Kolkata Court February 1939 Judgments
Haridhan Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Sailabala Debi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal421
Henderson, J.1. This appeal has arisen in connexion with a suit for specific performance of a contract of pre-emption. Defendant 1 sold certain property to the mother of the plaintiffs on 30th September 1912. The kobala contained an agreement to the effect that if defendant 1 desired to sell a small adjoining property which originally formed part of the property transferred, she would sell it to the plaintiffs' mother for Rs. 200. As the Sub-Registrar refused to register the document, this clause was deleted. A separate agreement was subsequently executed on 1st November 1912. After the death of the plaintiffs' mother, defendant 1 sold the property to defendant 2. As the defendants refused to execute a conveyance in favour of the plaintiffs, this suit was instituted. Both Courts have come to a finding that defendant 2 was aware of the agreement. Defendant 1 died during the pendency of the appeal to this Court. The question therefore for our decision is whether the representatives of th...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Renuka Bala Dasi W/O Provash Chandra Kole Vs. Nagendra Nath Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal655
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendant and it arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff for declaration of his title to the land in suit under the provision of Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C. The facts are not disputed and lie within a short compass. One Debendra Nath Panja to whom the land in suit admittedly belonged died leaving a widow named Subasini and a daughter by his pre-deceasedwife named Renuka. On 19th May 1930, Subasini mortgaged the property in suit to the plaintiff to secure an advance of Rs. 4000 only. On the very next day that is to say on 20th May 1930 Renuka brought a suit for maintenance against her stepmother and in that suit she prayed for declaration of a charge in respect of the maintenance claim upon the properties left by her father. This suit was decreed in April 1933 and a charge was declared in respect of the maintenance allowance upon the property in suit. After the institution of the maintenance suit and pending its decision, th...
Tag this Judgment!Anukul Chandra Bhattacharjee Vs. Surendra Nath Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal451
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for establishment of title to land and for recovery of khas possession. The land belonged originally to one Ekkari Bhattacharjee who died leaving a son named Kangali and a daughter named Shilabati. Kangali who was born in 1315 B.S., left home in 1333 B.S. and has not been heard of since then, so it is presumed that he is dead. He did not marry. Shilabati died childless in 1336 B.S. The plain, tiff's case is that he being the nearest heir as the son of Ekkari's brother has inherited the disputed property. The suit is contested by defendant 1 who is the husband of Shilabati, now deceased. His case is that Kangali was born deaf and dumb and so was excluded from inheritance, and that the property ultimately devolved on defendant 1 after the death of Shilabati and her son. The learned Munsif took up the question whether Kangali's alleged deafness and dumbness were congenital and incurable. Upon the evidence he held in the n...
Tag this Judgment!Nestle and Anglo Swiss Condensed Milk Co. Ltd. Vs. K.L. Doshi and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal466
ORDERMcNair, J.1. This is an application by the Nestle & Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company Limited for an interim injunction, pending the disposal of their suit, restraining the defendant firm from passing off a brand of milk which is called 'Cordial' Milk as the plaintiff company's 'Ideal' Milk. The plaintiffs contend that their goods are widely known throughout India and that purchasers know and recognise the particular brand of milk by the name 'ideal' as the goods of the plaintiff company. They contend that they have an exclusive right of user in the label and that the label which is being used by the defendant firm and the form of container used by the defendant firm are similar to the get-up of the plaintiff company's goods and are calculated to deceive a purchaser. There is no doubt some similarity in the get-up of the label although the colouring is slightly different. The three colours which have been used in both the labels are blue, white and red. The coloured portion of th...
Tag this Judgment!Madhab Chandra Ghose and ors. Vs. Nirod Chandra Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal477
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants in a suit for recovery of Rs. 500 as damages on the ground that they had made certain defamatory state, meats against the plaintiff by sending certain reports to the police and giving false evidence in two criminal cases. Shortly stated, the allegations are these: On 21st November 1934 defendant 3 sent a report to the officer of the Moulvi Bazar Police Station alleging that one Alhadini, a widow, had given birth to a child, that Nirod Chandra Ghose, the plaintiff, was responsible for the illicit pregnancy of the woman, and that the child had been killed. This report was followed up by two other reports which were sent by defendant 1 and defendant 3 to the police. As the result, the police officer started investigation. It is said that during the investigation the police officers were resisted by the plaintiff and his party. The result was that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gopal Chandra Ghose, instituted a case under Section 147...
Tag this Judgment!Jnanendra Nath Pramanik Vs. Nilmony Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal701
Rau, J.1. In this rule we are invited to set aside an order of the Third Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta dismissing under Section 203, Criminal P.C., a complaint made by the petitioner Jnanendra Nath Pramanik against Nilmony Dey on 14th July 1938 under Section 420, I.P.C. The complaint was that on 22nd December 1937 Nilmony Dey obtained a loan of Rupees 500 (subsequently increased by further advances) from the petitioner, secured uncertain property, namely 2 talkie machines, 400 seats, 4 tables, and 12 chairs, which Nilmony Dey falsely represented to be the unencumbered property of the Talkie Show House of which he (Nilmony Dey) was then receiver. In fact, it was alleged, the entire stock-in-trade and assets of the Show House, including some of the hypothecated articles, were at that time under attachment to the receiver's knowledge. There was a police inquiry, and as the result, a warrant was issued against him on 26th July 1938. He surrendered next day. Before examining any witness...
Tag this Judgment!Gopaldas Choudhury Vs. Satindra Kumar Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal749
Henderson, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant now asks for a declaration that a certain tenancy comprised in khatian No. 5 of Mouza Pathakata, granted by defendant 1 in favour of certain persons, who will by referred to as the Pals, is a tenure which affects the interest of defendant 1 only and is not admitted to be a permanent tenure by the plaintiff. The dispute arose in connexion with certain partition proceedings taken by the Collector of Mymensingh under the Estates Partition Act. The subject-matter of the case was touzi No. 144 and the proceedings were started in the year 1914. The lands form part of Pargana Sherpore and were held ejmali with certain other estates. The first stage before the Collector was to decide what lands should be allotted to the estate actually under partition. The proceedings were held up by a title suit which was eventually compromised. In due course, the Deputy Collector proceeded to take action under Chap. VI of the Act. The dispute actually came to a head wh...
Tag this Judgment!Bando and Co. Ltd. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal614
Lort-Williams, J.1. The plaintiffs claim a sum of Rs. 7,43,690-3.5 for work done and material supplied and in respect of retention money and security deposits, under several contracts, and for compensation for loss sustained owing to alleged breaches of those contracts. The defendants deny that anything is due to the plaintiffs and plead inter alia that the suit is barred by limitation owing to the absence of notice under Section 538, Calcutta Municipal Act. It is admitted by the plaintiffs that no such notice was given. A number of issues have been raised, the first being: 'Is the suit maintainable in the absence of notice under the provisions of Section 538, Calcutta Municipal Act?' Both parties have asked me to try this issue as a preliminary issue under Order 14, Rule 2, Civil P.C., and for the purposes of this issue, the facts alleged in the(plaint and the contracts, copies of which are contained in Ex. 1, are admitted. Section 538, Calcutta Municipal Act, so far as it is relevant...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendra Nath Kar Sarkar Vs. Babu Pramatha Nath Guha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal503
Khundkar, J.1. This appeal arises out of insolvency proceedings, and is directed against an order of the learned District Judge of Mymensingh dated 30th September 1936 by which he annulled certain dispositions regarding immovable property made by the insolvent Surendra Nath Sarma Sarkar. Surendra was adjudicated insolvent on 18th May 1935, on his own application under Section 74, Provincial Insolvency Act. On 1st June 1935, one Mahendra Chandro Saha, creditor No. 6, applied for annulment of the transactions in question, a receiver was appointed and he held an inquiry and made a report. On 17th September 1935 the receiver filed three petitions praying that three respective transactions made by the insolvent be declared void as against the receiver. The documents by which these transactions were effected were, firstly a deed of gift Ex. 2 dated 25th January 1927, executed by the insolvent in favour of his wife; secondly a mortgage Ex. C dated 15th March 1927 executed jointly by Surendra ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubir Shaw Vs. Rawsan Shaw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal197
1. This appeal is on behalf of the decree-holder, and it arises out of proceedings started on an application of the judgment-debtor to the executing Court, by which he claimed restitution of the structures which were on the land. The facts are these the decree-holder was the landlord and the judgment-debtor the tenant in respect of some land. The structures on the land, it appears, had been raised by the tenant and were his properties. The decree-holder instituted a suit in ejectment after service of notice to quit, and he wanted khas possession of the land, which was the subject-matter of the suit. He obtained a decree on 17th June 1935. The material portion of the decree runs thus:It is further ordered and decreed that the plaintiff do get khas possession of the land in suit by ejecting defendant therefrom. It is further ordered that the defendant do remove the structures which are on the land, within two months from this date, failing which the structures will be removed by the plai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »