Kolkata Court July 1938 Judgments
Midnapore Zamindary Co. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Singha Dudhuria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal1
Nasim Ali, J.1. These two appeals are by the defendants in two suits between the same parties for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the same tenancy for two consecutive periods, namely 1328 B.S. to 1331 B.S. and 1332 B.S. to 1335 B.S. The facts which are not in dispute now are these : The plaintiffs are the proprietors of tauzi No. 523 of the Murshidabad Collectorate. The defendants hold a putni taluk comprising some villages appertaining to this tauzi at a rent fixed in perpetuity on the basis of a putni patta (Ex. A) executed by the processors-in-interest of the plaintiffs in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants on 5th November 1866. Some lands appertaining to the plaintiffs zemindary and the defendants' putni were diluviated by the river Ganges in 1867-68. There was a Diara Survey. The proprietors of the estate received abatement of revenue under Section 5, Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act, (Act 9 of 1847) in the year 1871. The putnidars received no abate...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Badli Meah Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal289
Derbyshire, C.J.1. In this case the 'petitioner, Sheikh Badli Meah, obtained a rule against the Corporation of Calcutta to show cause why an order under Section 363, Calcutta Muneipal Act, directing the demolition of a hut by the Corporation at the expense of the petitioner, should not be set aside. The relevant facts are these : The petitioner became the owner of a hut situate on some land inside the Municipality of Calcutta in 1929 and has been the owner ever since. In May 1933 the Building Inspector of the Calcutta Corporation observed that work was being done to that hut. He saw that work was being done on 2nd May. He gave notice for it to cease. On 7th May it had stopped, but on 4th August 1933, he found that the work had been completed. The nature of the hut in question is not stated and must be gathered from a passage in the Municipal Magistrate's judgment stated hereafter. These proceedings were taken by the Calcutta Corporation on the complaint of the District Surveyor on 4th ...
Tag this Judgment!Chatra Serampore Co-operative Credit Society, Ltd. and ors. Vs. Bechar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal829
1. (28th June 1938).- This appeal arises out of a suit for damages : (a) for malicious prosecution, and (b) for wrongful dismissal from service. There are nine defendants to the suit. Defendant 1 is the Chatra Serampore Co-operative Credit Society, a Society established under the Co-operative Societies Act and carrying on banking business. The plaintiff Becharam was the Manager of the Society. He was dismissed on the 29th May 1929. Defendant 2 Bhupendra is a Government Inspector of Co-operative Societies. He was appointed Manager of the Society with the consent of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for 6 months in the place of the plaintiff, and discharged his duties as such in addition to his own duties as Inspector. Defendants 3 to 9 were some of the members of the Managing Committee of the Society at the material time. The claim for damages for malicious prosecution is against all the defendants, and the other claim is against defendant 1, hereafter to be called the Society. In...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Dasi Dasi W/O Fanindra Nath Nandy Vs. Santosh Kumar Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal730
S.K. Ghose, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money on the allegation that defendants 1 to 4 who are related to the plaintiff, an elderly Hindu widow, borrowed from her Rs. 2000 on 1st Agrahayan 1338 B. S. corresponding to 17th December 1931 promising to pay interest at 12 per cent. per annum. The loan was an oral one. The defence was that the claim was false, that there was no such loan and, further, that the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiff brought the suit on 27th June 1934 within three years of the alleged transaction. At the same time she filed as application for permission to sue as a pauper. On 10th December 1934, the Subordinate Judge rejected the pauper application with costs, but it was not till 10th January 1935 that the robakari was drawn up stating that the costs amounted to Rs. 10-10-6 payable to Government and Rs. 16-7-0 payable to the defendants opposite parties. It was not stated that the costs were to be paid within a...
Tag this Judgment!Golak Behari Mondal and ors. Vs. Suradhani Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal226
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff who is the principal respondent in the appeal filed the suit for declaration of her one third' share in the properties in suit and for possession by partition by metes and bounds. There was also a prayer for mesne profits. Her case is that the properties in suit. belonged to her father-in-law, Bisweswara, Mondal, who by his will, dated 24th July 1908, executed a few days before his death,,, devised in absolute right the residue of his estate to his three surviving sons in equal shares. Her husband, Surath, the eldest of these surviving sons, accordingly got in absolute right one-third of the properties in suit and on his death in 1909, she, as his heir, has inherited the same. The defence of the contesting defendants (1 to 3) is that under the said will the plaintiff has no right to the said share and some of the properties in suit are their self-acquired properties. The relationship of the parties to the suit will appear from the following pedigree: BIS...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chouthmal Golapchand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal559
Derbyshire, C.J.1. The facts in this case are set out in the case and in annexure A, dated 8th January 1936. The first question is whether on the facts of this case the assessees were entitled to claim a loss on shares by valuing the shares at their market price on the date on which they were divided up amongst the partners? It has been contended by the assessees that these shares were sold by the partnership to the outgoing partners, and not partitioned as the case states. The case, in my opinion, is in accordance with the facts and is conclusive on that point. The shares in question were acquired sometime previous to the beginning of the accounting year - we are not told how long previous. It is common ground that they were acquired at a price higher than the price ruling on 8th March or 30th March 1936. They had been shown in the books of the partnership and carried forward from year to year at the cost price. The assessees say that there was properly a loss on the disposal of those...
Tag this Judgment!Manoda Mohini Das W/O Girish Chandra Mondal Vs. Sm. Sakina Bibi W/O Dr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal738
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff, and it arises out of a suit commenced by her for a declaration that the sale of touzi No. 2881/8 D plot 5th portion of the 24-Parganas Collectorate, held by the Collector under Act 11 of 1859 was illegal and ultra vires, and did not affect her interest. There was also a prayer for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking possession of the estate. The facts lie within a narrow compass and are for the most part undisputed. The plaintiff had a two annas share in touzi No. 2881 of the 24-Parganas Collectorate, and there was a separate account opened in respect of that share which was S. A. No. 2881/8. The total revenue fixed for this separate account was Rs. 139-8-0 and this was payable in three instalments to wit, in January, March and June every year. The plaintiff's case is that she deposited the revenue due for the January kist of 1934, amounting to Rs. 27.11.0 in the Collectorate on 26th January 193...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Chandra Bhaduri and ors. Vs. Mohini Mohan Mazumdar Chaudhury and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal28
S.K. Ghose, J.1. These second appeals arise out of five suits for recovery of arrears of rent for the period 1338 to 1341 Aswin. The tenancies are occupancy holdings. One Sarat Chandra Bhaduri was a co-sharer landlord to the extent of one anna odd share. In execution of a mortgage decree the plaintiff purchased that share on 22nd April 1918 and took delivery of possession thereafter. It has been found that Sarat Bhaduri however continued to be in possession for some time and realized rent up to 1332 B.S. corresponding to 1925 A.D. The pro forma defendants 12 to 14 are the other co-sharer landlords. In 1930 they brought a suit for arrears of rent in respect of their shares in which they impleaded Sarat Bhaduri but not the present plaintiff. They obtained a decree and in execution of that decree they auction-purchased the tenancies. It has been found that with the exception of the Aswin Kist of 1338 B.S. defendants 12 to 14 were in possession in respect of the period in suit. The plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Ayub Ali and anr. Vs. Amir Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal268
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs and it is directed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Chittagong, modifying that of the Munaif, Fourth Court of that place passed in O.S.S. No. 539 of 1934. The facts are not disputed and the controversy, so far as this appeal is concerned, centres round a short point of law.2. The plaintiffs commenced this suit for a declaration that they were the mutwall is of certain wakf estate created by Hazi Abdul Ali Sowdagar and the properties described in the schedule to the plaiut were wakf properties. It was alleged that Laturi Bibi, the wife of the founder, who was the previous mutwalli had committed various acts of breach of trust by executing benami conveyances in respect of some of the wakf properties in favour of defendants 2, 3, 5 and 7 and not paying the revenue in respect of the touzi described in Schedule 8 which led to that property being sold for arrears of revenue. The plaintiffs prayed fo...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirendra Nath Sen and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal721
Bartley, J.1. Appellants, the editor, and the printer and publisher of a paper called the Hindusthan Standard, have been convicted of sedition, in respect of an article published in the issue of that paper dated 27th November last. The sole question for decision in this appeal is whether the article falls within the mischief of Section 124-A of the Penal Code. In form, it is an onslaught upon a certain Education Bill, and the contention on behalf of the prosecution, which has been accepted by the Court below, is that it excited hatred, contempt and disaffection towards the Ministry in Bengal and was therefore seditious. An article is in law, seditious when it brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in British India. Government, in this connexion, denotes the person or persons authorized by law to administer executive Government in any part of British India. The question before us then i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »