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.
Baijnath and ors. Vs. Bajranglal Kamalia and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal166,173Ind.Cas.816
Costello, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was started in the month of April 1934. The suit took a very halting and dilatory course and eventually, on 24th May 1935, it appeared in the special list and was dealt with by Ameer Ali J. Apparently, in order to prevent a summary dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff put forward a suggestion that the matters in dispute between himself and the defendant should be referred to arbitration and it was agreed that the dispute should be referred to a gentleman named Sohanlal Murarka who was apparently a friend of the plaintiff and of the plaintiff's family. An order for reference to arbitration was made on 9th August 1935. The plaintiff took no steps to complete the order and it was left to the defendant to do so. The order was eventually completed on 27th November 1935 and ultimately an award was made by the arbitrator on 11th February 1936, whereby ha dismissed the plaintiff's suit and made an order with regard to costs. The plain...
Surajratan Daga Vs. Debidutt Sharaff and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal218
Costello, J.1. In this case the plaintiff was admittedly a partner of the defendants, and he instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for a declaration that the partnership had been dissolved for the taking of an account of the profits of the partnership, and for a decree in his favour for the amount to be found due to him. The suit came on for hearing before McNair J. on 12th July 1933, when a consent decree was made and it was one in the ordinary form in so far as it referred the case to the Registrar with liberty to allocate the reference to the Official Referee or the Assistant Referee to take accounts. The defendants had asserted that under an agreement which was made when the partnership was first entered into the plaintiff was not to get the profits to which he would be entitled otherwise but the profits were to be devoted to liquidating certain debts which the business known as Multanchand Lachminarain belonging to the family of which the plaintiff was a member h...
Durga Prosad Chamaria Vs. Secretary of State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal468
Nasim Ali, J.1. On 19th April 1926, the appellant Durga Prosad Chamaria, obtained a decree against respondents 2 to 4 Radha Kissen Chamaria, Mati Lal Chamaria and Srimati Anar Dei Sethani in Title Suit No. 61 of 1923, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Howrah, for Rupees 8,61,000 with interest at a certain rate up to the date of realization. Respondents 2 to 4 made certain payments from time to time towards the satisfaction of this decree, but these payments did not satisfy the entire decree. On 1st April 1933, the Certificate Officer of Howrah attached this decree under Section 19, Clause 1, Public Demands Recovery Act, in execution of a certificate filed in Certificate Case No. 1 M of 1933/34 for realization of about Rs. 3,86,000 due as arrears of income-tax to respondent 1, the Secretary of State for India in Council, from the appellant. On 17th March 1934, respondent 1 applied to the Subordinate Judge, Howrah, to whom notice of attachment was given, to realize the amount due ...
Administrator General of Bengal-co-plaintiff Vs. Sm. Jnanadayini Devi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal483,173Ind.Cas.334
Jack, J.1. This appeal is by the Administrator-General of Bengal as executor to the estate of the late Sagore Chandra Dutta, proprietor of Touji No. 109/1, on account of a suit for the recovery of the drainage cess from the tenure-holders. The cess to the amount of Rs. 14,502-1-8, which was the total amount of cess due from 1920 to 1946, was paid by the Administrator-General on account of this touji in November 1926. The amount due by the tenure-holder, was not ascertained when the original assessment was made in 1920. It was only ascertained after a notification during the settlement operation in 1927 that the said officer should record the amount of cess for which the tenure-holders were liable. The Record of Rights was finally published in 1930 and it then appeared that the amount to be paid by the tenure-holders, who are being sued in this case, was Rs. 247-11-6 annually. The present suit was instituted on 15th April 1932 for the recovery from the tenure-holders of the cess from 28...
Durga Prosad Chamaria Vs. Secretary of State for India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1937
Reported in: 172Ind.Cas.560
Nasim Ali J.1. On April 19, 1926, the appellant Durga Prosad Chamaria, obtained a decree against respondents Nos. 2 to 4 Radha Kissen Chamaria, Mati Lal Chamaria and Srimati Anar Dei Sethani in Title Suit No. 61 of 1923, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Howrah, for Rs. 8,61,000 with interest at a certain rate up to the date of realization. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 made certain payments from time to time towards the satisfaction of this decree, but these payments did not satisfy the entire decree. On April 1, 1933, the Certificate Officer of Howrah attached this decree under Section 19, Clause 1. Public Demands Recovery Act, in execution of a certificate filed in Certificate Case No. 1 M of 1933/34 for realization of about Rs. 3,86,000 due as arrears of income-tax to respondent No. 1, the Secretary of State for India in Council, from the appellant. On March 17, 1934, respondent No. 1 applied to the Subordinate Judge, Howrah, to whom notice of attachment was given, to realize the ...
Emperor Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal408
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 13(f), Legal Practitioners' Act, in which Babu Satyendra Nath Bose, Mukhtear, is charged with having, contrary to the Rules of the Court, employed an unregistered clerk. It appears that he had a registered clerk named Khalilur Rahaman whose card was cancelled by the Additional District Magistrate, Tipperah, on 17th January 1936. It was found in July that Khalilur Rahaman was still working for the mukhtear in the Court compound though he did not actually enter in any of the Courts. The explanation of the mukhtear is that he believed that he was doing no wrong as Khalilur Rahman was not allowed to do any of those acts which only registered clerk may perform and particularly as he had told Khalilur Rahaman that he must not enter the Courts themselves and secondly that during the time he employed Khalilur Rahaman he was testing other likely persons with a view to employing one of them as his registered clerk and that he has since applied for the re...
Raj Kumar Biswas Vs. Gopal Gunj Industrial Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal415,173Ind.Cas.138
ORDERB.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This case raises a short and interesting point of law. The petitioner was a defendant in the trial Court and the suit was one for recovery of a sum of Rs. 322-10-3 alleged to be due on a bond executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff Bank on 14th December 1931. It is admitted that on 16th September 1928 the defendant has taken a loan of Rs. 100 from the plaintiff and executed in his favour a bond on that date stipulating to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 33 3/8 per cent. per annum. On 14th December 1931 the interest due on this debt had amounted to Rs. 108 odd annas. The defendant paid on that date a sum of Rs. 18 to the plaintiff and got a remission of Rs. 10 odd annas and for the balance of Rs. 180 he executed this bond on the basis of which the present suit has been commenced. This bond also contains a stipulation to pay interest at the rate of 33 3/8 per cent. per annum but the plaintiff has relinquished a portion of his claim and valued the su...
Md. Ibrahim Vs. Md. Abdul Bashar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal422
ORDERB.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is issued upon an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., and is directed against an order passed by the District Judge of 24-Parganas on 21st September 1936 issuing distress warrant upon the petitioner who is a minor to recover from him a sum of Rs. 445-5-0 alleged to be due by him to the ex-guardian who is the opposite party in this case and who is a pleader practising in the Alipore Court. It appears that originally one Hanifa Bibi was appointed guardian of the infant. Later on, on 13th June 1934, this Hanifa Bibi was removed and in her place the pleader opposite party was appointed guardian. Against this order, appointing the opposite party as guardian, an appeal was taken to this Court. On 31st May 1934, this Court set aside the order of the District Judge appointing the opposite party as guardian and held that having regard to the age and intelligence of the minor it was not necessary to appoint a guardian at all. The opposite party thus cea...
Muhammad Ibrahim Vs. Muhammad Abdul Bashar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1937
Reported in: 173Ind.Cas.229
ORDERB.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This Rule is issued upon an application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, and is directed against an order passed by the District Judge of 24-Parganas on September 21, 1936, issuing distress warrant upon the petitioner who is a minor to recover from him a sum of Rs. 445-5.0 alleged to be due by him to the ex-guardian who is the opposite party in this case and who is a Pleader practising in the Alipore Court. It appears that originally one Hanifa Bibi was appointed guardian of the infant. Later on, on June 13, 1934, this Hanifa Bibi was removed and in her place the Pleader opposite party was appointed guardian against this order appointing the opposite party as guardian, an appeal was taken to this Court. On May 31, 1934, this Court set aside the order of the District Judge appointing the opposite party as guardian and held that having regard to the age and intelligence of the minor, it was not necessary to appoint a guardian at all. The opposite party t...
Rajani Kanta Karati and anr. Vs. Panchanan Karati
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal388
Cunliffe, J.1. This rule was granted in the following circumstances: The parties were three brothers who were in dispute with regard to certain land and by way of endeavouring to compose their differences they decided to submit them to a private arbitration. This was accordingly done by means of an agreement which was drawn up. But subsequently further disagreement arose which resulted in the petitioners before the Court now filing a suit for partition. The other side, however, and the arbitrators went on with the arbitration and the arbitrators made an award which was filed under para. 20, Sch. 2, Civil P.C. For some reason or another this award was not given effect to, but there was an order issued by the Court for a stay of the partition suit under para. 18, Sch. 2. The arbitrators were ordered by the Court to proceed fresh and then one of them declined to act. Whereupon cross-applications came before the Court, one on the part of the respondent to this petition asking the Court to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »