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.
Nanda Kishore Lala Vs. KhetabuddIn Ahmed and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal632
Biswas, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two applications by the landlord for settlement of fair and equitable rent under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act. The landlord asked for enhancement of rent under Section 30(b) on the ground of rise in the prices of staple food-crops, and also for additional rent for additional area under Section 52. The first prayer was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, and there was no appeal by the tenants. The second prayer however was rejected by both the Courts below, and hence the present appeals by the landlord. The defendants-respondents acquired the holdings by purchase, and upon recognition of their purchase, executed kabuliyats in favour of the landlord, agreeing to an enhancement of the jama by nine pies in the rupee. In the kabuliyats, which were expressed in more or less similar terms in both cases, the original holdings were described with reference to area as well as to jama and it was further provided that if on measurement any ex...
Secretary of State Vs. Golabrai Paliram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal298
Costello, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment and decree of Lord-Williams J. Two points, broadly speaking, ware put forward on behalf of the defendant-appellant and both of them were in the nature of a demurrer. The first has relation to the question of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit at all, for that the defendant does not carry on business within the jurisdiction of this Court, and that the requirements with regard to the notice provided for by Section 77, Railways Act, (Act 9 of 1890) which has to be served by the plaintiff before making his claim, did not accurately describe the cause of action so as to bring the matter within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The other point was one of limitation. It is con. tended on behalf of the defendant-appellant that Article 30 of Schedule 1, Lim. Act, 1908 applied to the circumstances of this case. There is no doubt that if that contention is correct, and if Article 30 does apply to this case, then the plain...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›