Kolkata Court January 1938 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.
Raja Jagat Kishore Acharjya Chaudhury Vs. Hazrat Ali Bepari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal447
ORDEREdgley, J.1. In this case a rule was obtained calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the orders of the learned Second Munsif of Mymensingh dated 17th March 1937 and 11th June 1937, should not be set aside. According to these orders the learned Munsif had directed that certain execution proceedings should be stayed In pursuance of a notice under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935. It appears that on 13th July 1936 the petitioner obtained a decree for rent against the opposite parties in respect of a sum of Rs. 383-4.6. He then put the decree into execution in Execution Case No. 90 of 1937, and 17th March 1937 was fixed for the sale of the holding in respect of which the rent was due. It then appears that two of the judgment-debtors applied to the Debt Settlement Board at Kanihari for the Settlement of their debts under the provisions of the Agricultural Debtors-Act, 1935. The Board thereupon sent a, notice to the Munsif under Section 34 of the Act, and as ...
Ramnath Gouri Sankar Daway Vs. Chandulal B. Modi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal649
Panckridge, J.1. The amount claimed in this suit is comparatively small, but the matter for decision, which is purely a question of fact, is by no means simple. This is largely due to the lack of trustworthiness which, in my opinion, characterizes both plaintiff and defendant. The impression which they made on me is that they are neither of them persons on whose statement reliance can be placed in the absence of corroboration in the shape of documentary evidence or inherent probability. The plaintiff and defendant have been acquainted for many years, and they are both engaged in trade. The defendant's financial position appears on the whole more substantial than that of the plaintiff, but they are both persons who have resources and should not be open to financial temptation. The story begins as long ago as the month of April 1930. At that period the defendant held on deposit on the plaintiff's account certain cash certificates and fixed deposit receipts, and a considerable sum in cash...
Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameswar Singha Vs. Hridoy Nath Sahoo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal763
Patterson, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for the assessment of a fair and equitable rent on a certain tank. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit; hence this appeal. It appears that an application under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, was filed in connexion with the settlement proceedings in the year 1921 but was subsequently with-drawn and one of the defences raised is that this withdrawal operates as a bar under Section 109, Bengal Tenancy Act. The Proviso to that Section, which was enacted in 1928, was intended to remove that bar, but it is contended on behalf of the defendants that the Proviso cannot have the effect of reviving the right to sue which had previously ceased to exist under the provisions of the Section as it originally stood. Reference has been made to the case in Kandan Majhi v. Kulada Prosad Roy (1935) 39 CWN 1040 in which it was held that Section 109 was a bar, but the facts of that case were different from those of the ...
Karala Valley Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Lachmi Narayan Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal14
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1000 from three defendants. The money was paid to defendant 1 by one Mahadeo (who is the manager of the plaintiff's shop for the sale of bicycles, motor tyres and a gramophone at Jalpaiguri) as earnest money on account of a contract which he purported to enter into with defendant 1 as agent of the plaintiff for taking sub-lease of a tea garden belonging to defendant 1. In the contract it was laid down that if there was default on the part of the plaintiff in completing it, the sum of Rs. 1000 which was paid as earnest money was to be forfeited. As the plaintiff maintains that Mahadeo was not empowered to enter into this contract he repudiates the contract and claims to recover the Rs. 1000 from defendant 1 which defendant 1 maintains he is entitled to retain, the contract not having been completed by the plaintiff. In this appeal it is urged that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the present suit ...
Broja Bashi Roy Vs. Nagarbashi Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal362
ORDEREdgley, J.1. In this case, a rule has been obtained by Broja Bashi Roy, a judgment-debtor, against Nagar Bashi Choudhury, the decree, holder and certain other people, to show cause why the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Tippera dated 22nd July 1937 should not be set aside. It appears that Nagar Bashi Choudhury obtained a mortgage decree against the petitioner on 2nd May 1936 and that in execution of that decree the property of the petitioner was put to sale and was purchased by the decree-holder, Nagar Bashi Choudhury on 9th October 1936. The petitioner then instituted proceedings under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. in order to have the sale set aside. He was successful in these proceedings and the sale was actually set aside on 24th April 1937. The decree-holder appealed against this order on 31st May 1937. While the appeal was pending in the Court of the learned District Judge, the judgment-debtor, Broja Bashi Roy, obtained a stay order from the Debt Settlement Board at ...
Joy Krishna Hazra Vs. Kali Krishna Hazra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal413
Khundkar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Birbhum affirming on appeal the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif of Bolpur in a suit for contribution. The facts out of which this suit arose may be shortly stated thus:Durgadas Kundu and others are eight annas cosharer landlords of a certain holding the original rental of which was Rs. 8-14-3 but which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 10-2-3 by proceedings under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are cosharer tenants of that holding. The landlords obtained an ex parte decree against the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 for arrears of rent for the period from 1335 to 1338 B. S. In execution of that decree the decree-holder attached certain properties of the plaintiff and in order to save those properties from sale the plaintiff deposited the decretal dues and costs amounting to Rs. 35-4-6. The plaintiff had also to incur costs amounting to 10 annas 3 pie...
Tripurari Bhattacharjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal361
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Khulna to show cause why the proceedings started against the petitioner under Sections 381, 406 and 419, I.P.C., should not be quashed. The petitioner was a peon attached to the tahsildar's camp at Badal which was established by the Khulna Collectorate for the purpose of realizing rents and cesses under Section 99, Bengal Cess Act. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 29th January 1936 the accused removed surreptitiously a. rent receipt book from a box lying in the camp and, armed with this, he went to a village called Hoglapesa accompanied by his servant Sushil Kumar Ghose and there gave out that he was a Naib of the Tahsildar of the camp and that Sushil was his servant. By this fraudulent misrepresentation he succeeded in inducing the tenants of the place to pay him rent amounting altogether to Rs. 610-4-0. He absconded with this money till he was-arrested by the police and it is alleged by the prosecutio...
Taraprasad Sukul Vs. Abul Kasem Khundkar S/O Abu Bakkr Khundkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal359
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The petitioner in this rule was a candidate for election to the Local Board of Natore and the opposite party was one of his rival candidates. After the publication of the list of voters the opposite party filed three applications under Rule 24 of the Elections Rules under the Bengal Local Self-Government Act, for the correction of the name of voter No. 965 which was recorded as Abdul Kasem Mia, son of Abu Bakkr Mia and stating that the correct name should be Abul Kasem Khundkar, son of Abu Bakkr Khundkar. Subsequently the opposite party also filed three nomination papers. The District Magistrate of Rajshahi delegated his powers in respect of this election to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Natore under Section 5, Local Self-Government Act. Subsequently the Presiding Officer being the aforesaid Sub-Divisional Magistrate, rejected the applications and the nomination papers of the opposite party with the result that the petitioner was duly elected without contest on 15th...
H. Ezekiel Vs. Carew and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal423
Panckridge, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the son of one David Ezekiel, who on. 2nd September 1936, was the registered holder of 16,800 ordinary shares in the defendant company. The defendant company's registered office is at Calcutta and their business is that of sugar manufacturers and distillers. On 18th April 1929, David Ezekiel had executed a power of attorney in favour of his nephew, Solomon Ezekiel, the terms of which must be considered at a later stage. At that time David was the proprietor of two businesses, one known as Davidson & Co. and carried on in Calcutta, and the other known as S. Ezekiel & Co. and carried on in Chittagong. Both the businesses traded in general stores and wines and spirits. In 1931, the business of Davidson & Co. was incorporated as a private limited company under the style of Davidsons Ltd. It is not challenged that shortly after the execution of the power, David left India for England, or that he. visited India and spent some months in Calcutta ...
Abdul Momin, Commissioner of Wakfs Vs. Gagan Chandra Das, Manager, Ser ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal20
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The petitioner in this rule is the Commissioner of Wakfs, Bengal, who filed an application under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C., and it was rejected. The execution proceedings appear to have been started after the Bengal Wakf Act of 1934 came into operation. Two persons successively as mutawallis filed applications under Order 24, Rule 58, Civil P.C., and these applications were dismissed for default. There was a third application' filed but was also dismissed on 30th January 1937 with the remark that the remedy of the claimant, if any, lay in a title suit as the previous claim cases were dismissed. Therefore the position was that the claim cases were not decided on the merits. Thereafter the matter came up before this Court and by the judgment dated 18th May 1937, M.C. Ghose J. directed that as there was prima facie evidence that the properties related to wakf property notice should be given to the Commissioner of Wakfs under Section 70, Bengal Wakf Act. Accordingly no...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »