Kolkata Court February 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.
Surendra Nath Basu Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal451
Jack, J.1. In this case, a rule was issued upon the District Magistrate, Faridpur, to show cause why the conviction of and sentence passed on the petitioner should not be set aside. The main ground urged before us is that in this case there was no dishonest intention. The petitioner Surendra Nath Basu was the Naib of the Narail Zamindars at Mukshudpur. On 3rd Kartik 1343 B. S., he was at the Zamindars' Kachhari there along with the treasurer and an Amin in charge of the property of the estate including an amount of Rs. 2968 in the safe, of which he had one key and the treasurer another key. Admittedly, on this date, having despatched the treasurer to render accounts at the Sadar office, he went off with Rs. 2000 which he took from the safe and Rs. 87 in addition which he got from the treasurer. His defence is that he was entitled to take Rs. 2000 as he had deposited with the Estate Rs. 2000 in Post Office cash certificates as security during his appointment as Naib, and the Rs. 87, he ...
Baidyanath Basak and anr. Vs. Onkarmul Manicklal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal656
Panckridge, J.1. This is a suit in ejectment. The plaintiffs are the owners of No. 25/1, Ratan Sarkar Garden Street and the defendants are persons who are now in occupation of the northern portion of those premises. None of the defendants have entered appearance or filed written statements, except the first defendants, Onker-mull Manicklal, a firm having its place of business at 4, Singhi Dutt Lane, Calcutta. The case for the plaintiffs is that on 19th September 1935, they demised the plot of land in suit to Onkermull Manicklal in terms of a document dated 2nd Aswin 1342, B. S. corresponding with 19th September 1935. This document was signed by one Surajmull Tharad on behalf of Messrs. Onkermull Manicklal, the signatory describing himself as a manager and partner. The plaintiffs claim that they duly terminated the tenancy of Onkermull Manicklal by a notice in writing dated 1st May 1937. In the written statement the defendants Onkermull Manicklal put forward a substantive case in which ...
Jogendra Nath Bhattacharyya and ors. Vs. Sheikh Nabi Newaj and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal699
ORDEREdgley, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the learned District Judge of Mymensingh dated 30th April 1937 by which he set aside the order of the Munsif of Netrokona dated 24th September 1936. The decree-holders are the petitioners before this Court and it appears that in 1932 they obtained a mortgage decree against the opposite parties which they put into execution in 1934. The first execution ease was dismissed but in subsequent execution proceedings under an order dated 31st May 1935 it was directed that a sale proclamation should issue fixing 20th July 1935 for the sale of the judgment-debtor's property. The sale was not actually held on that day nor was any adjournment order made under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 69, Civil P.C. But we find that on 19th August 1935 the judgment-debtors' property was put up to auction and sold to the decree-holders. The opposite parties thereupon applied to set aside the sale on 21st May 1936, their contention being that they on...
Gobinda Kishore Bal Vs. Jitendra Chandra Mukhopadhaya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal459
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant and arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiffs for recovery of arrears of rent due in respect of a certain holding at the rate of Rs. 70-1-9 a year. The defence is that the rent due in respect of the holding was Rs. 54-6.6 a year and the excess of Rs. 15 odd that is claimed by the landlords is in contravention of Section 29, Ben. Ten. Act and is hence not recoverable. The plaintiff's attempted to get round this bar by saying that after the publication of C. S. records which recorded the rent at Rs. 54-6-6 a year, they were about to commence proceedings for increase of rent under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act and thereupon the tenant agreed to an increment of Rs. 7-14-9 for additional area and also to an enhancement of Rs. 7-12-6 on account of rise in the price of staple food-crops making an aggregate of Rs. 70-1-9 and this is the rent which the defendant had been paying for a considerable period of time exceeding ten ...
RamnaraIn Trivedi Vs. Shib Kumar Tewary and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal594
Panckridge, J.1. In this case the plaintiff claims to be the owner of the copyright in 'Sorothi Brijabhar' a book in Hindi published by him in Calcutta in the year 1931.. The alleged author of the book is named' Mahadeo Prosad Singh and a document (Ex. A) has been tendered, whereby Mahadeo on 11th October 1931, purports to sell to the plaintiff 'all rights in respect of Sorothi Brijabhar in 16 parts.' The document states that the plaintiff 'alone will have henceforth the right of printing and selling the same.' About the time of the assignment, the plaintiff made a declaration in respect of his ownership of the book under Act 25 of 1867 (Ex. C). The plaintiff and' Mahadeo have given evidence on this point, and I may say that in the light of that evidence, corroborated as it is by the documents, I have no doubt as to the genuineness of the assignment. The plaintiff complains that his copyright in 'Sorothi Brijabhar' has been infringed by a book called 'Sorothi Panwara.' This book was os...
Hira Lal Mandal Vs. Shankar Lal Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal116
Panckridge, J.1. This suit for partition has been instituted in the following circumstances. One Kritti Bash Mandal died in January 1918. He was survived by his widow, Sm. Nistarini Dasi and by his two sons, the plaintiff Hira Lal, and Chuni Lal, who died in May 1933, leaving a widow and three sons. After the death of Kritti Bash the present plaintiff instituted partition proceedings against his brother, Chuni Lal and his mother, Nistarini. The subject-matter of the partition proceedings was the estate of Kritti Bash. In her written statement Nistarini claimed one-third of the properties left by Kritti Bash 'according to the estate of a Hindu mother on partition amongst her sons.' A preliminary decree for partition was made on 20th April 1928. The commissioner appointed in the partition suit duly made his award, which was confirmed on 18th July 1928. Under the award Nistarini was allotted certain of the immovable properties belonging to Kritti Bash 'to be held and enjoyed by her as a H...
Basanta Kumar Dutta Vs. Sukumari Das Gupta W/O Babu Satish Chandra Das ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal442
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant and arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent due in respect of two jotes which were recorded in khewats Nos. 15 and 16 under the taluki right of the plaintiff and his cosharers at a rental of Rs. 6 and Rs. 14 odd respectively. Rents were claimed for the year 1341 B. S. and the plaintiff also claimed enhancement of rant from the year 1342 B. S. under the provisions of Section 7, Ben. Ten. Act. So far as the arrears of rent are concerned, there is no dispute between the parties and the whole controversy centres round the point as to whether the plaintiff could claim enhancement of rent under Section 7, Ben. Ten. Act. The trial Court dismissed this part of the plaintiff's case being of opinion that the two jotes really constituted two raiyati holdings and not tenures, which could attract the operation of Section 7, Ben. Ten. Act. The Munsif however for the purpose of obviating the nece...
Robindra Nath Mitra Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal440
Jack, J.1. This is an application under Section 435, Criminal P.C. in connexion with case No. C/1423 of 1926 under Section 91-A, Companies Act, in the Court of D. J. Cohen. Esq., Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. A rule was issued calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner Pramatha Nath Bose and the sentence of fine imposed upon him should not be set aside on the ground that the facts proved do not bring the case within the provisions of Section 91-A (2), Companies Act, that the findings arrived at by the learned Magistrate do not warrant a conviction, and that the learned Magistrate has entirely misconceived the scope and intention of the section. The only point argued before us in this rule is as to the construction of the section. It has been strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioner that the only con-tracts referred to in the section are con. tracts entered into at a meeting of the directors and therefore it did n...
Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd. Vs. Baraboni Coal Concern Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal471
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The petitioner in this rule is Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd. The rule is opposed by opposite party No. 2 Earn Chandra Marwari. It has arisen out of the following circumstances. On 1st April 1926 Earn Chandra Marwari opposite party No. 2 obtained a money decree in Suit No. 54 of 1927 against Economic Coal Company Ltd. which went into liquidation and was amalgamated with Baraboni Coal Concern Ltd., opposite party No. 1 in this rule. On 21st December 1933 Baraboni Coal Concern Ltd., obtained a decree of His Majesty in Council, for costs amounting to about Rs. 10,905 against certain deity. According to the petitioners' case the Coal Company created a first charge in favour of the petitioner Bank of the said cost decree by a deed of hypothecation on 12th March 1934. According to the case of the opposite party No. 2 this deed of hypothecation was a collusive document subsequently created but antedated. The Coal Company filed Execution Case No. 164 of 1934 in order to execute ...
Sarojendra K. Dutt Vs. Srimathi Binapani Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal468
JUDGENTPanckridge, J.1. This suit raises a question of some difficulty relating to a Hindu widow's power to alienate the estate to which she has succeeded as her husband's heir. It is necessary to set out the facts of the case in some detail. On 28th April 1922 the plain-tiff advanced a sum of Rs. 1600 to three persons named Kaliprosono Dutt, Keshub Chandra Dutt and Kripanath Dutt who, as their father's heirs, were the joint owners of two properties, Nos. 76-A and 73/3, Dharmahatta Street. The advance was secured by a mortgage of No. 73/3, Dharmahatta Street. In August 1928 Kripanath Dutt died intestate and childless, his heir and legal representative being his widow, defendant 1. On 12th February 1930 the plaintiff instituted a suit on his mortgage and obtained a preliminary decree on 5th June 1931. Meanwhile, on 28th April 1930, defendant 1 had instituted a partition suit against the other members of her husband's family, in which she asked for partition and other reliefs. Her brothe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »