Kolkata Court April 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.
In Re: A.K. Fazlal Huq.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal532
ORDERRemfry, J.1. This is an application made under Sections 30 and 31, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, but primarily under Section 31, to re-adjudicate the debtor. According to the affidavit made by Syed Ahmed Ally an order for adjudication was made on 8th June 1926, and a scheme of composition was sanctioned on 26th August 1926. Two trustees were appointed who furnished security for Rs. 97,000. Under the deed, creditors in group A were to receive rateably the money in the hands of the Registrar of this Court and the trustees were to make certain other payments and to pay Rs. 6,000 a year to them and the creditors in group B rateably, until they had received 8 annaa in the rupee.2. It is alleged that the trustees made no payment to one Keshab Lal Addy or his heirs. This gentleman died on 15th February 1931 intestate. It is stated that his son was his sole heir and left a will making his only son, one Gopinath Addy, his sole legatee and that he was also his sole heir. It is alleged th...
Jitendra Nath Ghose Vs. Hirenmoy Kumar Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1937
Reported in: 172Ind.Cas.794
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This Rule raises a question of valuation for the purposes of assessment of court-fees and it has arisen under the following circumstances. The plaintiff-petitioner instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia against the defendants opposite parties alleging inter alia that he is entitled to a contingent interest tinder the will of one Parasu-ram Mustafi. He died in 1879 leaving two widows, Soudamini and Shivani, both of whom have since died. Soudamini left a daughter Kshirod mohini who died in 1908. Kshirodmohini left two sons of whom plaintiff is the sole survivor. It is alleged in the plaint that one Hari Pada Saha deceased who was husband of defendant No. 2 and father of defendant No. 1 was a monthly tenant-at-will of the disputed house and garden of the late Parasuram Mustafi. It is alleged that he caused a fictitious deed of sale to be executed by Kshirodmohini and her sons, that is the petitioner and his deceased brother on Falgoon 23,1298, B....
Panchanan and ors. Vs. Sidheswar Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal490
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal raises a short and an interesting point of law which turns upon the interpretation of the Proviso to Article (6), Sob.. 3, Bengal Tenancy Act, which was inserted by Amending Act 4 of 1928. The facts necessary for purposes of this appeal may be shortly stated as follows: The decree-holders who are appellants before me obtained a rent decree against the defendants on 22nd March 1926 the decree being for a sum less than Rs. 500. Execution was started on 22nd March 1929 and on 10th July 1929 the holding in arrears was sold. On 11th January 1930 the execution case was dismissed on satisfaction. Meanwhile, a proceeding to set aside the sale was commenced by the contesting respondents, who purported to be usufructuary mortgagees under the tenants, and the sale was ultimately set aside on 30th March 1935 the order being upheld on appeal on 17th June 1935. On 26th July 1935 the decree-holders presented an application for restoration of the original application f...
Sm. Lilabati Dasi and ors. Vs. Chitpore Golabari Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal542
Jack, J.1. These appeals have arisen out of two suits under Section 106, Ben. Ten. Act, namely, Settlement Cases Nos. 10260 and 10261 of 1932 of the Court of the Assistant Settlement Officer, 24-Parganas, corresponding to Settlement Appeals Nos. 285 and 286 of 1933 of the Court of the Special Judge of the 24-Parganas and the two connected ejectment Suits Nos. 387 and 388 of 1931 of the Court of the Munsif of Alipore corresponding to Title Appeals Nos. 34 and 35 of the Court of the Additional District Judge of the 24-Parganas. The suits under Section 106 for correction of Settlement entries concerning the land in suit, and these suits were decreed and it was decided that the entry of Sthiban raiyat should be changed into Mourashi Mokarari raiyat in respect of these two holdings. The appeal against this correction was dismissed in both cases by the Special Judge. The landlords are the appellants in the two appeals arising out of these two suits. The other two suits were suits by the land...
Manindra Lal Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal432
Henderson, J.1. The appellant is a Police Officer who was the guara of a Sub-Inspector attached to the District Intelligence Branch in Barisal. He was carrying on an intrigue with a prostitute named Bimala. There can be no doubt that the jury accepted her evidence that he shot her in three places with his revolver. There was also evidence to show that he was drunk at the time. He was placed on his trial on charges under Sections 307 and 326, I.P.C. The jury found him guilty under both. The only point taken on his behalf is that the learned Judge misdirected the jury with regard to the law relating to drunkenness. What he said was in these terms:If an act is done in a state of intoxication and that intoxication is voluntarily incurred, he is equally liable before the law as if he had done that act in a state of sobriety.2. Now, in my opinion, that direction is entirely inadequate as a statement of the law on the point. The learned Judge should have told the jury that, as far as knowledg...
Khirode Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Ramani Mohan Dhar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal454
1. In this case the appeal was filed on the proper date but subsequently there was an application filed for substitution of the heirs of one of the deceased appellants. The application was filed on 5th April 1937 which was the first date after the close of the Easter holidays on which the Registrar was sitting. The offices of the Court however re-opened on 3rd April 1937. The question is whether the application should have been filed on 3rd April and whether as it was not so filed it was time-barred. Here there is no question of the filing of the appeal which might be done in the office. The question is with regard to the filing of an application which had to be moved before the Registrar. As a matter of fact the Registrar sat for the first time after the re-opening of the Court on 5th April 1937. Therefore in our opinion limitation should run from that date. As the application was filed on 5th April 1937 it should be held to have been filed within time: Re. K.P. Sinha v. Jatindra Nath...
Haradhone Mukerjee Vs. Brojendra Nath Rai Choudhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal513
Henderson, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of 24 Perganas and the opposite party to show cause why an order made under Section 147, Criminal P.C., should not be set aside. The order in question directed the petitioner not to obstruct a certain drain and there was added to it an injunction directing him to remove a wall which he had already constructed. The first objection taken is to this mandatory injunction. There is nothing in Section 147 which would entitle the Magistrate to direct the petitioner to pull down this wall. As far as we have been able to understand, the case which the opposite party tried to set up was that he bad an easement by grant from the Port Commissioners. Be that as it may, the learned Magistrate did not base his order upon that alleged right. Instead of doing that he invented a purely imaginary right which the opposite party never claimed, a right to discharge water over the petitioner's land in any direction he pleased simply because ...
Dharanidhar Sardar Vs. Surja Kanta Roy Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal514
Guha, J.1. The question for consideration in the case is whether a memorandum of appeal presented to the Court of the District Judge under the law applicable to appeals, which has been transferred to this Court on an application by the appellant should bear court-fee stamp as prescribed for a memorandum of appeal presented to this Court. The appeal was brought to this Court at the instance and on the application of the party himself. The party wanted to have his appeal filed in the Court of the District Judge, heard by this Court as analogous to certain other appeals pending in this Court. The application made in that behalf must, in my judgment, be taken to have the effect of presentation of the appeal to this Court, which could not have been done in ordinary course under the law. The presentation of the appeal to the Court of the District Judge was in accordance with law; but by act of the party concerned sanctioned by this Court, it was transferred to this Court. The appeal must in ...
Charu Chandra Roy Vs. Hrishikesh Roy and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal547
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of judgment-debtor 6 and is directed against an appellate order of the District Judge, Midnapur, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 48 of 1936, by which he reversed the order of the Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Midnapur, passed in an execution case under Section 47, Civil P.C. The facts of the case lie within a short compass and are not in controversy. The decree-holders started a mortgage suit against six defendants in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Midnapur, and the present appellant who was defendant 6 in the suit was made a party on the allegation that he was a transferee of the mortgaged property subsequent to the mortgage. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 22nd January 1931, and against that an appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs, which was resisted by defendant 6 alone. The District Judge on appeal reversed the decision of the trial Court and gave the plaintiff a decree on 30th August 1932. The material portion of the decree s...
Piru Pramanik and anr. Vs. Pabna Dhanabhandar Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal427
ORDERB.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The eight analogous Rules arise out of as many suits for rent which involved certain common questions of law and fact and were tried together in both the Courts below. In one of these rent suits, namely, Rent Suit No. 2616 of 1934, the plaintiffs are the two Banks,-the Pabna Dhanabhandar Co., Ltd. and the Pabna Bank Ltd. and certain other persons who may be called the Pakrashis and all these plaintiffs jointly represent the entire putni interest in mouza Suratali in the district of Pabna. The rent claimed was for lands held by the defendants in the suit within the said mouza. In the other seven suits one Himangshu Jyoti Majumdar figured as the plaintiff and he claimed to recover rents from the tenants-defendants in respect of lands held by them in the same Mouza Suratali on the basis of his rights as a darputnidar in the mouza under the putnidars mentioned above. The defence taken by the tenants in all these suits raised a common point which turns upon the que...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »