Kolkata Court May 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.
Ali Akbar Vs. Java Bengal Line
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal697
Costello, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bengal dated 21st July 1936, whereby he dismissed a claim for compensation which had been made by one Ali Akbar against the Java Bengal Line. The applicant was claiming a sum of Rs. 756. We are not told that sum represented 40 per cent. of the sum which, having regard to the wages that the applicant was receiving, would be payable for total permanent disablement. The accident in respect of which the claim was made occurred on 3rd March 1936, while the applicant was serving in the M.V. Tosari belonging to the respondent. It is said that the applicant received treatment in the ship for a few days and was also treated in some hospital. But as to that there was no evidence at all before the learned Commissioner. The application was dated 22nd May 1936 and along with it the applicant submitted a certificate given by Lieut. Col. Denham White, a medical practitioner who was until recently in...
District Board Vs. Rai Bahadur Chandra Ketu Narayan Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal625,175Ind.Cas.929
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Rajshahi, dismissing a suit for recovery of money from a surety. The trial Court gave the plaintiff a decree, but this was reversed by the District Judge on the ground that the surety bond was not legally enforceable. Plaintiff is the District Board of Malda; Defendant 2, one Fagu Singh, as lessee of certain ferries under the Board, owed it a sum of Rs. 5,234. The Board took out a certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act (Act 3 B.C. of 1913) for recovery of this sum, and in execution of the certificate, defendant 2 was arrested under Section 29 of the Act. A sum of Rs. 2,200 was thereupon paid by him, and he was afterwards released by the certificate officer on defendant 1, Rai Bahadur Chandra Ketu Narain Singh, offering to stand surety for him for the balance still due under the certificate, viz. a sum of Rs. 3,342. Defendant 1 actually executed what has been termed a security bond to the certificate of...
Afsar Shaikh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal540
Henderson, J.1. The appellants have been convicted of murder for causing the death of one Ajim. The prosecution story was that while he was proceeding home after attending the Muktagacha Bazar he was waylaid by the appellants and others and killed. The conviction depends upon the evidence of two witnesses. The learned Judge quite rightly told the jury that unless they believed that these witnesses were telling the truth, they could not convict. The Judge himself regarded this evidence with a great deal of suspicion. He pointed out to the jury everything that could be said against their credibility. In fact, he summed up as strongly as a Judge could in favour of the appellants. In spite of that, the jury decided to believe these witnesses and brought in a verdict of guilty. As the case was properly put before the jury, we cannot interfere. In support of the appeal, Mr. Taluqdar suggested that the learned Judge ought to have made a reference to this Court and that we should direct him to...
Dwarik Mandal Vs. Nalini Kanta Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal223
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Jessore dated 4th May 1935, reversing the decision of the Third Court of the Munsif at Narail dated 11th January 1935. The suit out of which this appeal arises was a suit for ejectment. The facts which are not now in dispute are these : Defendant 2 was inducted into the disputed land as a tenant in 1916 by defendant 1, who held this land along with other lands as an under-raiyat under the plaintiff. Defendant 2 thereafter acquired occupancy right to the land by Iocal custom. The plaintiff purchased the under-raiyati of defendant 1 in the year 1925 at a sale held in execution of a decree against defendant 1 for arrears of rent due in respect thereof. By this purchase however he acquired simply the right, title and interest of defendant 1 as the sale was not under the provisions of Ch. 14, Ben. Ten. Act. Thereafter the plaintiff obtained possession through Court but was dispossessed by defendant 2.2. On these facts, the tria...
Promode Chandra Sinha Sarma and ors. Vs. Narendra NaraIn Majumdar Chou ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal297
Costello, Ag. C.J.1. In this case a suit was brought; by certain landlords who may compendiously be described as the Mazumdars against the family of the name of Susang which consisted of 14 persons, and of these the first four are wards under the Court of Wards Act. A decree was obtained on 4th May 1935, and on 4th December of the same year the decree-holder instituted proceedings for the purpose of putting that decree into execution. A few weeks later, that is to say on 13th January 1936, an order was made for the sale of certain property in respect of which rent claimed in the suit was decreed. On 4th February 1936 notice was given under Order 21, Rule 66, Civil P.C., and the terms of sale were settled and the sale notification prepared. The sale was fixed for 7th April 1936. Before that date arrived, however, an enactment entitled the Bengal Court of Wards (Amendment) Act, 1935 came into operation on 5th March 1936. By Section 5 of that Act a new Section 10 (c) was substituted in pl...
Deb Prosanna Mukherjee Vs. Hari Kison Rathi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal515,173Ind.Cas.427
ORDERB.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is a Rule granted on an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., and is directed against an order rejecting the petitioner's application for balance of landlord's fees and compensation under Section 26(j), Ben. Ten. Act. The facts are simple. The opposite party 8 held a tenancy under the petitioner's predecessors at a rental of Rs. 12-8-0 a year, and the petitioner alleges that it was an ordinary occupancy holding. The opposite party 8 sold it to opposite parties 1 to 7 falsely stating that the holding was a mokarari one and paid Re. 1 only as landlord's fees. Hence the petitioner applies under Section 26(j), Ben. Ten. Act, for recovery of the balance of landlord's fees and compensation amounting to Rs. 75 only.2. The defence was that the holding was a mokarari one and as such the claim of the petitioner was not tenable. The trial Court accepted the defence story and dismissed the application holding that the tenants were mokarari raiyats and though the...
Trailakya Nath Pal and ors. Vs. Ambika Charan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal545,173Ind.Cas.551
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting point of law which turns upon the interpretation of Section 26, B.T. Act. The facts of the case are rather long and complicated, but the controversy in this appeal centres round the short point as to whether plaintiff 1 has established his raiyati right to a moiety share of the plot of land appertaining to Khatian No. 233 of Mouza Guha Lakhimipur. The Court of appeal below has decided in his favour and defendants 1-3 have preferred this second appeal. The raiyati right in respect of these plots of land was vested admittedly in one Haran Chandra Das, who held the same as an occupancy raiyat under two sets of landlords, viz. the Guhas and the Faridpur Loan Office. Haran died leaving three sons, Kunja, Kailas and Durga, and Kailas died later on, leaving as his only heir a son named Punchanan. In the year 1925, Kunjo and Punchanan sold their two-third share of the raiyati interest to one Kristo Kanta and the names of Kristo Kanta and D...
Sm. Kamala Bala Dasi Vs. Surendra Nath Ganguly and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal517
Costello, Ag. C.J.1. The only one of these connected appeals which has been argued before us at any length is that which is numbered 456 of 1935 and is entitled Sm. Indu Bala Dasi and Ors. v. Bakkeswar Banerjee (receiver). It is quite clear that the view taken by us in this appeal will have the effect of determining all rights of the parties in the other appeals also, particularly having regard to the fact that Mr. Ghose appearing on behalf of certain decree-holders does not desire to contest the correctness of the adjudication in insolvency of Lakshmi Narayan Ganguly. Lakshmi Narayan is described in the insolvency proceedings as the managing member of a joint Hindu family firm which was known by the name and style of and carried on business as Messrs Ganguly Brothers. It appears that there are in all 15 members in that family firm of which 14 are of full age, and one is a minor whose interests are in the hands of the learned advocate who represents the Deputy Registrar of the Court. M...
Srimati Hemamayee Choudurani and ors. Vs. Akbar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1937
Reported in: 172Ind.Cas.707
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. These are three petitions under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, by the land-lords in three suits for rent. The facts, in short, are that the tenancies are situated in Taluk Panchananda Dutta in one-third share of the same owned by Krishna Kumar Dutt. The right of Krishna Kumar Dutt was sold in 1910 but he remained in possession and the purchaser in 1913 re-transferred the same to Krishna Kumar's wife Benode Basini. Since then, the estate has been in possession of the family and in 1912 Krishna Kumar mortgaged his one-third share of the taluk to the plaintiffs and obtained a loan on the mortgage. Afterwards, the plaintiffs instituted a mortgage suit against Krishna Kumar and his wife Benode Basini. Benode Basini in her written statement said that she was the owner of the estate and not Krishna Kumar. She died during the suit and her heirs, viz., the sons of Krishna Kumar were expunged from the record as not necessary in a mortgage suit. Mortgage decree was made ...
H.N. Dutta and Co.-decree-holders Vs. Smt. Tarubala Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal570
Costello, Ag. C.J.1. This is a somewhat curious case. The appellants before us, Messrs. H.N. Dutta & Co., acted as solicitors for certain persons of the name of Mitra who were the plaintiffs in a partition suit. That suit was brought against a lady named Srimati Tarubala Dassi, and on 31st March 1924 a decree was made whereby the shares of the parties were allocated, two-thirds share being given to the plaintiffs and a one-third share to the defendant. It was said that decree was made as a result of a compromise between the parties. For some reason or other, to which we need not refer, the lady was not satisfied with what had been done and she accordingly appealed to this Court Vide : AIR1925Cal866 with the result that the decree of 31st March 1924 was set aside. Thereupon the Mitras took the matter to His Majesty in Council and, eventually, on 23rd January 1930, Vide an Order was made by His Majesty in Council whereby the decision of this High Court was set aside and the decree made b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »