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.
Secretary of State Vs. Sm. Dulali Bala Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal75
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal, dated 1st November 1936 to which the assessors composing the Tribunal concurred, in a case arising out of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, The premises, 'No. 107, Lake Road, western portion with interest in the common passage' were acquired under a project known as Scheme No. 33, Southern Avenue, 1st Section of the Calcutta Improvement Trust, The declaration for the acquisition aforesaid was published in the Calcutta Gazette of 10th March 1932. Under the same project and by the same declaration was acquired ' the common passage to premises No. 107 Lake Road' referred to above which is the subject matter of the case before us. The land acquired was described as 'passage land,' and the area of the same was 2 c. 3 oh. 20 sq. ft. The premises No. 107 Lake Road and the passage were owned by the same persons, and the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 16...
Ananta Ram Banerjee Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal680
R.C. Mitter, J.1. Premises No. 26, Durga Charan Mukherjee Road in the town of Calcutta which comprises an area of 4 Cottas 12 ch. 30 sq. feet, of which the appellant was the owner, fell within the road alignment of a 'projected street' in Scheme No. 9 prepared by the Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta. The appellant desired to erect a building thereon and in accordance with the provisions of Section 63(4), Calcutta Improvement Act, applied to the said Board for permission to erect the same. The Board refused permission, whereupon be demanded acquisition by the Board of the said premises. Negotiations thereafter were started with a letter written by the appellant to the Board on 31st October 1930. This letter has not been produced but the reply has been (Ex. K). The said negotiations were carried on between Mr. Dutt, an advocate of this Court, acting on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Ganguly, the Assistant Valuer of the Board, from 14th November to 26th November 1930. At...
Jodhan Prosad Vakat Vs. Haji Mahammad Yunus Moulvi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal160
1. The point for decision in this case is covered by the two decisions of this Court in Digambar Paul v. Tufazuddi Ijaradar : AIR1934Cal80 and Ahmad Akanda v. Baharuddin Shah (1936) 40 CWN 569. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that in these two cases this Court did not consider the effect of the opening words of Section 48, Bengal Tenancy Amendment Act, viz. 'when an under-raiyat is admitted to occupation of land' and that the effect of these words is that this section applies only to under-raiyatis created after the amended Act came into operation. We are unable to accept this contention. The period for which rent is claimed in the present suit is after the new Act came into operation and consequently the rights of the parties must be governed by Section 48 of the new Act, as the bar which was imposed by the old section has now been removed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs; hearing fee one gold mohur....
Patit Paban Daw Vs. Harisadhan Nandi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal182
Costello, Ag. C.J. 1. This is an appeal from an order made on 2nd June 1937 and also an order made on 4th June 1937, both of them by the learned District Judge, Alipur, in connexion with an insolvency matter which is described as Insolvency Case No. 21 of 1937. This matter was inaugurated by a petition filed by one Jog Jiban Koch, son of Nil Kamal Koch, of No. 4 Orphangunj Bazar, Police Station Watgunj, within the jurisdiction of the District Judge of 24-Parganas. The petitioner asked that he should be adjudicated an insolvent and to the petition was attached a schedule in which were set forth the names of the creditors the amount owing to each of them and their addresses. There was a further schedule setting out the names of the debtors, the amounts owed by them, and their addresses. Amongst the creditors, under No. 30, were two persons named Harisadhan Nandi and Harimohan Nandi, their address being Ram Kumar Rakshit Lane, and the amount owing to them was stated to be Rs. 1000. The pe...
T. and J. Brocklebank Ltd. Vs. Noor Ahmode
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal104
1. This is an appeal from the decision and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 24-Parganas, dated 31st July 1934, by defendant 1 in a suit brought by the plaintiff as a pauper, for damages or compensation for breach of contract, and also for tort or negligence, valued at Rs. 20,500. The plaintiff also preferred cross-objection against the said decision and decree which allowed him Rs. 1,500 only, by way of compensation. The plaintiff, a man aged 26 years, was employed as a deck crew to serve on board the S.S. 'Markhar' owned by defendant 1, T. and J. Brocklebank Ltd. on terms and conditions mentioned in an agreement entered between the plaintiff and defendant 1, on 16th August 1933, under the provisions of the Indian Merchant Shipping Act. It was provided by the agreement that the plaintiff shall not serve as a crew on board the ship between 1st October in one year and 31st March in the succeeding year, on voyages to any parts on the coast of America north of 38 degrees nor...
Kumar Chandra Singh Dudharia and anr. Vs. Sarat Chandra Goswami and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal128
1. The only point for determination in these appeals is whether the four tenures which were acquired by the heirs of Thakurdaa Goswami between the years 1903 and 1921 merged in the Patni and Zamindari right which they had before the acquisition of these tenures. The finding in these cases is that the four tenures in question were created before the Transfer of Property Act was passed. There was therefore no liability of these tenures to be merged in the superior right under the common law of this country before the Transfer of Property Act was passed. By Section 2. Clause (c) of the Act, the provisions contained there in the Act do not affect any right or liability arising out of the legal relation constituted before the Act came into force, or any relief in respect of any such right or liability. Section 111 Clause (d) of the Act therefore cannot apply to these tenures. Again the finding in these cases is that after the purchase of these four tenures the intention of the heirs of Thak...
Sudhansu Bhusan Pandey Vs. Majho Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal732
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Murshidabad by which he rejected a memorandum of appeal filed in his Court on the ground that it was out of time. At the hearing of the appeal before me, Dr. Radha Benode Pal for the respondent took a preliminary point in bar which apparently sprung a surprise upon the learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Urukramdas Chakravorty. Mr. Chakravorty was not quite sure at first as to the line of answer he should adopt, but his argument assumed a more definite shape after the midday recess. Dr. Pal's contention was that the order of the learned District Judge was not a decree, nor was it an appellate order under the Code of Civil Procedure, hence there was no appeal, and the only remedy of the appellant, if any, was by way of revision under Section 115 of the Code. In support of his argument, he relied on the ease in Jnanada Sundari Shah v. Madhab Chandra Mala : AIR1932Cal482 .2. In answer, Mr. Chakravorty put forward...
Baij Nath Prasad and ors. Vs. Ram Gopal Lachhmi Narayan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1939Cal92
Costello, Ag.C.J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Lort-Williams J., dated 9th April 1936, given in favour of the plaintiffs with costs against each and all the defendants but limited as regards the minor defendants to their share in the family assets. The suit was filed on 11th February 1935 for the recovery of the sum Rs. 31,983-5-0, being the balance of the amount said to be due and owing to the plaintiff in respect of loans made in the year 1934. There was no real dispute about the loans or the amount outstanding at the time the suit was brought. The pleadings in the case are not very explicit or even clearly drawn and they do not fully or satisfactorily set out the points in controversy between the parties. A number of issues were however raised and settled at the hearing and these are to be found at p. 39 of the paper book. The learned Judge dealt with the matter in his judgment upon the footing that it was only necessary to consider three of these issues, namely : Was t...
Kuraun Hajra Vs. Gokul Chand Brajabashi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal234
Henderson, J.1. This appeal has arisen in connexion with a suit for specific performance of a contract. Defendant 1, who is the appellant, executed Ex. 2 in favour of the plaintiff by which he contracted to sell a certain plot of land. Rs. 49 was paid by the plaintiff as earnest money, the price being fixed at Rs. 900. This was on the 27th Agrahayan 1341; two days later, the appellant sold part of the plot to defendant 2 for Rs. 600. Both the Courts below found that defendant 2 was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the contract between defendant 1 and the plaintiff. The Munsif gave the plaintiff a decree for a refund of the earnest money which he had paid. On appeal by the plaintiff, the Subordinate Judge passed a decree directing defendant 1 to convey the remainder of the property to the plaintiff for Rs. 450 minus Rs. 49 which had already been paid as earnest money. Defendant 1 has now appealed to this Court on the ground that Section 16, Specific Relief Act has no ap...
Baijnath Bothra and ors. Vs. Kedar Nath Bothra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal74
ORDERPanckridge J.1. This is an application on behalf of the plaintiffs asking that a suit which was dismissed on 5th April 1937 by Lort-Williams J. be restored and heard on the merits. The case raises one or two interesting points and the circumstances are somewhat out of the ordinary. The plaintiffs in the suit at a late stage applied for the issue of a commission. The learned Judge who heard the application was willing to order a commission on terms, but he made it clear that this was not to delay the hearing of the suit. In other words, the plaintiffs took the risk of the commission's evidence not having been Completed when the suit came to be heard. When the suit was called on, the position was that the commission had not been executed, and it is said that the plaintiffs were not responsible for this but were the victims of circumstance, because the preparation of the necessary documents in the Court office was delayed owing to the fact that work had been suspended during certain ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »