Kolkata Court December 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.
Krishna Nath Sen, Secy. and Treasurer, Dinajpur Arya pustakagar Librar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal337
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Dinajpur dated 31st January 1936, wherein he upheld on appeal a decision of a Munsif to the effect that the decree-holder, the present appellant, was debarred from proceeding with execution against the present respondent, the Dinajpur Loan Office Limited. The learned Munsif upheld an objection raised under Section 47, Civil P.C., by the judgment-debtor, the Dinajpur Loan Office, which objection was that the decree could not be executed against them inasmuch as they and the decree-holder were bound by the terms of a scheme of arrangement or compromise sanctioned by the Court under Section 153, Companies Act. The appellant was a depositor of money with the Dinajpur Loan Office and the latter had got into financial difficulties. On 21st July 1933, a notice was served on the appellant by the company in respect of a meeting which was proposed to be held under Section 153, with a view to some arrangement or compromis...
Srish Chandra Nandi Vs. Midnapore Zamindary Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal853
1. These two appeals arise out of two rent suits, namely Nos. 39 and 2475 of 1934. Both of them have been dismissed by the Courts below, and the plaintiff has accordingly preferred these two appeals. The first suit was filed by Maharaja Srish Chandra Nandi as shebait of Thakur Sree Sree Lakshmi Narayan Deb and the second in his personal capacity. The idol is the proprietor of touzi No. 560 of the Murshidabad Collectorate. Under the idol, Robert Watson & Co. held a gar mokarari tenure of an area of 1321 bighas of land at an annual rent of Rs. 551. The interest of Robert Watson & Co. has devolved upon the defendants-respondents. The said tenure was converted into a mokarari one in the year 1319 B. S.; selami was paid and the rent was fixed at Rupees 641.3.0 in perpetuity. On 11th April 1913 the late Maharaja Manindra Chandra Nandi, the father of Maharaja Srish Chandra, who was then the shebait executed the mokarari potta in favour of the defendants-respondents and the latter executed the...
Bahadur Singh Singhee Vs. Bhupal Chandra Roy Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal793
Bartley, J.1. This rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Maldah allowing the landlord, the present opposite party, the amount of Rs. 2590 odd claimed by him as the balance of transfer fees under Section 26-J, Bengal Tenancy Act, should not be set aside. The material facts are as follows: The landlord, opposite party in this rule, is the proprietor of a certain Mehal in the Maldah Collectorate. Under that Mehal are four tenancies which had been settled at the time when the land-lord's estate was under the management of the Court of Wards with the predecessor-in-interest of the Mathurapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. The pottas relating to these tenancies described them as jotes. During the Deara Settlement in 1919 they were described as permanent tenures liable to enhancement of rent. In 1928 the landlord brought suits for enhancement of rent and the decision in those suits finally was that the tenancies were raiyati holdings and not ten...
Ranjit Singha Roy Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal273
Henderson, J.1. The appellant is a clerk serving in the Audits and Accounts Department of the Customs. The prosecution case apparently is that he bets with some of his fellow clerks and with other outsiders. At any rate, an outsider named Rabindra Nath Dutt who describes himself as a tailor says that the appellant had a bet with him and that the appellant refused to pay him his winnings. This annoyed Rabindra very much and he gave information to the police. He eventually made a sworn statement before one of the Deputy Commissioners and the Deputy Commissioner granted a warrant under the provisions of Section 46, Calcutta Police Act. The room which was supposed to be the common gaming house was searched and three persons, with whom we are not concerned in this case, and some betting slips and racing literature were found in the room. The appellant was eventually prosecuted under Section 44 of Act 4 of 1866. The learned Magistrate has convicted him for keeping a common gaming house and a...
G.D. Ritchson Vs. W.L.D. Ritchson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal321
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This application comes before me in the following circumstances : On 26th June 1933, the wife who is the petitioner in the proceedings obtained a decree of judicial separation on account of her husband's adultery. At the time the decree was made, the learned Judge who heard the petition made an order clearly under the provisions of Section 37, Divorce Act, that the husband should pay his wife a monthly sum of Rs. 100 for her maintenance. The husband has apparently regularly carried out the order and made payments punctually. The husband's occupation is that of a permanent way inspector on the East Indian Railway. He is domiciled in India and in the early part; of this year he applied for leave out of India, and his application was granted. On 5th April 1937 the wife having come to know of the application for and sanction of the husband's leave, took out a notice of motion, asking that the alimony of Rs. 100' a month payable under the order of 26th June 1933 should...
Sarat Chandra Das Vs. Jnanendra Nath Chakravarti and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal401
Henderson, J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by the Courts below which allowed an objection under Section 47, Civil P.C. which was made by respondent 1 Jnanendra. The facts which require to be noted are these : One Debendra obtained a decree against Hara Kumar, respondent 2. Respondent 1 Jnanendra obtained a decree against Debendra. Jnanendra took out execution proceedings and attached the decree obtained by Debendra. Debendra then sold his decree to the appellant and the appellant started execution proceedings. In the course of those proceedings, two objections were filed under Section 47, one by Jnanendra on the basis of his attachment and the other by Hara Kumar attesting the bona fides of the sale by Debendra to the appellant. The Munsif allowed both the objections and dismissed the execution case. This order was upheld in the District Court and the appellant has now brought this second appeal.2. The respondent Hara Kumar has not appeared at the hearing in this Court. In...
Surja Kanta Roy Choudhury and ors. Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal229
1. The plaintiff appeals against the judgment and decree of the learned District. Judge of 2l-Parganas dated 6th June 1935. The learned Subordinate Judge by his judgment and decree dated 30th January 1935, had decreed his claim, but the learned District Judge dismissed his suit entirely. The facts are not in controversy, but the question raised is, we believe, one of first impression, and is of general interest so far as the lotdars of the Sundarbans are concerned. The question is whether a lotdar who is holding under a grant on the terms hereinbelow noted is entitled to get abatement of the amount payable by him to Government under his engagement, on account of some portion of his grant being diluviated, under the provisions of Section 52, Ben. Ten. Act.2. In the year 1854 the Sunderbans Commissioner acting on behalf of the Government granted to one Bazlar Rahman a large block of waste land under the Waste Lands Rules of 1853. This grant is known toy the name of Abad Dwarik Jangal, be...
Municipal Commissioners Vs. Shaikh Mosafir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal235
Bartley, J.1. This rule is nod opposed and it is made absolute. The orders complained of are set aside. The execution Case will be restored and will proceed. There will be no order as to costs in this Rule Under Order 21, Civil P.C., the decree-holder is called upon to annex an inventory of the moveable property to be attached only when that property is not in the possession of the judgment-debtor and it. is difficult to see how, if the property is in the possession of the judgment-debtor, the decree- holder can reasonably be called upon to supply either an inventory with an accurate description of the articles sought to be attached or their approximate value.Nasim Ali, J.2. I agree. The learned Subordinate Judge appears to have relied on Rule 199, Vol. 1, of the Civil Rules and Orders issued by the authority of this Court. If this rule is interpreted to mean that the application for attachment of moveable property in the possession of the judgment-debtor is to be dismissed unless it c...
Harendra Nath Mitra and anr. Vs. Hossainali Sana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal254
Bartley, J.1. This rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause why an order made on appeal by the learned District Judge of Khulna dismissing the petitioner's suit should not be set aside. The petitioner claimed under Section 48H, Ben. Ten. Act, to recover the landlord's fee which had accrued on the transfer of the holding of an occupancy raiyat. The facts found were that Umasankar, an occupancy raiyat, holding under the petitioner, transferred a portion of his holding to the opposite party in this rule and that the transfer was an under-raiyati lease in spite of a misdescription in the potta to the effect that it was a raiyati lease. This document was however registered and the petitioner claimed to recover by a suit five times the rent payable under Section 48-H, Ben. Ten. Act. Both the Courts below agreed that the suit was not maintainable. It is against this order the petitioner obtained this rule.2. In our opinion the decision of the Courts below was undoubtedly ...
Gulraj Shroff and anr. Vs. Kaniram Sureka and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal353
ORDERWilliams, J.1. This is a summons asking that it be recorded that this suit stands dismissed and the same be struck out and removed from the list. On 19th February 1937, the defendants filed a suit against the plaintiffs, being Suit No. 279 of 1937, for recovery of Rs. 1801-2-0 for money lent. The plaintiff Gulraj Shroff filed a written statement alleging, inter alia, that he had paid a sum of Rs. 1500 and produced a purja in support, which is challenged by the defendants. On 9th March 1937, one of the defendants, Ban-warilal Sureka, instituted a Suit No. 388 of 1937 for the recovery of Rs. 7578-1-0 for money lent to the plaintiff. A written statement was filed by the plaintiff in this suit also. Both these suits were appearing high in the prospective list in July 1937 when the plaintiffs instituted the present suit on 14th July. On 28th July Panckridge J., ordered the plaintiffs to supply particulars within a fortnight and to file a written statement within a fortnight thereafter....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »