interfere with an order under Section 115 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Barkatulla Sheikh Vs. Jnanendra Chandra Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal281,175Ind.Cas.731
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit commenced by him for a declaration that the decrees passed in rent Suits Nos. 1386 of 1929 and 1037 of 1933 are fraudulent and inoperative. He prays further for a Permanent injunction restraining the landlord-defendants from executing the decree in rent Suit No. 1037 of 1933. The facts are not disputed and lie within a rather short compass. There was a jama held at a rental of Rs. 65-5-0 by one Gobinda Chandra Das and his co-sharers on the basis of a kabuliyat executed by Gobinda Chandra Das alone in favour of the landlords on Aswin 6, 1295 B.S. An eight annas interest in the tenancy devolved upon Raniani Sundari who is defendant No. 5 in the suit and the remaining eight anna share was inherited, as has been found by the trial Court, by defendants Nos. 6 and 7. The latter surrendered their interest in favour of the landlords and the holding of defendant No. 5 became separated from the old hold...
Tag this Judgment!Phanindra Nath Sarkar Vs. Moulvi Dedar HossaIn Khan Chaudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal240
Bartley, J.1. This rule in our opinion must be discharged upon the short ground that we are not entitled to interfere by way of revision. The rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why an order made by the District Magistrate of Pabna, in virtue of which he declared the election of the petitioner to the Serajganj Local Board to be void should not be set aside. It would appear that previous to the election, certain objections were taken to the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the electoral roll and that these objections were disallowed. The petitioner was then elected as a member of the Board and subsequently to that further objections were taken as a result of which his election was set aside by the District Magistrate.2. Now under Section 138 (a), Local Self-Government Act, it is lawful for the Local Government to make rules consistent with the Act for the purposes of determining the authority who shall decide disputes relating to such elections held under the Act. I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »