Kolkata Court April 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.
Suresh Chandra Mukherji and ors. Vs. Biswa Nath Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal772
Jack, J. 1. This is an application under Section 2, Contempt of Courts Act (Act 12 of 1926). The petitioners have obtained a rule upon the opposite parties to show cause why they should not be committed or otherwise dealt with according to law for contempt of Court inasmuch as during the pendency of Title Suit No. 46 of 1936 of the 2nd Court of the Munsif at Sealdah opposite parties Nos. 2 to 7 published a certain notice. Opposite party No. 1 presided over and opposite parties Nos. 2 to 7 and 9 and 10 took part in a meeting at which certain resolutions were passed. Opposite party No. 9, an employee of the plaintiff, who is opposite party No. 8, and opposite party No. 10, an added plaintiff in the suit, took part in circulating the notice and these proceedings are said to have been instigated by opposite party No. 8, the plaintiff, in whose interest they took place. Opposite party No. 1 caused an article, drafted by opposite party No. 2 and purporting to be a report of the proceedings o...
Jetha Lal Laxmi Chand Shah Vs. Amrita Lal Ojha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal260
Costello, J.1. The short point which arises in this appeal is whether or not the learned Judge had power to extend the time for the filing of the award which was submitted to the Court on 4th January 1938. No question has been canvassed before us as to whether the learned Judge had before him materials upon which he could exercise his discretion, if in fact, he had jurisdiction to make any order for the enlargement of time for the submission of the award; nor was that question raised in any of the grounds set forth in the memorandum. It follows therefore that the only question we have to determine is a very short point of law. It is perhaps desirable however that I should state briefly how the matter comes before this Court and refer to one or two chronological features of the case.2. There was a suit brought for the determination of the question whether or not the plaintiff, Amrita Lal Ojha, was entitled to a declaration that a certain business belonged to him and if so, whether he wa...
Madan Mohan Sarkar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal264
Derbyshire, C.J.1. In my opinion this appeal is misconceived. It is really an attempt to appeal against an order of the District Judge, sitting in insolvency, made under Section 70, Provincial Insolvency Act. The District Judge has made a preliminary enquiry and consequent on that he has' made a complaint to the Magistrate so that; the Magistrate should deal with it under Section 69 of the Act. If there is any appeal against such an order, and I for my part am not prepared to say that there is, it seems to me that it must be under Section 75, Sub-section (3) of the Act, and only by leave of either the District Court or the High Court. Such leave has not been obtained. Again, speaking for myself, I am of the opinion that a very strong case will be needed to justify the granting of such leave because it would be tantamount to stopping the proceedings under Section 69 and Section 70 in limine and before the facts have been fully enquired into by a Magistrate. Such procedure would, in my v...
Chittagong Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Indo Burmah Traders Bank L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal521
Edgley, J. 1. The question for consideration in this rule is whether or not a deposit made by a judgment-debtor for the purpose of setting aside an execution sale under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C. can be regarded as an asset liable to rateable distribution under Section 73 of the Code. It was so held by the learned Munsif- but the contention of the decree-holder petitioner is that the deposit was specifically earmarked for payment to him and that, in these circumstances, it cannot be governed by the provisions of Section 73, Civil P.C. The expression 'assets' in Section 73 of the Code clearly includes assets held by the Court, the ultimate purpose of which is to satisfy decrees outstanding against a judgment-debtor. The source from which such assets originated appears to be immaterial provided they are in the custody of the Court. It was held by this Court in Hari Saha v. Faizlar Rahman (1913) 40 Cal 619 that, although money paid into Court under Order 21, Rule 89 might be regarded a...
Roy Satindra Nath Choudhury and ors. Vs. Roy Harendra Nath Choudhury a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal529
1. These four appeals arise out of litigation among three parties, (1) Rai Satindra Nath Choudhury, appellant in Appeal No. 984, (2) Rai Dhirendra Nath Choudhury, appellant in Appeals Nos. 1061 and l062, and (3) Rai Harendra Nath Choudhury, who is respondent in the above three appeals and appellant in Appeal no. l355. Upon hearing the learned advocates, it appears that these three parties are co-sharer landlords in respect of a temporarily settled estate under Government and they are also co-sharer tenants in respect of certain permanent tenures which were created by their predecessors within the estate. It appears that in 1827, the Government of Bengal granted a permanent lease to the predecessors of the parties in respect of the estate. Thereafter, in 1840, the lessors created certain permanent tenures at fixed rent under the above permanent lease. These tenures were held by themselves. Thereafter in 1853, the Government offered certain terms to the lessors whereupon the lessors surr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›