Kolkata Court November 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.
S. Massirat HossaIn and ors. Vs. HossaIn Ahmad Choudhuri and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal278
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit instituted under Section 92, Civil PC., for removal of defendant 1 from the post of mutwalli, for appointment of a new mutwalli in his place, and for certain other reliefs. The plaintiffs' case is based upon the existence of a wakf which was created by a wakfnama dated 6th Aswin 1305, in accordance with the terms of which defendant 1 is the present mutwalli. Plaintiffs' case is that defendant 1 has been neglecting to look after the estates and his duties as mutwalli in breach of terms of the wakfnama and committing acts of misappropriation. Their further case is that defendant 1 has come under the evil influence of defendant 2 who has induced him to come to an arrangement by which the wakf properties have been leased to defendant 2 in return for an annual payment of Rs. 1200 which again defendant 1 has been spending for his personal benefit. Various other acts in breach of the trust are complained of. The plain-tiffs who ar...
HatemuddIn Sirkar and anr. Vs. Musajjama Sircar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal176
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the decree-holder to show cause why a sale should not be set aside. The facts are these. On 31st March the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 30 and asked for time on the ground that they would try and negotiate a private sale of the mortgaged property. They were granted time upto 20th April. In the meantime the petitioners had recourse to a Board appointed under the provisions of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act and the Chairman of the Board gave notice of the application to the Munsif in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of that Act. The Munsif refused to take any action, but brought the property to sale on the ground that the petitioners did not reside and the property was not situated within the jurisdiction of the Board. It seems pretty clear what was the decisive reason which induced the learned Munsif to pass this order. When the petitioners applied for time on 31st March the decree-holder objected on the ground that...
Jitendra Nath Pal Vs. Birendra Krishna Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal193
Bartley, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated 9th March 1936 rejecting a petition of objection to the execution of a mortgage decree and to the sale of the mortgaged properties. The objection was made by the judgment-debtor under the provision of Section 47, Civil P.C. The application to execute the decree which was a decree passed in Title Suit No. 32 of 1928 in the Court of the same Subordinate Judge was made on 6th June 1934. It would appear that some two months previously, the District Judge of 24-Parganas acting under Section 13(2), Civil Courts Act, made an order of re-distribution of work hitherto done in the Courts of the Subordinate Judges under his control. In consequence of this re-distribution suits and oases which had hitherto been filed in the second Court of the Subordinate Judge of 21-Parganas were assigned in part to the Court of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge. The property in question in the present case is situated ...
Kritanta Kumar Guha, Receiver of Firm Styled Krishna Chandra Sonatan M ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal316
Nasim Ali, J.1. The facts which give rise to this appeal and the rule are as follows : The appellants in the appeal from original order who are the petitioners in the civil revision obtained a decree for Rs. 1,30,000 against a firm known as Ram Krishna Bejoy Krishna Pal on the Original Side of this Court on 27th November 1929. On 6th February 1935 this decree was transferred for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Nadia. This execution case was registered as Execution Case No. 23 of 1935. Radha Gobinda Pal, the opposite party in the civil revision case obtained a decree against Pullin Behari Pal and Anil Krishna Pal and three others persons for Rs. 2371-11.6, on 7th June 1933 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia. He put this decree into execution on 5th December 1933, This execution was registered as Money Execution Case No. 258 of 1933. On 6th April 1935, the appellants applied for rateable distribution of the money which would be brought to Court in Execution...
Cellular Clothing Co. Ltd. Vs. Sen Abdul and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1939Cal154
ORDERLort-Williams, J.1. This is a petition asking that the plaintiff company do furnish security for costs. The suit is for an injunction to restrain the defendants from selling or offering for sale as 'Aertex' cloth not of the plaintiff's manufacture. The registered office of the plaintiff company is in England at No. 14, Moor Lane, London, and, the plaintiff company has no immovable property within British. India. Therefore the case comes within the terms of Order 25, Rule 1, Civil P.C., 1908, which provides that the Court, in such circumstances, 'may' order the plaintiff to give security for costs. It is clear therefore that the power of the Court is discretionary, and this was decided so far back as the year 1894, in a case, In the goods of Premchand Moonshee (1894) 21 Cal. 832, in which Sale J. held that the power given to the Court was discretionary, and one which the Court ought or ought not to exercise according to the circumstances of each case, and that, unless it is shown t...
Satya Kinkar Ghanty and anr. Vs. Mukhram Marwari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal384
Jack, J. 1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for partition of the homestead land described in the plaint with the buildings thereon and delivery to the plaintiff of his one-third share thereof. The only point urged in this appeal is that the suit is barred by limitation under the provisions of Article 11-A, Lim. Act, inasmuch as such a suit should have been brought within one year of an order dismissing under Order 21, Rule 99 an application made by the plaintiff for possession of the whole of this homestead. Rule 103 of Order 21 directs that such an order of dismissal is conclusive subject to the result of a suit to establish the right claimed in his application under Order 21, Rule 97 and, under Article 11-A, Lim. Act, that suit must be brought within one year. But the plaintiff does not seek to establish the right which he claimed in his application under Order 21, Rule 97, i.e. exclusive possession of the homestead. He now applies for partition of the homestead and possession o...
AmiruddIn Sarkar Vs. NisaruddIn Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal276
Jack, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for establishment of plaintiff's title to 14 bighas of land described in the plaint and for confirmation of possession of those lands. The only question that arises in this appeal is whether the suit is barred by the special law of limitation under Article 3, Schedule 3, Ben. Ten. Act as found by the lower Appellate Court. The facts are shortly that the land in suit is included in the jote of 26 bighas standing in the name of Khidirsai Mondal and held by him under the landlords defendants 1 to 3. On Khidirsai's death 3 bighas out of the holding passed by inheritance to the plaintiff and 11 bighas he obtained by a compromise decree in a mortgage suit against his co-sharers who had mortgaged 12 bighas of their land with him. On behalf of the defendants, it is claimed that they purchased the jote in execution of a mortgage decree on 8th December 1928 and settled the jote with defendant 4 in Chaitra 1340 B.S. The trial Court decreed the suit but ...
Shib Dulal (Dulare) Shukul and anr. Vs. Kishoreganj Loan Office Ltd. C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal194
1. This appeal is against the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Mymansingh by which he adjudicated the appellants Shib Dulare Sukul and Trilochan Sukul as insolvents on the application of one of the creditors, Kishoreganj Loan Office Ltd. Co. The facts of the case are that during the tendency of the insolvency proceedings, notice under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors' Act was received by the Court intimating that an application had been received by the Atharabari Debt Settlement Board under Sections 8 and 13(1) of the Act praying for the settlement of the debts of the opposite party who have since been adjudicated insolvents. On receipt of this application, the Court was moved to stay all further proceedings in the case under Section 34 of the above Act. The Court refused to take the action as requested on the ground that the Bengal Agricultural Debtors' Act had got no application, as the opposite parties Shib Dulare Sukul and Trilochan Sukul are not d...
Jagabandhu, Gobinda Chandra, Probhat Chandra Roy Choudhuri Firm Vs. Bh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal256
ORDER1. This rule must be made ab-solute. The rule was issued against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge staying further proceedings in execution of a decree. The facts are that the judgment-debtors' properties were sold in pursuance of a money decree. Subsequently an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., was filed by the opposite party to have the sale set aside. It was then agreed between the parties that if the amount mentioned in the application due under the decree, was paid within a specified period, i.e. within six months from the date, the sale of the property would be set aside, other-wise the sale would be confirmed. No; such payment was made, but when the case came up for final disposal an application was made stating that the matter has been referred to the Debt Settlement Board, Raipura and on this ground the stay was applied for and granted by the learned Subordinate Judge. In view of the decisions reported in Nrisbingha Chandra Nandi v. Kedar Nath : AI...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›