Kolkata Court July 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.
Nirode Kali Roy Choudhury and anr. Vs. Rai Harendra Nath Choudhury and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal113
Nasim Ali, J.1. The subject matter of the dispute in this appeal is a tank called Chaubari which has been recorded in O.S. dags Nos. 1971 of khatian no. 287 of the finally published Record of Rights relating to mouza Taki in the District of 24 Parganas. Defendant 1 attached this tank in execution of a decree against defendant 2. The plaintiffs thereupon filed an objection to the attachment on the ground that the tank did not belong to defendant 2 at all but was the exclusive property of the plaintiffs at the date of the attachment. This objection was disallowed as it was unnecessarily delayed. The tank was thereafter sold in execution and was purchased by defendant 1. The plaintiffs thereafter raised the present suit under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C., for a declaration that the property belonged to the plaintiffs and was not liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree against defendant 2. The defence of defendant 1 to this suit is that defendant 2 had 2/3rd share in thi...
Abdul Khaleque Vs. Susil Chandra Chaudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal13
1. The only point for determination in this Letters Patent Appeal by the defendants is whether the suit out of which this appeal arises is maintainable in view of the fact that the plaintiff. respondents did not pay the costs of the defendants in a previous suit instituted by them on the same cause of action on which the present suit is based as directed by the Court in its order dated 14th November 1929.' That order is in these terms:The plaintiff be permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh one unless barred as prayed for. Defendant will get costs which must be paid within one month as a condition precedent to a fresh suit.2. Plaintiffs did not pay the costs of the defendants within the time specified in the order. Neither did they pay the costs before they instituted the present suit on 23rd January 1930. The appellant in his written statement did not object to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that his costs were not paid as directed by the Court in N...
Harendra Kumar Mondal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal125
Biswas, J.1. These two appeals have been heard together. There are three appellants before us, Harendra Kumar Mondal, Amulya Bagdi and Ratan Para-manik. Appeal 236 is by Harendra and Appeal 287 is by the other two. The appellants were charged with abetment of murder. The charge was in these terms:That an unknown person or persons on the night of 18th June 1936, at, Simulia, P.S. Mongalkote, committed the offence of murder of Khudi-ram, and that you at Simulia, P.S. Mongalkote, abetted the unknown person or persona in the commission of the said offence of murder of Khudiram Mandal which was committed in consequence of your abetment, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Ss, 109/302, I.P.C., and within the cognizance of the Court of Session.2. They were tried before the Sessions Judge of Burdwan, Mr. M. H. B. Leth-bridge, by a jury, who returned a unanimous verdict of guilty against all the accused, and the learned Judge agreeing with the verdict sentenced each of them to tra...
Gadadhar Roy Choudhury and ors. Vs. Dhirendra Nath Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal180
Nasim Ali, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that certain tenure which the plaintiffs held under the defendants is not liable to be sold under the Patni Regulation and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from selling the tenure under the Patni Regulation. The Courts below have agreed in dismissing the suit. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff. The tenure was created by a potta, dated 29th Aswin 1308 corresponding to 15th October 1901. The potta which is Ex. (1) in this case describes this tenure as a patni. The contention of the learned advocate for the appellants is that as in this potta there is no express provision for sale of the patni taluk, for arrears of rent no presumption of its liability to sale under the Patni Regulations attaches to this tenure. In Krishtomonee Debea v. Gooroogobind Shiehanto, 2 Sevastre's Rep Vol. II, 173, L.S. Jackson and E. Jackson JJ. observed as follows:We think . . . that on attentive comparison of [the differen...
Hrishikesh Mitra Vs. Barada Prosad Roy Choudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal517
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by one of the defendants in a suit for rent. The 3 annas odd cosharer landlords instituted a suit on 16th April 1935 claiming rent from Asar 1338 to end of 1341 B. S. The suit was instituted under Section 148-A, Ben. Ten. Act, and according to that section, a notice was sent to the respondents who are 12 annas odd co-sharer landlords. But before that suit, the respondents 12 annas odd co-sharer landlords whose estate was under the Court of Wards had through their manager requisitioned to the Certificate Officer for a certificate on 18th April 1933 claiming rent for 1336 to 1339 B. S. The Deputy Collector filed the certificate on 29th May 1933 and duly issued notice under Section 7, but though the certificate proceedings went on for two years, the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge is that the notice under Section 7 does not appear to have been served. When the respondents got notice of the suit filed by their co-sharers they applied to the Deput...
Bharat Bikash Halder Vs. Bharat Luxmi Pictures
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal248
Williams, J.1. The plaintiff claims a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to any payment under an agreement dated 24th December 1935, a refund of Rs. 6000 paid thereunder, and damages for breach of that contract. The agreement was in writing and provided that, in consideration of a payment of Rs. 11,001, the defendant would allow the plaintiff to use his cinematograph studio, equipment and staff for periods therein stated, for the purpose of producing a Bengali talking picture.2. The plaintiff contends that there was an implied warranty that the equipment so hired was suitable for the purpose required, and be relies also upon the provisions of Section 150, Contract Act, and contends that the defendant was bound to disclose to the plaintiff faults in the goods bailed, of which he was aware, and which materially interfered with the use of them, and that he was responsible for the damage arising to the plaintiff directly from such faults, whether he was aware of them or not. Th...
Bhagawan Dayal Sahu Vs. Chandulal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal23
Costello, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application challenging an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Darjeeling on 29th May 1937. The matter is intituled as an application under Section 224, Government of India Act, 1936 and Section 115, Civil P.C. As regards that, we desire to say at the outset that although Section 224, Government of India Act, 1935 (not 1936 as stated) contains in effect a reproduction of the terms of Section 107 of the previous Government of India Act, it also contains a Proviso which makes it clear that Section 224 has no application of itself to legal proceedings at all. It follows therefore that if any relief is to be obtained in revision, it must be obtained under Section 115, Civil P.C., or not at all.2. The order complained of was one refusing to stay a suit which has been started by a number of persons of the name of Shaha in the Court, of the Subordinate Judge of Darjeeling against a number of persons by the name of Agarwalla. All the plaintiffs and originally...
In Re: Amrita Bazar Patrika Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal241
Costello, Ag. C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (2), Income-tax Act of 1922. The question for the consideration of the Court is set forth in para. 4 of the statement of the case in this form:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 5577 spent by the assessee during the year ended 31st December 1935, to meet the litigation expenses can be said to be 'expenditure incurred solely for the purpose of earning the profits' within the meaning of Section 10 (2) (ix), Income-tax Act (11 of 1922) and consequently allowable as a deduction in computing the profits or gains of the business for the assessment year 1936-37.2. The facts of the case were these: The assessee is the Limited Company known as the Amrita Bazar Patrika Ltd. and its business is that of editing, publishing and selling a paper called 'The Amrita Bazar Patrika'. On 23rd March 1935, it published in its daily edition in Calcutta a leader with the caption 'Calcutta High Court' and in that leader c...
Nagendra Bala Devi, Wife of Saroj Nath Bagchi Vs. Baidyanath Chakravar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal225
Biswas, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two connected suits which were heard together and are governed by the same judgments. The plaintiff in the one was defendant in the other. To avoid con. fusion I shall refer to the parties by their names. The earlier suit (Title Suit 1148 of 1933) was by Baidyanath Chakrabarty and has given rise to appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1426 of 1936, and the other suit (Title Suit 1538 of 1933) which was filed about ten months later, was by Nagendra Bala and corresponds to appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1427 of 1936. Nagendra Bala lost both the suits in the Courts below. Hence these two appeals by her. There are three plots of land involved in the present dispute which I shall refer to as plots A, B and C. Plot A is dag No. 101 of the last Howrah Town Survey of 1914-15. It is admitted that Nagendra Bala is the present owner of all the three plots having acquired them by purchase under two conveyances both bearing the same date 24th November 1932....
Lakshmi Narayan Mahato Vs. Sachindra Nath Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal671
JUDGMyENTS.K. Ghose, J.1. The petitioner in this Rule has instituted two suits, one for declaration of title and for injunction in respect of a lease-hold interest in a bazaar and a bustee, and another suit for partition in the 4th Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore. These suits are registered and numbered as Title Suits Nos. 11 and 12 of 1937 respectively. The petitioner's father, the late Deb Narayan Mahato, and the principal defendant's father, the late Ram Narayan Mahato were two brothers belonging to joint Hindu family. The petitioner's case is that he is entitled to half share in all the joint family properties. One of these properties is the aforesaid lease-hold interest. According to the case made in the plaint the lease is for 25 years with option of renewal for another 5 years and is due to expire in Bhadra 1345 B.S. The petitioner alleges, and the opposite party does not dispute, that the said sons of Ram Narayan Mahato are going to execute a fresh lease in favour of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »