Kolkata Court June 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.
Annada Prosanna Chatterjee Vs. Ram Saran Kower and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal686
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff, who is the purchaser of a patni tenure at a sale held under Regn. 8 of 1819, and arises out of a suit commenced by him for recovery of arrears of rent for the period 1338 to Ashar Kist of 1341 B.S. at the rate of Rs. 10 a year, in respect of a tenancy held by defendant 2 as an occupancy raiyat within the said patni. Defendant 1 has been impleaded on the ground that defendant 2 transferred to him the holding by a kobala dated 17th Baishak 1341 B.S.; there was a further claim for enhancement of rent under the provision of Section 30(b), Ben. Ten. Act. The defendants, besides raising a plea of payment so far as the rent due was concerned, contended in substance that the holding was a mokrari one, and the rent being fixed in perpetuity was not enhancible under Section 30(b), Ben. Ten. Act. The Court below disbelieved the story of payment but gave effect to the contention of the defendants that the tenancy was held at a fixe...
Basanta Kumar Pal and ors. Vs. Bazley Rahaman Naskar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal728
Edgley, J.1. In this case an appeal has been preferred against the decision of Mr. B.M. Mitra, Additional District Judge of the 24-Perganas in which he held that the decree-holders' application for the execution of a certain decree was time-barred. The decree-holders have appealed against this decision. It appears that the appellants obtained their decree on 19th February 1930. The material portion of the decree of the first Court was in the following terms:The plaintiff's title to the land mentioned in the schedule above is hereby declared and the plaintiff will get khas possession by evicting the defendants. The defendants are allowed one month's time to vacate the land. The plaintiff will take possession through Court with the help of a pleader commissioner who will deliver them possession excluding the land on which the Masjid stands.2. It appears that after the decree had been obtained by the decree-holders on 19th February 1930, there was an appeal by the judgment-debtor; but owi...
Jagadamba Loan Co. Ltd. Vs. Satyendra Chandra Ghose Moulik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal730,173Ind.Cas.516
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is a second appeal by the decree-holder in an application under Sections 148-A and 174(3), Bengal Tenancy Act. The facts are that the decree-holder, a loan company, instituted a rent suit under Section 148-A making the opposite party a co-sharer landlord. A notice was served upon the opposite party who duly appeared and joined as co-plaintiff and paid court-fees for his share of the rent for the three years in suit. Thereafter, the suit was decreed on 1st August 1933. The decree specified separately the amount payable to the Loan Co. and also the amount payable to the opposite party. Thereafter, the appellant decree-holder duly filed a petition for execution of his share of the decree by sale of the holding. In accordance with Section 148-A (7) a notice of the application for execution was served upon the opposite party but he did not appear. The sale was held on 7th December 1933 and the property was purchased for Rs. 790 by a third person and the appellant deore...
Raja Nagendra Nath Sinha Sahas Roy Vs. Niranjan Patra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal665
M.C. Ghose, J.1. These are two second appeals by the decree-holder in an execution case. The facts in short are that the decree-holder-appellant brought a rent suit in 1934 against 13 persons claiming arrears of rent for the years 1337-1340 B.S. The suit was decreed on 20th July 1934. In November 1935, he applied for execution of the decree. In the execution petition, he impleaded the two principal respondents who were not parties to the decree but who, the decree-holder stated, had purchased portions of the holding in arrears. Thereupon the two principal respondents appeared and filed two separate petitions of objection under Section 47, Civil P.C., and contended that the decree could not be executed against them as they were not parties to the original suit-The objections were allowed by the trial Court. Appeals by the decree-holder to the District Judge were dismissed. Respondent Provash Chandra Mallick purchased a portion of the holding in execution of a mortgage decree against res...
Sachindra Nath Das Vs. Surya Kanta Misra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal720
Costello, Ag. C.J.1. This matter has been very fully and ably argued by Mr. Mallick on behalf of the petitioner, and we have given very careful attention to all the arguments put forward by him: but we have come to the conclusion that this is not a matter in which this Court can properly interfere. It is necessary that I should briefly recall the facts of the case in order to make it clear what was the position which has given rise to these proceedings. The petitioner Sachindra Nath Das and one Surya Kanta Misra were candidates for election to the Bashirhat Local Board. They were candidates from thana Baduria within the district of 24-Parganas and the election was held in the year 1936. The petitioner put in one nomination paper accompanied by a treasury chalan duly stamped, in compliance with the provisions of Rule 29 of Election Rules under the Bengal Local Self-Government Act, 1885, as modified up to 1st September 1933. Surya Kanta Misra on the other hand put in four nomination pape...
Sm. Joygun Nessa Bibi Vs. Mahammad Ali Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal71
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit commenced by her for a declaration that her marriage with the defendant was null and void and did not confer on the latter the rights of a husband. In the alternative, she claims that even if the marriage was not void ab initio, the nuptial tie was dissolved by her exercising the right of talak which was given to her by the Kabin-nama and under which on the happening of certain contingencies she could get herself divorced from her husband. There was also a prayer for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from claiming restitution of conjugal rights. The material allegations upon which the plaintiff came to Court may be shortly stated as follows : The plaintiff says that she was a minor and had not attained the age of puberty at the time when she was made to go through a form of marriage with the defendant on 24th Aswin 1339 B.S. She herself purported to give consent as if she was major...
Bibhuti Bhusan Pal Chaudhury and ors. Vs. Sm. Maya Deby and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal172
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal, which is on behalf of the defendants, arises out of a suit for rent. The claim in the suit is for arrears of rent and cesses for the year 1336 and up to the Kartick Kist of 1337. It has been valued at Rs. 6948-13-9 in the plaint. The rate of rent according to the plaintiff was Rs. 2700 and cesses Rs. 450-11.0 per year. There are five defendants; defendants 1 and 2 may for brevity's sake be called the Pal Chaudhury defendants and Nos. 3 to 5 the Ray defendants. The plaintiff claims as the trustee of her husband and Debnandan Mukherjee. The trust deed was challenged in the lower Court, but the finding of that Court is that it is a valid instrument. This finding has not been challenged before us. The learned Subordinate Judge passed a decree for Rs. 4143-10-9. He held that the plaintiff was entitled to claim rent at the rate of Rs. 2609-8-6 and cesses at the rate of Rs. 151-13-0 per year. He further held that half of the rent and cesses due for the year 1336...
Jaladhi Chandra Mukherji Vs. Parbati Charan Mukerji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal673
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by Jaladhi Chandra Mukherji who was defendant 3 and also defendant 5 in the suit. The relevant facts are these: Putni mahal Rampara called lot Rampara is situated in three touzis Nos. 82/1 Rampara proper, 163 chikuranda and 4001 Mahmudpur of the Hooghly Collectorate. This putni was held at the material time by Parbati Charan Mukherji under the Maharaja Sir Jatindra Mohan Tagore at a rental of Rs. 16,058-5-6 out of which Rs. 9,358-5-6 was payable on account of Government revenue, the net munafa being Rs. 6,700. Putni mehal Haripore also called Lot Haripore is situated in touzi No. 150 and was held at the material time by Parbati Charan's eldest son, Dharendra Krishna Mukherji at a rental of Rs. 11,818.1-4 of which the net munafa was Rs. 5,000 the remainder being payable as Government revenue. These two putnis were the subject matter of a trust created by the Maharaja in favour of certain persons including the present defendants 1, 2 and 3. Both the put...
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. Nil Kamal Chakravorty and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal645,173Ind.Cas.622
Nasim Ali, J.1. The Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd., appellant 1 in this appeal, is a joint stock company incorporated under the Companies Act (Act 7 of 1913). It was registered under the Act on 6th September 1922. The registered share capital of the company is rupees thirty lakhs divided into three lakhs shares of Rs. 10 each. Appellants 2 to 4 are the Managing Directors and appellants 5 to 10 and respondents 2 to 5 are the Directors of this Company. Respondent 1 purchased 20 shares of the Company on 17th December 1926. By Article 63 of the Articles of Association of this Company it is provided that the monthly salary of the Managing Director or Managing Directors in any case shall not exceed Rs. 1,000 and the rate of commission payable to them shall not exceed more than 5 per cent. of the net profit. On 30th April 1933 a general meeting of the share-holders of the Company was held to consider a special resolution for altering these provisions in Article 63 with the object of increasing ...
Sm. Amodini Dassi W/O Balai Chand Mullick Vs. Raghu Nath Mullick and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal236
M.C. Ghose, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the objector in an execution case. The facts in short are as follows: The predecessor of opposite party 1 on 3rd October 1934 instituted a suit for money against opposite party 2 and on the next day applied to the Court for attachment before judgment of the defendants' property under Order 38, Rule 5. The Court issued an order of conditional attachment which was duly served, and on the next day, i.e. on 17th November 1934, the defendant did not appear to show cause. The Court ordered issue of a registered postcard on the defendant. The said postcard was returned. refused. Thereafter the suit was decreed ex parte. About l 1/2 years later, namely on 20th April 1936, the appellant purchased the property which belonged to the judgment-debtor and his two brothers. The execution case was filed in May 1936. The appellant appeared and objected. The trial Court found that as the appellant was a purchaser after the attachment, she had no locus standi ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »