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.
In Re: CertaIn Trusts Created by the Will of George Bridge; in Re: Off ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal486
Ameer Ali, J.1. This matter again arises out of the will of George Bridge dated 1st September 1924. Of this will the Official Trustee is now trustee and the matter comes before me on an application for directions. It is by no means the first time that the effect of this will has had to be considered by this Court. On 26th November 1936 I dealt, on an application in execution with the point which is raised in the present application. The facts are as follows: On 27th February 1936, Mrs. J. O. Hill, a married woman, borrowed from Sm. Lalmohini Dassi a sum of Rs. 20,000. Lalmohini Dassi filed a suit on 17th September 1937 and on 27th September 1937 a decree was passed by consent, whereby M. L, Khaitan, the attorney, was appointed receiver, without security, of the income and other moneys payable to the defendant by the Official Trustee of Bengal out of the estate of her father George Bridge. There was a scheme for payment to various creditors including the plaintiff; 'the Official Trustee...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Isabali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal409
Jack, J.1. This rule was issued on the opposite party calling upon him to show why the order under Section 119, Criminal P.C. discharging him should not be vacated and an order under Section 109 (b), Criminal P.C. passed binding him over for good behaviour for a period not exceeding one year or such other order or further orders made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. The order which was drawn up against the accused opposite party is as follows:Whereas I am satisfied from the report of the Officer-in-charge, Munshigunj Police Station that the person noted in the margin (the opposite party) was taking precautions to conceal his presence within the local limits of my jurisdiction and that there were reasons to believe that he was taking such precautions with a view to commit crimes and that he has no ostensible means of subsistence nor can he give any satisfactory account of himself, it is hereby ordered that the said marginally noted person (the opposite party) do show cause on 3...
Baijnath Tamakuwalla Vs. Tormull
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal455
Ameer Ali, J.1. The applicant before me, Tormull Marwari, the defendant in suit No. 722 of 1936, was liable for the sum of some Rs. 7000 to the plaintiff in that suit, Baijnath Tamakuwalla, as a result of certain transactions in piece goods. The plaintiff obtained a decree in the High Court, a portion was paid and there remained a balance of Rs. 1,742-3.0. Execution was taken out in this Court and the decree was sent for execution to Dumka in Bihar where the defendant has real property. Thereupon, after attachment but before sale, a notice was received by this Court under Section 34 of Act 7 of 1936 and the effect of this notice was communicated to the Dumka Court. This notice of motion was taken out by the defendant and judgment-debtor, Tormull, for an order that the Sub-divisional Officer, Rajwabal, that is Dumka, be directed to stay further proceedings in Money Execution Case No. 11 of 1937, that an order be issued to the Registrar 'to recall the copies of the decree' etc., and for ...
Sm. Khirabala Debi W/O Nitya Gopal Roy and ors. Vs. Suresh Chandra Cha ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal452
Khundkar, J.1. The judgment of the Courts below do not contain a sufficient statement of the facts, or of reasons for the conclusions of law at which the Courts arrived. The facts would appear to be as follows: The lands in suit appertain to a jama of Rupees 11-4.0 in the name of Ram Charan Ray held under two sets of co-sharer landlords described as 9 as. 12 gds co-sharers and 6 as. 8 gds. co-sharers. It may here be stated that in the kobala of defendant 1 to which reference will presently be made Earn Charan Rai's interest is described as that of a settled raiyat. In 1927, the 6 as. 8 gds. co-sharers instituted a suit for rent in respect of their share against Atul, Suresh, and Khitish who are the descendants of Ram Charan Roy. The 9 as. 12 gds. co-sharer landlords were not made parties to the suit. In execution of the decree obtained in this suit, the interest of Atul, Suresh and Khitish was purchased by the 6 as. 8 gds. co-sharer landlords in 1928. In 1930 the 6 as. 8 gds. co-sharer...
Md. Abdulla Shah Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Giridhari Lal Mundra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal448a
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., against an order of Mr. G. C. Mondal, S. D. O. of Balurghat, in the District of Dinajpore dated 29th November 1937 dismissing the petitioners' application before the Debt Settlement Board under Section 8, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935. Mr. Mondal is an appellate officer appointed by the Local Government under Section 40 of the Act. By Clause (6) of that section the orders of the appellate officer are final. In order to enable this Court to revise an order under Section 115 of the Code the order sought to be revised must be an order of a Court subordinate to this Court. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the appellate officer is a Civil Court within the meaning of Clause 16, Letters Patent, The Civil Courts contemplated by that clause, in my opinion, do not cover Courts which are created by a special statute for a special purpose Rankin J. in . Allen Bros. & Co. v. Bando & Co. (1923) 10...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›