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.
Debendra Nath Roy Choudhury and ors. Vs. Official Receiver
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal191
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The Courts below have agreed in dismissing the suit on the ground that no notice under Section 80, Civil P. C, was served on the defendant receiver. In view of the principle laid down in Revati Mohan Das v. Jatindra Mohan Ghose (1931) 21 AIR PC 96 we are of opinion that no notice under Section 80, Civil P.C., is necessary in this case. The omission of the receiver to pay rent is not 'an act purporting to have been done by him in his official capacity.2. The result therefore is that this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the case is sent back to the trial Judge for re-hearing on the merits according to law. Costs will abide the result....
Shamsul Huda and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal222
Biswas, J. 1. The petitioners in this case have been convicted under Section 18 (1), Press Emergency Powers Act 23 of 1931, and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment each. It is alleged that they were concerned in making, publishing and distributing an unauthorized news-sheet. Two questions have been argued on behalf of the petitioners. First, it is contended that the document in question in respect of which they have been charged is not a news-sheet within the meaning of the Act : and secondly, that in any case, the sentences passed are much too severe. As regards the first point, it is to be observed that 'news-sheet' has been defined in Clause (6) of Section 2 to mean any document other than a newspaper, containing public news or comments on public news or any matter described in Sub-section (i) of Section 4. ''Newspaper' is defined in Clause (5) of the section to mean any periodical work containing public news or comments on public news. We have read the leaflet in quest...
Promotha Nath Dutta Vs. Gour Das Mahato and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal294
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. This is a petition under Section 115, Civil P.C., by an executor of an estate of which the opposite party is the shebait or legatee. There was a protracted litigation between the opposite party and the petitioner on the one side and other persons on the other side respecting the property and the petitioner's ease is that he has paid more than Rs. 600 from his private purse for costs in this litigation and under direction of the District Judge he submitted an account; of his receipts and expenses as executor. The District Judge asked a Court officer to examine the account and the Court officer disallowed the litigation cost on the ground that it was not spent on Devaseva. The District Judge on reading his Head Clerk's report directed on 27th August 1936 that the petitioner should deposit in Court Rs. 594 odd for having spent the sum for purposes other than Davaseva. The petitioner filed an objection petition to the District Judge stating that he had spent the money...
Parameswar Singh Vs. New theatres Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal516,173Ind.Cas.305
ORDERB.K. Mukherjea, J.1. In my opinion this Rule must be made absolute. It is directed against an order rejecting the plaintiff's application for leave to sue as a pauper on the ground that the allegations in the petition do not show any cause of action. According to the Court below the suit was really to recover compensation in respect of injuries sustained by the applicant, while in the service of the defendant, on 2nd February 1933. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant did promise to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 500 as compensation for the injury done to him and the date of this agreement is said to be 9th May 1935. The suit evidently has been commenced within three years from this date and so, on the face of it, the plaint is not time-barred. What the trial Judge says, however, of this is that the accident happened on 2nd February 1933, the promise to pay any compensation for the same made on 9th May 1935, would be obviously an agreement to pay a barred debt and not b...
Mono Mohan Kundu Vs. Nripendra Nath Nandi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal548
1. One Moti Lal Kundu died leaving seven sons, Khetra Mohan, Lalit Mohan, Mono Mohan, Mohini Mohan, Kristo Mohan, Jatindra Mohan and Radhika Mohan, Khetra being the eldest and Radhika being the youngest. Shortly after the death of Motilal, leaving some infant sons, the other sons of Motilal borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000 from some Nandis for the purpose of carrying on their ancestral business on a security of 6/7 the share in some of their ancestral properties. The Nandis thereafter instituted a suit to recover the mortgage money. In this suit Mono Mohan, Mohini Mohan, Kristo Mohan and Radhika Mohan were impleaded as defendants 1 to 4. Lalit Mohan having died after the mortgage his infant sons, defendants 6 and 7, were also impleaded as defendants. Jatindra Mohan having died childless, his mother, that is the widow of Motilal, was also made a party defendant to the suit. The suit was contested by defendants 2, 3 and 4. The natural guardian of defendants 6 and 7 having failed to appear in...
All India Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sardar Sunder Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal593
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is again Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 'suit for land', and Mr. Clough in a fighting, or at any rate an ambitious mood, asks me to hold that a suit by a purchaser for specific performance of an agreement to sell land outside the jurisdiction can be brought in Calcutta. Obviously, in view of the authorities in this Court, the burden and heat of the day is upon Mr. Clough.2. Mr. Clough attacked the defendant's position along three lines First of all, he relied upon the decisions of the other Courts, Madras and Bombay, authoritative considered decisions of the Court of Appeal of those two provinces; in particular the case in Velliappa Chettiar v. Govinda Doss AIR 1929 Mad 721 at p. 815, which was a purchaser's suit for specific performance, and therefore a decision in direct point. There is a similar decision of the Bombay Court in Hansraj v. Ranchordas (1905) 7 Bom LR 319 at p. 323, which has been referred to and accepted as good law in the more recent case, Hatim...
Narendra NaraIn Rooj Vs. Jnanada Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal537
Biswas, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this case. The suit was for declaration of title and recovery of possession. In support of his title, plaintiff relied on a mortgage, a kobala and a kabuliat. His case was that the property in suit being a house in the town of Suri belonged to one Kirtibas Haldar, and that Kirtibas first mortgaged and then sold it to the plaintiffs, and that thereafter plaintiff let it to Kirtibas' mother, Nani Bala, for 6 months. Kirtibas afterwards died, and his mother not having given up the house on the expiry of her lease, plaintiff brought this suit. He made both Nanibala and Kirtibas' widow, Jnanada Dasi, defendants, as both were in possession. The mother died pending the suit, and the suit was contested by the widow (defendant 2) alone. The defence was that the mortgage, the kobala and the kabuliyat were all benami transactions, and that these had been put through by Kirtibas to defraud some creditors in Calcutta. The trial Court overruled the defe...
Munshi AlauddIn Ahammed Choudhury and ors. Vs. TomizuddIn Ahammed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal587,173Ind.Cas.540
Biswas, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises has been dismissed by both the Courts below as barred by limitation under Article 2 of Sch. 3, Ben. Ten. Act. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court, and contend that the suit is governed by Article 116, Lim. Act. In one case the limitation would be three years, and in the other six.2. The suit is one for recovery of rent, based on a registered ijara lease for five years from Baisakh 1332 to Chaitra 1336 B.S., reserving a yearly rental of Rs. 300 payable in four equal quarterly instalments, the last instalment being payable on the 5th Chaitra. The claim relates to 3 years, from 1334 to 1336 B.S., i.e. up to 13th April 1930, and as the suit was filed on 5th February 1934, it would obviously be out of time if Sch. 3, Ben. Ten. Act, be held to apply.3. At one stage the plaintiff's argument was that the instrument by which the ijara was created was a contract of service, and not a lease, and that the payment stipulated therein was w...
Nitai Chandra Jana and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal433
Nasim Ali, J.1. The seven appellants before us, Nitai Chandra Jana, Radharaman Adhikary, Sasadhar Chatterjee, Sudhasindhu Dey, Chintamoni Addya, Durgadas Mukherjee and Jaladhar Banerjee, along with four others, Hari Pada Mukherjee, Asoke Chandra Ganguly, Nirmalendu Das Gupta alias Nimai and Birendra Nath Roy Choudhury, were placed on trial under orders of the Local Government before Mr. Kumud Behari Mullik, Special Magistrate appointed under Sections 24 and 25, Bengal Suppression of Terrorist Outrages Act. During the said trial Asoke and Haripada were granted pardon under Section 337, Criminal P.C., and were examined as approvers. The remaining nine of the accused were convicted under Section 121-A, I.P.C., and under Section 120-B, I.P.C., read with Sections 19(f) and 20, Arms Act, while five of them, namely Chintamoni, Sasadhar, Sudbasindhu, Radharaman and Nitai Jana, were also convicted under Section 395, I.P.C. On appeal to this Court it was held that the trial was without jurisdict...
Rajendra Kishore Pal Chaudhury and anr. Vs. Asirulla and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal192
ORDERGuha, J.1. This rule was directed against an order passed under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P.C., by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Hahigunj in the District of Sylhet on 25th August 1936. The petitioner in this Court as decree holder in a suit for ejectment for non-payment of rent, obtained delivery of possession of lands appertaining to a tenancy on 24th December 1935 and the application under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P.C, giving rise to this case was made by the opposite party in this rule on the ground of his dispossession on 24th March 1936, by the petitioner. The usufructuary mortgage on the footing of which the opposite party claimed to be in possession has been found to be a genuine transaction and the question was whether the Court below acted erroneously in the exercise of its jurisdiction in entertaining the application under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P C., after the proceedings in execution in which the decree, holder obtained delivery of possession had terminated on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »