Kolkata Court February 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.
PachumuddIn Nayek Vs. Abdul Gaffur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal283
D.N. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Letters Patent from a decision of Edgley, J. It arises out of a suit which was commenced by the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, to enforce his right of preemption in respect of one-seventh share of a certain tank. In order to establish this right of preemption the Mahomedan law requires that the ceremonies connected with talab-i-mowasibat and talab-i-ishad must be performed. According to the finding of the lower appellate Court which has been accepted by Edgley, J., it appears that the talab-i-mowasibat ceremony was properly performed, but the lower appellate Court found that the talab-i-ishad ceremony was not properly performed on the ground that there was no proper invocation of witnesses by the plaintiff at the time of the said talab-i-ishad ceremony. The lower appellate Court accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The only question which arose for determination before Edgley, J. was, therefore, as to whethe...
Narmada Chandra Banerjee Vs. Maharaj Bahadur Singh Dugar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal359
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff who is a pleader practising in the District Court at Dinajpur and arises out of a suit commenced by him to recover from the defendant, who was his client, a sum of Rs. 2,000 only under the following circumstances: The plaintiff was the defendant's constituted pleader in respect of all legal work connected with Dandpur Katchery and worked as such from 1903 up to about April 1929, when he was removed and another pleader was appointed in his place. He used to receive payments from time to time from the officers of the defendant. He had also with him the moneys realized through Court on behalf of his client, and he used to credit all these sums to his client in his account books. He charged fees for his professional work at certain rates which were sanctioned by his client since the commencement of his service and the remuneration of himself and his clerk and all expenses of litigation were duly debited against the defendant. T...
Panchanon Kuthi and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal312
ORDERJack, J.1. The two petitioners in this case have been convicted under Section 34, Act 5 of 1861, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10 each on the charge that they were drunk and incapable of taking care of themselves, on Onkarmall Jethia Road, at 2-40 a.m. on 30th July 1936. It is pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that there is no finding that they committed any offence to the obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger, damages to the passengers on the road. Such a finding is an essential ingredient of an offence under Section 34. It is not sufficient merely to find (as has been found in this case), that they were drunk and incapable of taking care of themselves. In these circumstances the conviction of and the sentence passed upon the petitioners must be set aside. The rule is accordingly made absolute. The fines, if paid, must be refunded....
Thakur Sri Sri Raghunath Jieu Vs. Ganga Gobinda Pati and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal305
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the appellant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bankura, for khas possession of certain lands and in the alternative for settlement of fair and equitable rent for the lands. The learned Subordinate Judge passed a decree for khas possession in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal by the defendants to the District Judge of Bankura the suit has been dismissed on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Hence this second appeal. The only point for determination in this appeal is whether the District Judge was right in dismissing the suit as barred by limitation. The material facts which are not in dispute now are as follows: The properties in suit belong to a deity called Sri Sri Raghunath Jieu, installed in days gone by, by the then Maharaja of Bishnupur in the Belut Asthal in the District of Bankura. On 3rd March 1868, Ramdas, Mohunt of this Asthal, gave a Mokarari lease of the disputed lands to the predecessor of the de...
In Re: Hiralal Banjara
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal365
ORDERLort-Williams, J.1. The petitioner is the original inventor, on the record, of the Indian Letters Patent No. 14245 dated 12th July 1928. On 11th May 1936 he attended at the Patent Office in Calcutta for the purpose of depositing the renewal fee in respect of his patent. It was intimated to him that his patent had been revoked by the Patna High Court, and on the next day he received a letter calling upon him to show cause why, in view of the judgment passed by that Court in Suit No. 1 of 1931 his renewal fee should be accepted. The petitioner was not a party to that suit. That was a suit by one Ghanesyamdas Jagnani against Ram Narayan Ganeshnarain, The plaintiff apparently alleged that he was the proprietor of the patent in question, which had been originally granted to the petitioner. But the fact was that although the petitioner had assigned his rights to that plaintiff, the latter had not registered the assignment under the provisions of Section 63, Indian Patents and Designs Ac...
Aziz Rahman Molla and ors. Vs. BepIn Behary Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal162
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holders in execution proceedings and it arises out of an application under Section 47, Civil P.C., under the following circumstances. The appellants obtained a decree in rent suit on 21st November 1930. They filed an application for execution on 18th November 1933. In that application the reliefs asked for were the arrest of the judgment-debtor and sale of the holding if necessary. There was no prayer made in the execution for attachment of moveables. On 30th August 1934 the appellants filed' another application for attachment of moveables. On the same date this application was allowed and moveables were attached and sold and the decree was satisfied. Subsequently the judgment-debtor respondent filed an application under Section 47, Civil P. C, alleging that the order for attachment of moveables had not been legally made and prayed for setting aside of such order and refund of sale proceeds. The learned Munsif pointed out that the decree...
Profulla Nath Tagore Vs. Mahammed Maliha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal276
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The defence of the tenant-defendants is that they are entitled to get reduction of rent on account of diminution of the area of this tenancy by diluvion. The trial Court decreed the suit ex parte at the rate claimed by the plaintiff. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge has come to the conclusion that the tenants are entitled to the benefit of Section 52(1)(b), Ben. Ten. Act and are entitled to get a reduction of their rents on account of alteration in the area of their tenancies by diluvion. He accordingly remanded the suit to the trial Court for determination of the amount by which the rent of the tenancy should be reduced. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff-landlord. 2. The tenancy in question is admittedly within a temporary settled estate. The plaintiff has taken settlement of this estate from Government for a certain period after the rents of the tenancies within the estate were settle...
Kshitish Chandra Chakraburty and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal214
Guha, J.1. The appellants Kshitish Chandra Chakraburty and Haripada Bhattacharyya have been convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Pabna, under Sections 109/496, 419/34, and 496, I.P. C, on the unanimous verdict of the jury before whom the trial of the appellants was held and have been sentenced as follows: The appellant Kshitish Chandra Chakraburty to five years' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 109/ 496, I.P.C., and two years' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 419/34, the sentences to run concurrently; the appellant Haripada Bhattacharyya to rigorous imprisonment for four years, under Section 496, I.P.C., and rigorous imprisonment for one year under the Sections 419/34 I.P.C., sentences running concurrently. The case against the appellants was started by a written ijahar of the complainant Surabala Debi received from the Sub-Divisional Officer of Pabna through the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Pabna by post treated as the first information. It was stated in the afores...
Municipal Commissioners Vs. Baranagore Jute Factory Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal324,173Ind.Cas.900
Jack, J.1. This appeal is against a decision by the lower Courts that the respondent company is not liable to be taxed under Section 182, Bengal Municipal Act of 1932. It is claimed that the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of the terms of Sch. 4 of the Act and therefore the appeal cannot be said to be concluded by the findings of fact. Under Section 182 every person who exercises in the Municipality, either by himself or by an agent or representative, any of the professions, trades or callings specified in Sch. 4(of the Act) shall take out a half yearly license and pay the tax imposed under Clause (f), Sub-section (1), Section 123. In this case the tax is demanded under Class 1, Sch. 4 of the Act. Class 1 is 'Company transacting business within the Municipality for profit or as a benefit society'. It is claimed that the Jute Factory Company is such a company, for one of the objects of the company according to the memorandum of association is to carry on the business of...
Mt. Saiyadunnessa Khatun and ors. Vs. Gaibandha Loan Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal562
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and it arises under the following circumstances: The suit was for setting aside a certificate sale held by the Collector for arrears of cess on the allegation that the sale was fraudulently brought about by defendant 1 in collusion with the peons of the Collectorate. There is a further prayer that if the Court should decide that the sale is not liable to be set aside, a decree may be passed directing defendant 1 to return the properties to the plaintiffs or, failing that, to pay a sum of one lac of rupees to the plaintiffs as compensation. Para. 8 of the plaint runs thus:For the purposes of the jurisdiction of this Court this suit is valued at Rs, 1,00,000 and the property in suit being a revenue-paying Mahal this plaint in this suit ia filed by paying a court-fee of Rs. 1,020 on Rs. 15,505-5-0 as being ten times the revenue thereof amounting to Rupees 1,550-8-6 per year under Section 7; Clause (v), Court-fees Act.2. Thereupon the qu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »