Kolkata Court July 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.
Rev. Father P. Mesaric Vs. Rai Ramani Mohan Banerjee Bahadur, Advocate
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal766
Derbyshire, C.J.1. Mr. Surita on behalf of Father Mesaric has told us that he does not flow dispute the findings of the Bar Council. We were taken through the report of the Bar Council yesterday and a considerable amount of material was placed before us relating to the matter. Doubtless if the matter had gone further there would have been other materials placed before us. On what has already been placed before us and having regard to Mr. Surita's acceptance of it, we can only confirm the findings of the Bar Council. I wish to read the conclusion of their report:The questions complained against are prima facie defamatory and scandalous. There was no definite charge of sexual immorality against Father Mesaric except, perhaps, in the portion 'keeping an asylum of similarly collected girls'. There can be no question and as we have already found that the Rai Bahadur, (i.e. the opposite party) had in his hands statements containing allegations of gross sexual immorality against the Father an...
Jogesh Chandra Chakravarty Vs. Mahesh Chandra Chakladar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal750
Biswas, J. 1. We are invited in this Rule to consider the propriety of an order made by the first Subordinate Judge of Mymenaingh staying an execution proceeding in pursuance of a notice under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act 1935 (7 of 1936). The petitioner is the decree-holder who held a mortgage decree against two per-sons Mahesh Chandra Chakladar and Rai Umesh Chandra Chakladar Bahadur for a sum of Rs. 10,000 odd with costs and interest. He put the decree into execution in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge at Mymensingh, upon which one of the judgment-debtors Mahesh applied under Section 8, Sub-section (1), Bengal Agricultural Debtors. Act for settlement of his debts and in this application included the debt due under the said mortgage decree. This application was made on 15th August 1937, to the Rasulpur Debt Settlement Board, which on receipt of the application, issued a notice under Section 34 to the Court of the Subordinate nate Judge where the execution case ...
Satish Chandra Kundu and anr. Vs. Naogaon Union Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal753
S.K. Ghose, J. 1. This matter has come up to us under the following circumstances: There was an insolvency case started at the instance of the creditors on 24th June 1935 and the debtor was adjudged to be an insolvent on 6th April 1936. He thereupon filed an appeal being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 240 of 1936 on 13th May 1936. Subsequently he filed an application under Section 8, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935, before the Debt Settlement Board. On 30th May 1938 the Chairman of the Debt Settlement Board addressed a letter to the Registrar of this Court requesting that the hearing of the aforesaid miscellaneous appeal might be stayed. The question before us is whether, treating this as a notice under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, this Court must stay the hearing of the aforesaid appeal. The debtor appellant; supports the notice for stay of his own appeal while the creditor respondents oppose it. It is now well settled that while it is for the Board to decide whether t...
Himansu Kumar Roy Chowdhury Vs. Moulvi Hasem Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal818
Nasim Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession. The Barisal Loan Company obtained a decree for Rs. 4653 odd against the father of defendant 5 on 9th June 1929. They put this decree into execution on 28th December 1929. Defendants 1 to 4 purchased this decree during the pendency of this execution case and were substituted in place of the Company on 20th February 1930. Thereafter the execution case was struck off on 9th July 1930. On 28th November 1930, the decree was put into execution again by the assignees. On 10th December 1930, the judgment-debtor executed a trust deed (Ex. 12) by which he appointed the plain-tiff a trustee for the payment of his debts. The material portion of this document is as follows:I execute this trust deed to the following effect: for want of good management my estate is not being properly managed and protected; therefore being involved in debt and being unable to satisfy the same, on 17th Sraban 1322 last I appointed Babu Ganesh Chandra Das ...
Ram Ratan Das Bagri and ors. Vs. Mt. Sew Kumari Bibi W/O Lal Bahadur S ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal823
1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit to enforce an equitable mortgage, said to have been made by defendants 1 to 3, herein called the Mukherjis, on 19th October 1928. Defendant 4, Sew Kumari Bibi has been impleaded on the ground that as she had taken a permanent lease from the Mukherjis after the mortgage, she was entitled to redeem but that her lease was not binding on the plaintiffs mortgagees. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows : Defendants 1, 2 and 3 were partners of a firm which carried on business under the name and style of B. N. Mukherji & Co. and they had business dealings with the plaintiffs. They wanted a loan of Rs. 7500 but the plaintiffs were not willing to advance the money except on security. They agreed to give as security their immovable property being premises, formerly No. 98, now No. 7, Jaya Bibi Lane, in the town of Howrah. This was a few days before 19th October 1928 for, we have in evidence that the premises, No. 7 Jaya Bibi Lane, was in...
Prasannadeb Raikat and ors. Vs. Tabiur Rahaman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal866
S.K. Ghose, J.1. These three appeals arise out of three suits instituted by the landlord for enhancement of rent of three tenancies after serving notice under Section 13 of Act 10 of 1859 and for realization of arrears of rent at the enhanced rate. In Suit No. 43 which has given rise to Second Appeal No. 1094 the tenancy is Jote Mohan Bhog and comprises 7285 acres held at a rental of Rs. 16-4-0 per year. In the notice the landlord claimed at an enhanced rate at Rs. 1979-11-0. The Deputy Collector, before whom the suit was instituted decreed' the suit at Rs. 537-12-0. Both parties appealed to the District Judge. The District Judge dismissed the suit, holding that the lands are not agricultural and Act 10 of 1859 does not apply. Against that decision the plaintiff landlord has filed Second Appeal No. 1094 of 1936. In Suit No. 44 which has given rise to Second Appeal No. 1362 the tenancy which is described as Nipur Bigha comprises 417 acres held at a rental of Rs. 22-8.0. In the notice th...
Priyabala Dasi W/O Birendra Kumar Roy Vs. Hanuman Prasad Kalwar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal202
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal in an apportionment case. As the matter was decided by the President sitting singly, the appeal lies on questions of fact as also of law under the provision of Section 3, Sub-section (1), Clause (a), Calcutta Improvement (Appeals) Act, (18 of 1911). The dispute is as regards a sum of Rs. 690 which had been awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector on account of the value of certain structures in premises Nos. 125 and 126, Manicktolla Road. The. Collector made the award in favour of one Debi Charan Biswas who claimed to be the purchaser of the structures at a sale held in execution of a decree for rent against the tenant of the premises. The whole of the amount was withdrawn by Debi Charan after the award. Thereafter one Hanuman Prosad Kalwar appeared before the Collector and applied for a reference to the Tribunal under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, on the ground that he was a ...
In Re: Section 5, Court-fees Act 7 of 1870; in Re: Official Assignee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal755
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This matter has been referred to me by the Taxing Officer as the Judge specially appointed in that behalf by the Chief Justice under Section 5, Court-fees Act, 1870. The circumstances are as follows : One Umar Shanker Chatterjee was adjudicated an insolvent by this Court under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 on 13th February 1934. The insolvent was thereafter publicly examined under Section 27, Insolvency Act, his examination being concluded on 17th February 1938. The Official Assignee of Calcutta desires to have a certified copy of the notes of the insolvent's examination for the purpose of taking steps to have a deed of settlement executed by the insolvent on 5th July 1932 set aside. The Registrar in insolvency refuses to furnish the copy except on payment by the Official Assignee of a fee of As. 5 per folio as prescribed by Rule 204 of the Rules made under Section 112 of the Act. The Official Assignee maintains that he is entitled to obtain a copy wit...
Secretary of State Vs. Surendra Nath Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal759
1. This appeal by the defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Howrah dated 29th February 1936. By that judgment and decree the plaintiff's claim was allowed in part. The plaintiff has also filed a memorandum of cross-objections. The plaintiff entered the service of the East Indian Railway Company in 1901 as a clerk and continued to be so till the end of 1924. In 1925 the Railway became a State Railway, and the plaintiff's service was continued by the Railway Board acting on behalf of the Government of India, the plaintiff entering into a contract with the latter. The material terms of the contract which is printed at p. 4 of part 2 of the paper book are : (i) the service was to be that of a monthly servant, terminable at any time on a month's notice on either side or by payment by Government of a month's salary in lieu of notice, (ii) he was liable to immediate dismissal or suspensions witho...
Sm. Saraswati Devi Vs. Bahadur Lal Missir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal183
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal in an apportionment case. The dispute is as regards a sum of Rs. 7245 in respect of which the Land Acquisition Collector had made a joint award in favour of two persons, Bahadur Lal Missir, and Sm. Saraswati Debi, widow of one Gouri Sankar Missir. The former is described as claimant No. 1 and the latter as claimant No. 2 in these proceedings. The sum was awarded as the value of certain structures which stood on premises No. 9/12, Kalakar Street, which had been acquired on behalf of the Calcutta Improvement Trust in connexion with Scheme No. 42, Kalakar Street widening. The learned President by his order directed the whole of the compensation to be paid to claimant No. 1 on the footing of a mortgage which he had set up. Hence the present appeal by claimant No. 2. It appeared that before the Land Acquisition Collector claimant No. 1 had claimed compensation as owner of the structures but ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »