Kolkata Court April 1937 Judgments
Haladhar Pathak and ors. Vs. Madan Mohon Singha Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal499,173Ind.Cas.996
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two rent suits between the same parties and involving the same points in dispute, which were heard together in both the Courts below. The landlord claimed rents in both the suits on the basis of a solenama which was filed in Title Suit No. 356 of 1903 between the same parties and which was incorporated in the decree passed in that suit. The defendants in both these suits admitted their liability so far as the money rent was concerned, but resisted the plaintiff's claim for paddy rent, and relied upon the entries in the settlement record in support of their contention. The trial Court upheld the defendants' contention and decreed the suits in part for money rent only. It held that the solenama in Title Suit No. 356 of 1903, as it contained a stipulation for variation of rent operated as a lease, and as a lease it required registration. As it was not registered, it was not admissible in evidence, and there being no other materials upon ...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsi Charan Goswami Vs. M. Azizul Huque
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal163
ORDERWilliams, J.1. This is an application made by Tulai Charan Goswami, a member of the Bengal Legislative Assembly, in a suit which he has brought against Khan Bahadur M. Azizul Huque, another member of the Bengal Legislative Assembly, for a declaration that the defendant has not been duly and validly elected Speaker of the said Bengal Legislative Assembly and that he was not and is not the Speaker of the said Assembly and was not and is not entitled to act or function as such Speaker; also for an injunction restraining him from so acting or functioning or drawing his salary as such Speaker. The present application is for a temporary injunction.2. The plaintiff's case is founded upon the argument that there was not at the time when the defendant is alleged to have been elected Speaker, and there is not now any person holding the office of Governor of Bengal, that is to say, Sir John Anderson, ceased to be Governor of Bengal on 1st April 1937, when certain provisions of the Government...
Tag this Judgment!Rani Harshamukhi Dasi Vs. Yunus Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal187
ORDERB.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is a rule directed against an order allowing amendment of a decree under the following circumstances : One Mrinmoyee Dasi who as predecessor-in. interest of the present petitioner owned an eight anna share of a certain touzi, instituted a rent suit being rent Suit No. 175 of 1932 in the Court of the Third Munsif at Alipur for recovery of rent due in respect of a certain tenure held by opposite parties 1 to 8 as tenants under her. The total rent payable in respect of the tenure was Rs. 18-4-4 a year and the plaintiff claimed rent for three years at the rate of Rs. 9-2.2 for her eight anna share together with cesses, damages, etc., the aggregate claim being laid at Rs. 35 and odd. In addition to the prayer for recovery of rent, there was another prayer for enhancement of rent of the entire tenure under Section 7, Ben. Ten. Act, and the plaintiff claimed enhancement to the extent of Rs. 35 and odd upon the existing rent of Rs. 18 and odd. The suit was not co...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Bahadur Sir P.C. Tagore, Kt. Vs. Mathura Kanta Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal478,173Ind.Cas.391
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings taken under Section 144, Civil P. C, and involves a very short point, namely, what deduction the appellant is entitled to claim in the calculation of mesne profits. The relevant facts are these: The respondent, Mathura Kanta Das, is admittedly a tenant under the appellant, Maharaja Tagore, and the annual rent payable for his tenancy is Rs. 136 odd. In the year 1927 the appellant instituted a suit in ejectment. On 27th March 1928 the first Court dismissed the suit. But on appeal the said suit was decreed on 16th September 1929, that is to say, the appellant before us, Maharaja Tagore, got a decree in ejectment against the respondent. Mathura Kanta Das, it appears, was in khas possession of a portion of the lands included in his tenancy but the greater part of the same he was in possession through sub-tenants. Maharaja Tagore applied for execution of this decree for ejectment and he got possession through Court on 9th January 1931. ...
Tag this Judgment!Hooghly Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Nrityananda Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal528
Remfry, J.1. This is a very plain case. The plaintiff company seeks to restrain the defendant from using their trade mark and copying the get-up of their goods. Both parties sell in the Calcutta market a whole meal flour said to be valuable as a preventive of cure of beri-beri. Both sell flour in small bags of 2, 5 and 10 seers each-that is both supply flour put up in quantities for domestic consumption, and the evidence is that many buyers are illiterate. The plaintiff company started a mill in 1932 and adopted a device representing 'Mother India' as a trade mark and introduced sealed brown paper bags for marketing their flour. These bags had panels of printed matter in Bengali and Hindi. The words 'Bharat Mata' mark were printed on these bags but not in a conspicuous manner. The name of the mill was printed on the back of the bag but not in a conspicuous manner. The plaintiff's trade increased from 7,000 to 8,000 maunds in 1932-33 to some 80,000 maunds in 1935 and 1936. They claim, a...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanand Agarwalla Vs. Rani Prayag Kumari Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal48
Williams, J.1. This suit was instituted by Joyram Sivjee and Gajanand Agarwalla against Rani Prayag Kumari Dabi, Rani Hem Kumari Debi, and Ashutosh Mukherjee. The plaint was admitted on 8th March 1934. In it the plaintiff stated inter alia that Raja Durga Prosad Singh of Jheria died in 1916 leaving three widows, namely the two female defendants and Rani Subhadra Kumari Debi, since deceased. That Joyram and the defendant Ashutosh had lent Rs. 1,25,000 at interest of 15 per cent. per annum to the three Ranis, namely, Rs. 75,000 on 27th April 1921, and the balance on different dates between that date and the month of July 1921. Out of the sum of Rs. 1,25,000 so lent, Joyram had advanced one lac, and Ashutosh Rs. 25,000. That payment was secured by a mortgage dated 27th April 1921 of certain properties which the Ranis claimed as widows and heiresses of their late husband but of which they had been dispossessed by artifice, and that by that mortgage it was stipulated that the loan should be...
Tag this Judgment!Bibhuti Bhusan Dutt, Shebait of Sri Sri Iswar Radhaballav Jiu, Sri Sri ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1939Cal46
Bertley, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge, Burdwan, dismissing a suit to set aside a sale for arrears of revenue under Act 11 of 1859, on the grounds that it was irregular, collusive and fraudulent, or in the alternative for a declaration that the principal defendants who are in possession of the properties, are bound to re-convey them to the plaintiff deities. The properties in suit are dewatter lands appertaining to touji No. 5000 of the Burdwan Collectorate and held in patni right by the Raneegunj Coal Association, defendant 1, in the suit. The plaintiff is a shebait of the Thakurs, the superior landlords. The pro forma defendants 6 to 34 are also shebaits. Principal defendant 2, Messrs. Kilburn and Co., are the managing agents of the Coal Company, and their muktear or agent, Jagatpati Bhattacharji, is defendant 4. Defendant 5, Sripatti Dutta, is one of the shebaits of the Thakurs.2. The case outlined in the plaint was that the patnidar defendant 1 m...
Tag this Judgment!Nilmani Lahiri Vs. Chatra Serampore Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal481
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of one of the judgment-debtors and is directed against an order passed in execution proceedings under Section 47, Civil P.C. It appears that the decree-holder obtained a decree in the year 1927 against six defendants for a sum of Rs. 667 and odd annas. The decree was executed several times and certain amount was realized. The present execution case has been started in June 1935, and the decree-holder wants to realize the balance of the decretal dues amounting to Rs. 507 and odd annas. The present appellant is the legal representative of judgment-debtor 2, and he has preferred an objection under Section 47 of the Code on the ground that the decree which was sought to be executed was a nullity being passed by a Court which had no jurisdiction to pass it. For the purpose of making out his objection the judgment-debtor wanted to produce certain papers before the executing Court, but as the papers were not produced in time his application for ad...
Tag this Judgment!Mahiganj Loan Office Ltd. Vs. Behari Lal Chaki
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal507
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The question involved in this Rule is whether the opposite party is precluded from executing his decree by reason of scheme sanctioned by this Court in its original jurisdiction under Section 153, Companies Act. The material portions of the scheme are as follows:(a) The depositors of the company including those who have filed suits and obtained decrees against the company shall not be entitled to demand payment of their dues at once except in terms of the present scheme which shall remain in force for 10 years.* * * * *(e) The company until all depositors are paid off under this scheme set apart and distribute at least three-fourths of the total cash realization after deduction of all necessary expenses and costs among the depositors pro rata to be applied by them in the first instance towards the principal due to them and in the next place to the interest accruing due thereon. Such distributions shall be made as soon as a sufficient sum accumulates and shall be made ...
Tag this Judgment!Abala Kanta Ghose and ors. Vs. Syed JalaluddIn Hashemy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal487,174Ind.Cas.501
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal which is on behalf of the defendants is directed against an order of remand passed by the District Judge, Khulna, on July 9 1936. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit on a preliminary point holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The lower Appellate Court reversed the decision and sent the case back for rehearing on merits. The order of remand has been attacked by Mr. Basu who appears for the appellants in this case on the ground that the decision of the trial Judge was right, and the suit being not triable by a Civil Court at all, the order of remand is erroneous. In order to appreciate this Contention, the following short facts would be material:The plaintiff was a candidate for a membership of the Satkhira Local Board, and in response to the notice issued under Rule 29 of the Election Rules, he sent in his name to the Magistrate, filling up all the particulars in the nomination form. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »