Kolkata Court June 1938 Judgments
Bharat Abhyudoy Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameswar Sing ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal745
Costello, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis under the provisions of Order 44, Rule 1, Civil P.C. The application is made by a company incorporated under the Companies Act called the Bharat Abhyudoy Cotton Mills Ltd. and the respondent to the application is stated to be Maharaja Sir Kameswar Singh, K. C. I. E., Maharaja Bahadur of Darbhanga. There was respondent 2 named in the petition Baidyanath Jha of District Darbhanga who is described as defendant 2. The matter arises in this way. Respondent 1, the Maharaja of Darbhanga instituted a suit against the company claiming a sum of eight lacs of rupees said to have been borrowed by the company through their managing agents, the firm of Sital Prosad Kharag Prosad and by means of the issue of 80 debentures of Rs. 10,000 each which debentures were secured by an indenture dated 4th May 1927 and were issued subject to and with the benefits of the conditions contained in, that indenture. The suit was tried in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Mahomed DIn Vs. E.H.J. Allen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal862
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C. After I had heard counsel on both sides, I indicated that the order which I thought should be made in the exercise of my discretion was one dismissing the application without costs. Although the parties were not willing to consent to such an order, neither of them offered any vigorous opposition to its being made, and strictly there is no necessity for me to deliver a formal judgment. Inasmuch however as one of the points raised is of considerable importance with regard to the procedure observed in the Court of Small Causes, I think it desirable to express my views upon it. The plaintiff on 5th August 1935, obtained a decree for rent amounting to Rs. 213-14-0. On 1st October 1935, one Mohamed Yusuf stood surety for the amount due under the decree. On 11th December 1936, an application was made by the surety for an order under Order 21, Rule 2, Sub-rule (2) for recording adjustment of the decree. This was tried o...
Tag this Judgment!Bimal Kumar Hui and anr. Vs. Sm. Purnima Dasi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal736
Sen, J.1. The point for decision in this appeal is fairly simple. The plaintiff-respondent is a minor. On 21st April 1934 she purchased a certain jama from the pro-forma defendant 3. The principal defendants 1 and 2, who are the appellants before this Court, were the landlords of this tenancy. After her purchase the plaintiff took the usual steps under Section 26-C, Ben. Ten. Act. The landlords then applied under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act, for pre-emption and gave notice to the plaintiff. The plain-tiff did not appear in the pre-emption proceedings and the Court passed an order granting the appellants' prayer for preemption. This order was passed on 16th February 1935. The plaintiff then raised the present suit. She alleged that she was a minor on the date of the pre-emption proceedings under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act, and that she was not represented in those proceedings by any guardian. She claimed -that the order of pre-emption was null and void and that her rights in the proper...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gulabari Paliram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal286
ORDERLort-Williams, J.1. This is an application under Section 36(5), Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, which provides that if on his examination under that Section any person admits that he has in his possession any property belonging to the insolvents, the Court may, on the application of the Official Assignee, order him to deliver it to the Official Assignee. It is to be observed that the powers of the Court under this sub-section depend upon the word 'admits'. Formerly, before the sub-section was amended it was provided that the Court had to be satisfied that such person had in his possession property belonging to the insolvent. Obviously this gave wider powers to the Court than the present sub-section, and the Court cannot now act unless there is a clear admission by the person examined.2. In the present case the debtors were adjudicated insolvent on 12th January 1937. Prior thereto, on 6th November 1936 the insolvent executed a deed of composition of which Brij Mohan Serowgi, the p...
Tag this Judgment!Kazi Abdul Sattar Vs. Dinajpur Trading and Banking Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal490
Edgley, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of the learned District Judge of Dinajpur, dated 25th September 1936 under which he directed that the application for discharge of the appellant should be disallowed. In the case with reference to which this appeal arises, the appellant filed his application for insolvency on 10th April 1935. An adjudication order was passed on 29th August 1935, and the appellant applied for his discharge on 8th February 1936. This application was con. tested and was disallowed by the learned District Judge in his order, dated 25th April 1936, against which this appeal is directed. The first point that arises for consideration in connexion with this appeal is whether or not this Bench has jurisdiction to hear it. With regard to this question, it appears that the appellant, at the time when he filed the appeal, valued it at Rs. 5400. It is however provided in Item 4 (iii), Section 1, Ch. 2 of the Appellate Side Rules that a Judge sitting singly may h...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaj Bahadur Singh Vs. Abdul Majid and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal26
Biswas, J.1. These two appeals arise in connexion with two mortgage suits. The mortgages were in the nature of instalment bonds, and provided for repayment of the sums borrowed in annual instalments spread over a number of years, subject to a covenant that if there was default - a single default in one case and two consecutive defaults in the other - the mortgagee would be entitled to sue for enforcement of payment of the entire amounts then due. The mortgages were registered documents-one was executed on 29th September 1917 and the other on 6th October 1917. The period of repayment in the first case was from the Bengalee year 1324 to 1331, and in the other from 1324 to 1332. The last instalment according to the bonds would be due in one case in Ealgoon 1331 corresponding to March 1925, and the other in Falgoon 1332 corresponding to March 1926. If there was default in respect of either mortgage, the mortgagee became entitled to sue on the bond on the happening of such default, but he c...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadish Prosad Basu Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal697
Henderson, J.1. Though these two rules raise certain points of law for our consideration, from the practical point of view they are concerned with the sentences which have been inflicted upon the two petitioners. Jagadish Prosad Basu was the Secretary of the Co-operative Central Bank. Satya Dayal Basu was the Assistant Secretary. It appears that between them they have successfully embezzled a large sum of money. Generally speaking the modus operendi was that, when deposits were sent from other central banks, the two petitioners diverted the money into their own pockets instead of crediting it to the accounts of their own bank. The police held an investigation into the matter and they submitted one charge sheet. The offences alleged were conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust and also specific charges with regard to definite sums of money. When the case came on for trial the prosecution, in spite of the protest of the defence, split up the case to be tried into four separate tria...
Tag this Judgment!Giridhari Lal Mundra Vs. Kumar Purnendu Narayan Roy Dev Barma and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal291
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for ejectment under Section 106, T.P. Act. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant is a tenant-at-will of the disputed holding at a rental of Rs. 18-9- 101/2 gandas, that they have served upon him the requisite notice to quit and as the defendant has not vacated the land on service of notice this suit has been brought. The defendant maintains that he is a permanent rayiat on the land and that there has been no proper service of notice upon him and that he is protected under Section 182, Ben. Ten. Act, and therefore is not liable to be ejected. In the course of the proceedings it appears that one of the plaintiffs entered into an arrangement with the defendants and accordingly he was made a pro forma defendant. So that the present plaintiff is only entitled to half share of the disputed holding and accordingly he has obtained a decree for joint possession with the pro forma defendant who was originally plaintiff 1, on payment of Rs. 2500 to the...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishon Ram Bhakat and anr. Vs. Satya NaraIn Bhakat and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal741
Edgley, J.1. A preliminary objection has been put forward to the effect that no appeal lies in this case, having regard tot the provisions of Section 102, Civil P.C. view of the fact; that the suit with reference to which this appeal arises appears to have been valued at Rs. 408 the preliminary objection must prevail. An alternative application has however been filed to the effect that the appeal may be treated as an application for revision, and this application has been granted.2. It appears that the plaintiffs obtained a decree in the Court of the Munsif at Rampurbat on 25th February 1931. This decree was put into execution at Rampurhat and a sum of Rs. 80 was realized. On 1st February 1933 the decree-holders applied to the Munsif at Rampurhat for a certificate of non-satisfaction and for the transmission of the decree for execution to the Jangipur Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 39, Civil P.C. The decree was duly transmitted for execution to the Jangipur Court, b...
Tag this Judgment!Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal713
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 435 and 439, Criminal P.C. by two men, Profulla Kumar Mukherjee and J. E. Skipp. The case is that petitioner 1 is a respectable gentleman living at Hari Ghose's Street and petitioner 2 is a respectable European merchant residing in No. 5 Kyd Street in Calcutta, that on Saturday, 18th December 1937, at about 1.30 P. M. petitioner 1 while on his way to the races, stopped in front of the premises of petitioner 2 and gave him a lift in the car as they were both going to the races. It is alleged by the prosecution that while petitioner 1 was waiting in the car in Kyd Street and petitioner 2 had just taken his seat, witness Bamzan approached the petitioners and gave them a marked ten-rupee note as his betting money and went away. Then as the car was proceeding towards Chowrin-ghee along Kyd Street, the Police Officer, prosecution witness 1, put his hackney carriage across the road and stopped the car. Then he along with other men got do...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »