Kolkata Court December 1937 Judgments
Jodhan Prosad Bhakat Vs. Heeralal Agarwalla and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal371
Nasim Ali, J.1. The facts which are not seriously disputed in this case are these : The respondents obtained a decree against a firm Moti Bhakat Ramkrishen in the Original Side of this Court in the year 1927. This decree was transferred for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad in the year 1934 and certain properties were attached in execution of the said decree. The appellant preferred a claim to the attachment of the properties under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C. This claim was dismissed on 31st March 1936. On 12th May 1936 he filed a suit under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code for establishment of his title to the property and for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from selling the properties in execution of the decree obtained by them against the judgment-debtor firm. He also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code for restraining the respondents from selling the properties attached during the pendency of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Ch. Chunder Vs. Sm. Sushilabala Dassee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal405
Panckridge, J.1. This suit is brought on an indenture of mortgage dated 17th September 1930. The transactions which have preceded the suit are somewhat involved, and must be set out in detail if the issues before the Court are to be understood. The plaintiff and the defendant, Nirmal Chunder Chunder, are the sons of Raj Chunder Chunder, who died intestate on 5th July 1915, and the defendant, Sushilabala, is Raj Chunder's widow. Raj Chunder was the son of Ganesh Chunder Chunder, who was for many years a highly respected attorney of this Court. Ganesh died on 4th July 1914, and his will was subsequently proved. Part of his estate consisted of Nos. 23 and 24, Wellington Street, the premises which are part of the subject-matter of the mortgage in suit. At the date of that mortgage a number of transactions had been effected, the result of which was that, subject to a charge for the worship of certain family deities, one undivided half of the premises was the property of the defendant, Nirma...
Tag this Judgment!Hafiz Wazir Ali and anr. Vs. Ladley Begum and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal437
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is a vendor and purchaser summons, taken out by the purchasers. The questions asked are somewhat peculiar in form. The real question is whether the vendors are in a position to convey a good marketable title, notwithstanding three points raised. The first and principal point is that indicated in questions 3, 4, 5 and may be formulated as follows: Can the vendors give a good and a marketable title, having regard to the fact that at the date of the applications and order for sale, one Dularu who was described as a minor, was actually a major, and had the right to be appointed mutwali, in preference to the first vendor, who was actually appointed. The second point is based upon the absence of title deeds, other than the wakf deed of 1901, which is the root of title, questions in the summons 1 and 2. The third point relates to the application of the purchase money, questions 6 and 7 of the summons. These are hardly questions to be asked by a purchaser, for, they cannot...
Tag this Judgment!Dacca Co-operative Industrial Union Ltd. Vs. Dacca Co-operative Sankhy ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal327
1. This appeal is on behalf of the Dacca Co-operative Industrial Union Ltd., and is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge of Dacca dated 17th July 1935 by which the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of the same place were affirmed. The appellant was the defendant in the suit which was instituted by eight Co-operative Societies called the Dacca Co-operative Sankhya Silpa Societies Nos. 1 to 8. Both the appellant and the respondents are societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act of 1912 and have their registered offices in the town of Dacca. For the sake of shortness we will hereafter call the appellant 'the Union' and the respondents 'the Silpa Societies'. The eight Silpa Societies were members, i.e. share-holders of the Union. They became members of the Union in 1924 when they took shares of the face value of Rs. 12,000 each which they fully paid up. The Silpa Samities have as their members people of Dacca who manufa...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Mayr Vs. Phani Bhusan Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1939Cal210
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Lort-Williams J., delivered on 29th May 1936, wherein he gave judgment for the plaintiff for Rs. 4000 and costs and made a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to reject a boiler with accessaries. The plaintiff, the present respondent, carries on business as an ink and sealing-wax maker under the name of the Bengal Industrial Company at Cossipore, a few miles out of Calcutta. The defendant, a German gentleman, for some years had carried on business in Calcutta as a manufacturer's agent and an import-merchant dealing mainly in papers, stationery and machinery for making paper. The parties for some years previous to 1932 had business dealings with each other. In 1932, the plaintiff wished to start the manufacture of carbon paper and with that object in view, he consulted the defendant from time to time, and the defendant assisted him with advice, and also procured same formulae for the preparation of carbon-paper. In 1932, th...
Tag this Judgment!Moulvi Ahmed Kabir Chowdhury Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal274
ORDERHenderson, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of bribery under the provisions of Section 171.E, I.P.C. He was a candidate for the Chittagong South Mahomedan Rural constituency at the last election. Another gentleman named Khan Bahadur Bad Ahmed Chowdhury, the sitting member, was also a candidate. One Samadul Hug was an agent of the petitioner. The petitioner was very anxious to induce the Khan Bahadur to withdraw from the con. test. He accordingly wrote a letter, Ex. 6, to Samadul Huq and Samadul Huq then wrote Ex. 7 to the Khan Bahadur and forwarded with it the letter Ex. 6. The Khan Bahadur then made over both these letters to the District Magistrate. As a result, the prosecution of the petitioner and Samadul Huq was sanctioned and eventually they were both convicted. They appealed with-out success to the learned Sessions Judge and the petitioner then obtained this rule. The conviction of the petitioner depends upon the meaning which is to be attributed to this letter, Ex. 6...
Tag this Judgment!Kalipada Bhattacharjee Vs. Kali Kumar Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal336
Jack, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a simple mortgage brought against the mortgagors defendants 1 and 2. The' plaintiff is an illiterate person, a potter by profession. He says that he made over Rs. 300 to his sister with a view that when Kalipada Bhattacharjee, defendant 3, a money-lender, had an opportunity for investing the amount the sister should make it over to Kalipada. As he was going on a tour for the purpose of his business he. thought it better to leave the money with his sister. The sister made over the money to Kalipada at the beginning of Jaistha 1337 B.S. for investment. On his return home, plaintiff enquired about the investment and on enquiry Kalipada told him that he (Kalipada) had invested the money, Rs. 150 with defendant 1, Rs. 100 with one Afiruddi and Rs. 50 with one Julmat on registered bonds. He handed over Julmat's bond to the plaintiff, but said; that the other bonds, being registered, had not been taken back from the Registration Office. The plain...
Tag this Judgment!Ramendra Nath Ray Choudhury Vs. Jitendra Nath Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal351
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a rule obtained by the petitioners calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a certain order made by the Munsif under the provisions of Section 26-F, Bengal Tenancy Act, should not be modified. The opposite party 1 purchased an occupancy holding in execution of a decree obtained against opposite parties 2 and 3. The petitioners filed an application for pre-emption under Section 26-F, Bengal Tenancy Act. The opposite party 4 who is a cosharer of the petitioner and the only one of the opposite parties who opposed the application filed a petition for leave to join the pre-emption on 12th December 1936. On 21st December he created a permanent lease of his share in the landlord's interest in favour of the opposite party 5. On 19th April 1937, the learned Munsif made an order allowing pre-emption both to the petitioner and to the opposite party 4. The petitioner then obtained this rule.2. In support of the rule, it is contended that as the opposite part...
Tag this Judgment!Ellis Stella Beaumont Vs. English Motor Car Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal448
Ameer Ali, J.1. The judgment-debtor has shown cause under the amended clauses of Section 51, Civil P.C., 1908. I am satisfied that the defendant did make a fraudulent concealment or transfer of his property, or a portion of it, and committed an act of bad [faith by making a hypothecation which he has referred to in his affidavit. He has stated in evidence that he hypothecated the plaintiff's car along with other people's cars which were left with him either for sale or for custody to a third party. He brought a suit against the third party and states that he abandoned it. In point of fact it appears that certain of these cars are with him. He states that they were released or exempted. It looks as if the whole transaction of hypothecation had been fictitious. That is my view. If not, he has made a fictitious settlement. He got the cars back. In my opinion the conduct of the defendant comes under Section 51, proviso, Sub-section (a) (ii) of the Civil Procedure Code as amended [This was ...
Tag this Judgment!Bon Behari Mukherjee Vs. Makhan Lal Mukherjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal768
Bartley, J.1. This matter was argued before us by the learned advocate for the petitioner at very considerable length, but it can, we think, be briefly disposed of. The rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why an order made by the learned District Judge of the 24-Parganas, upon a petition under Section 36, Bengal Municipal Act, should not be set aside. That order itself set aside the election of the petitioner as a Municipal Commissioner for Ward No. 4 of the Khardah Municipality and directed a fresh election. Against that decision the present rule has been obtained. In our opinion, the rule must be discharged on the short ground that the provisions of Section 39-B, read with Section 43, Bengal Municipal Act, preclude us from calling in question the order of the learned District Judge. That order was made on an election petition filed under Section 36 of the Act, and challenging the validity of the election upon grounds not excluded by the Proviso to the Section. The lea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »