Kolkata Court May 1937 Judgments
Landale and Clark Ltd. Vs. Chairman of Jalpaiguri Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal551
Biswas, J.1. The question in this case is as to the legality of a conviction under Section 500, Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 (Bengal Act 15 of 1932). The offence charged is failure to take out a trade license and pay the half-yearly trade tax under Section 182. This was not included in the list of offences under Section 500 of the Act as originally passed but was made an offence by an Amending Act, Bengal Act 11 of 1936. The petitioners, Messrs. Landale and Clark Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) were convicted by the Magistrate of Jalpaiguri and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250, out of which Rs. 200 was ordered to be paid to the complainant, the Jalpaiguri Municipality, as tax for one half-year. An appeal was taken to the Sessions Judge of Jalpaiguri but without result. Then this Rule was obtained. The petitioners' case is that they are not liable under the law to take out the license or pay the tax. It will be observed that Section 123, Sub-section (1), Clause (f), gives ...
Tag this Judgment!Rameswar Lal Lath and anr. Vs. Calcutta Wheat and Seed Association Ltd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal89
Remfry, J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs seek an injunctionto restrain the defendant Association from preventing the plaintiffs from having access at all reasonable times to the proceedings books for the purpose of perusal and inspection and from preventing the plaintiffs from making extracts from these books,and if necessary for a declaration to the same effect. All that is stated in the plaint is that the plaintiff demanded inspection of these books for 1935 and to be allowed to make copies of them, and that the Committee of the defendant Association agreed to give inspection, but refused to allow the plaintiffs to take copies. The plaintiffs are members of the defendant Association and under Article 34 of the Articles of Association, are entitled to inspect the records of the proceedings of the Committee 'subject to such regulations as the Committee may from time to time deem expedient.' The plaintiffs give reasons for their demand to be allowed to take copies of the proceedings in ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad Mahomed Paruk Vs. Praphulla Nath Tagore
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1937
Reported in: AIR1939Cal35
Costello, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application by Ahmad Mahomed Paruk for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against a judgment and decree of this Court given on, 2nd March 1937, affirming an order made by McNair J. on 12th August 1936 whereby Ahmad Mahomed Paruk was adjudicated insolvent at the instance of the petitioning creditor, Raja Praphulla Nath Tagore. The petition was presented on 3rd August 1936. On that date an order was made by Lort-Williams J. that the petition should be heard on 11th August 1936. Notice of the petition was given to the debtor on 4th August 1936, and accordingly Rule 79, Calcutta Insolvency Rules 1910, came into operation. That Rule reads as follows:When a debtor, having been served with a petition, intends to show cause against the same, he shall file a notice with the registrar, specifying the statement in the petition which he intends to deny or dispute, and transmit by post to the petitioning creditor and his attorney, if known, a copy of the notic...
Tag this Judgment!Hriday Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal520
ORDERJack, J.1. In this case a Rule has been issued calling upon the District Magistrate of Howrah to show cause why the order under Section 118, Criminal P. C, directing the five petitioners to execute a bond of Rs. 300 each with two sureties each in like amount to keep the peace for one year and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for that period should not be set aside. The principal ground on which this order has been attacked is that there being no evidence to show that the accused persons were within the local limits of the Magistrate's jurisdiction at the time the proceedings were initiated, the orders are liable to be set aside. Under Section 107(2) it is laid down that proceedings should not be taken under that section unless either the person informed against or the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within the local limits of the Magistrate's jurisdiction. In this case it is clear that the petitioners were living outside the Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!Kunja Behari Das Vs. Raman Behari Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal619
Guha, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for enforcement of a mortgage. On 19th February 1926, one Nabin Chandra Das executed a mortgage bond for Rupees 2,500 in favour of the plaintiff, appellant in this Court. The plaintiff's claim in suit is based on the aforesaid mortgage. The plaintiff wanted to realise from the legal representatives of the deceased mortgagor, Nabin Chandra Das, the amount due on the mortgage executed by Nabin Chandra Das on 19th February 1926. It was mentioned in the plaint that besides the amount due on the mortgage in suit, there were other amounts due to the plaintiff on a hand note from Nabin Chandra Das, debtor, defendants 1 and 2, and Mathura Nath Das, and on a mortgage bond in the name of defendants 1 and 2 and Mathura Nath Das and on another bond which was not a mortgage bond executed by defendants 1 and 2, executors under the will of the late Nabin Chandra Das, by Brojonath Das and by Mathura Nath Das and others.2. The claim in suit was resisted b...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Commissioner Vs. Barrackpore Electric Supply Corporation Ltd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal521,173Ind.Cas.55
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Commissioner of Barrackpore Municipality who, as plaintiff, commenced the suit out of which this appeal arises for recovery of a sum of Rs. 82, annas odd, as rent or in the alternative as damages for use and occupation against the Barrackpore Electric Supply Corporation under the following circumstances: The defendant company is a licensee under the Electricity Act, who have been granted a license to supply energy and lay down and place electric supply lines for conveyance and transmission of energy within a specified area. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant fixed a number of poles on the roadside lands of the plaintiff Municipality, for the purpose of supplying electrical energy to provide persons owning houses and mills close to the roads. The company is therefore in law and equity bound to pay rent or in the alternative damages for use and occupation of the plaintiff's lands. The rent or damages are claimed at the rate ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Prosanna Lahiri and anr. Vs. Sarojini Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal557
Edgley, J.1. In this case an appeal has been preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Rangpur, dated 5th March 1937, under which he directed that a certain decree should be sent for execution to the Deputy Commissioner of the Garo Hills in Assam. The facts of the case appear to be briefly as follows: The respondent, Sm. Sarojini Debya, obtained a decree in M.S. No. 91 of 1936 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rangpur. Daring the course of the subsequent execution proceedings this decree was at the instance of the decree-holder transferred for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Goalpara who attached a certain fund belonging to the judgment-debtor which happened to be in the hands of the Deputy Commissioner, Garo Hills. Admittedly this attachment was illegal on the ground that the fund which was attached was situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Goalpara Court; so on 6th February 1937 the decree-holder applied to the Subordinate Judge o...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Ajit Kumar Palit and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal717
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the decision of the District Judge, 24-Parganas, affirming the decision of the second Court of the Subordinate Judge of that place. The suit out of which this appeal arises was for recovery of Rs. 2,100 by a sale of premises No. 159(now 195) Lower Circular Road on the basis of a mortgage bond executed by Sarat Kumari Dasi, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiffs on 19th April 1921. Defendants 4 and 5 are subsequent purchasers of equity of redemption and the other defendants are puisne mortgagees. The Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that it is barred by the preliminary mortgage decree passed by this Court on its Original Side in Suit No. 2474 of 1923. This suit on the Original Side of this Court was instituted by one Upendra Mohan Pal Choudhury to enforce a mortgage and a deed of further charge dated 18th March 1920 and 6th June 1920 respectively against defendants 1 to 3 in the present s...
Tag this Judgment!Kirshna Prosanna Lahiri and anr. Vs. Sarojini Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1937
Reported in: 174Ind.Cas.12
Edgley, J.1. In this case an appeal hag been preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Rangpur, dated March 5, 1937, under which he directed that a certain decree should be sent for execution to the Deputy Commissioner of the Garo Hills in Assam. The facts of the case appear to be briefly as follows: The respondent, Sm. Sarojini Debya, obtained a decree in M.S. No. 91 of 1936 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rangpur. During the course of the subsequent execution proceedings this decree was at the instance of the decree-holder transferred for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Goalpara who attached a certain fund belonging to the judgment-debtor which happened to be in the hands of the Deputy Commissioner, Garo Hills. Admittedly this attachment was illegal on the ground that the fund which was attached was situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Goalpara Court; so on February 6, 1937, the decree holder applied to the Subordinate Judge of...
Tag this Judgment!Annapurna Dutta Vs. Santosh Kumar Sett and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal661
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant and it arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the Record of Rights describing C.S. Dag No. 5795 of Khatian No. 811 in Mouza Baranagore District 24 Parganas, as a pathway is incorrect, that the western portion of the said Dag belongs to the plaintiff as appurtenant to Dag No. 5793 and the eastern portion is a private pathway belonging to the plaintiff and their co-sharers, and that the defendant has no right of way over any portion of the said Dag and cannot use it either as a mehtor passage or for discharge of water. There was also a prayer for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the said strip of land for any purpose whatsoever. The defendant in her written statement claimed a right of way over the land in suit. Her case was that the lands on both sides of the disputed strip belonged to the plaintiff's predecessors, that by partition the land to the south fell to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »