Kolkata Court February 1939 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.
C.K. Bezbarua, Assignee of Planter Stores and Agency Co. Ltd. Vs. Golo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal425
1. Three persons, Golok Chandra Bezbarua, Ananda Chandra Bezbarua and Jogeswar Bezbarua, executed a mortgage on 29th May 1925 in favour of Planters Stores and Agency Co. Ltd. The said company instituted against the said three persons a suit to enforce their mortgage. A preliminary decree was passed on 30th August 1930 and the final decree on 16th April 1931. The final decree was for a sum over Rupees 30,000. In 1934, the said company put their decree into execution, but nothing came out of those execution proceedings. On 8th October 1934, one of the judgment-debtors, Jogeswar, sold his share in the mortgaged properties to C.K. Bezbarua who is the appellant before us. A year after, the company again applied for execution, and it was numbered as Execution Case No. 70 of 1935. During the pendency of this execution case, or it may be even before the execution was started, moneys were paid on behalf of the judgment-debtors to the company in part satisfaction of their decree with the result ...
Priya Kanta Pal, Partner of Firm Priya Kanta Sashi Kumar Pal Vs. Sudhi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal471
1. The decree-holder is the appellant before us. He instituted a suit for money in the year 1934 against two persons, Gobindalal Roy Chowdhury and Sudhir Chandra Roy Ghowdhury who was a minor at the date of the suit, and is still a minor. In the suit his proposed natural guardian did not appear with the result that the Court appointed a pleader named Mr. Golam Mowla as his guardian ad litem. The suit terminated in a decree in favour of the appellant in July 1935. Shortly after that a case under Act 8 of 1890 was started in the Court of the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the minor resided and his brother-in-law, Gajendralal Roy was appointed by the District Judge as the guardian of his person and property. In 1936 the appellant started his first execution (numbered 122 of 1936) against the two judgment-debtors, Gobinda and Sudhir. In the application for execution Sudhir was described,as a minor being represented by his certificated guardian Gajendralal Eoy. After this executio...
Bhabaranjan Das Dewri Vs. Nibaran Chandra Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal349
Derbyshire, C.J.1. The appellant appeals from the decision of the Additional District Judge, Fourth Court, Bakerganj, dated 23rd April 1938, whereby the learned Judge reversed the order of the Munsif whereby the respondent was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 80 to the appellant under Section 144, Civil P.C. The facts are these : In 1928 an ex parte decree of ejectment was obtained by the decree-holder respondent against the appellant in respect of his homestead. The homestead was sold to satisfy the cost of that decree and the appellant took proceedings to set aside the sale. In the course of those proceedings on 13th June 1931 the appellant deposited the sum of Rs. 80 with the Court for payment to the auction-purchaser of the homestead, in accordance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C. On 28th February 1933, in a suit by the appellant the decree of ejectment was set aside on the ground of fraud. On 29th March 1933, there was an appeal against the decree of setting aside t...
Baburali Sardar and ors. Vs. Kala Chand Bepari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal728
ORDEREdgley, J.1. In this case the petitioners were convicted by Mr. H.N. Bose, Deputy Magistrate of Narayanganj, on 15th August 1938 in respect of offences under Section 323, I.P.C. and were sentenced to pay fines of Rs. 30 each or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. On 9th November 1938, the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Dacca was asked to refer this case to the High Court on the ground of certain alleged illegalities in the order of the trial Court, but he declined to do so. This Court was then moved in revision on 19th January 1939. The main ground urged in support of the petitioners application was to the effect that the dispute between the petitioners and the complain, ant had been compromised. A Rule was therefore issued upon the District Magistrate of Dacca and the complainant to show cause why the order of the trial Court should not be set aside on the ground that, even although there was no suggestion that the case should be compromised before th...
Ezekiel Ephraim Ezekiel and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal346
Rau, J.1. In this rule the District Magistrate of the 24 Parganas has been asked to show cause why the order of confiscation passed by the Deputy Magistrate of Alipore in the Gariahat Excise Conspiracy Case in respect of certain stocks of liquor at 4, Lindsay Street, 46, New Park Street, and 17, Mangoe Lane (including the 'Excise Bond') and the 'Customs Bond' should not be set aside. In Revn. No. 1100 of 1938 (J.E. Gubbey v. Emperor) we shall deal with the trying Magistrate's order of confiscation so far as it relates to the stock of liquor at 8, Lindsay Street. In the present; rule, we are concerned with that portion of the order which relates to the stocks of liquor at the other places named above. The circumstances in which the Magistrate passed the order of confiscation are briefly these : On 14th February 1938, immediately after he had delivered judgment in what is known as the Gariahat Excise Conspiracy Case Emperor v. C.N. Naidu and Ors. an application was made before him by the...
Solomon Ezekiel and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal376
Rau, J.1. In this rule, the District Magistrate of the 24-Perganas has been, called upon to show cause (1) why the conviction of, and the sentence passed upon, the petitioner Solomon Ezekiel in respect of charge No. 15 in the Gariahat Excise Conspiracy Case should not be set aside and (2) why the sentences passed upon both petitioners should not be reduced. Charge No. 15 is under Section 420, I.P.C., and relates to the sale of three bottles of liquor falsely labelled Miller Macpherson's House of Lords Scotch Whisky. The petitioner Solomon Ezekiel was originally convicted and-sentenced as follows:(1) On charge No. 1 (criminal conspiracy) ... 2 yeara' R. I.(2) On charge No. 3 (abetment of certain excise offences) ... 6 months' R. I.(3) On charge No. 8 (Do) ... 6 months' R. I.(4) On charge No. 12 (Do) ... 6 months' R. I.(5) On charge No. 14 (attempt to cheat) ... 2 years' R. I.(6) On charge No. 15 (cheating) ... 2 years' R. I.2. The sentences on the last five charges were to be concurrent...
Basanta Kumar Churnakar Vs. Durga Nath Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal432
ORDEREdgley, J.1. The petitioner in this case, Basanta Kumar Ohurnakar, has applied to 'this Court in order that two orders passed by the learned Munsif of Tangail dated respectively 13th September 1938 and 22nd September 1938 may be set aside. Under the first of these two orders the learned Munsif expunged the petitioner's name from the proceedings in a pre-emption case instituted by opposite parties 1 to 3 on 4th June 1937. Under the latter order, the learned Munsif allowed the application for pre-emption filed by the aforesaid opposite parties.2. The facts with which we are concerned in respect of the application are briefly as follows: On 12th January 1937, the petitioner executed a document which purports to be a deed of sale in favour of opposite parties 4 to 13. The petitioner's immediate landlords, opposite parties 1 to 3, there-upon applied for pre-emption under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act. Their application was filed, as stated above, on 4th June 1937. The petitioner however ...
Jatiya Kalyan Insurance Society Ltd. Vs. Saroj Ranjan Chaudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal489
ORDERMcNair, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., for setting aside a decree passed by the Court of Small Causes in terms of an award. The plaintiff in the Small Cause Court is the respondent to this application. He sued the Insurance Company, the present applicants, with whom he had been employed as General Manager. The Company were apparently dissatisfied with his services and an interview took place between the plaintiff and a Director of the Company at which, according to the plaintiff, it was arranged that upon the plaintiffs' accounts being adjusted and paid, and upon the defendant Company granting the plaintiff a certificate of having j taken over charge from him, he would resign, and he wrote a letter to that effect. The defendant Company thereafter passed a resolution purporting to accept the alleged resignation of the plaintiff. The plain, tiff in his plaint in the Small Cause Court alleged that he had tendered his resignation conditionally, that the con...
Rangpur Loan Office Ltd. and ors. Vs. Rai Tarit Bhusan Roy Bahadur and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal369
1. These three appeals are directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Bangpur dated 30th July 1936 by which he has refused to set aside a sale held on 12th August 1935, At that sale the decree-holder who is respondent 1 before us purchased the properties for Rs. 48,400. The Mukherjees were the proprietors of the properties which go by the name of the Tushbhandar estate, Chota taraf. They being disqualified proprietors, the estate was in the management of the Court of Wards from before 1927. On 10th February 1927, the Manager of the Court of Wards borrowed a sum of Rupees 1,20,000 from the Rangpur Loan Office Ltd., (hereafter called the Bank) and executed on behalf of the proprietors a mortgage in favour of the latter hypothecating the properties which are the subject-matter of the proceedings before us. On 15th September 1930, the Bank borrowed Rupees 50,000 from respondent 1 on the security of a sub-mortgage of the said properties executed on the same date. The said...
Bibhuti Bhusan Sarcar and ors. Vs. Promoda Sundary Deby Wife of Ahi Bh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal468
ORDERBiswas, J.1. This is a rule obtained by the plaintiffs in a suit which was dismissed by the Small Cause Court Judge of Ranaghat. The suit had been originally filed before him sitting as a Munsif in his ordinary jurisdiction, but was afterwards transferred to his Small Cause Court file and disposed of by him in the exercise of his Small Cause Court jurisdiction. The plaintiffs were purchasers of a touji at a sale for arrears of revenue. The sale was held on 27th March 1933, but took e'ffect from 13th January 1933, corresponding to 29th or the last date of Pous, 1339 B.S. Under the touji the defendant held a putni at an annual rent of Rs. 550-3-0. Shortly after the sale, on 1st April 1933, or 18th Chaitra, 1339 B.S., the plaintiffs purported to annul the putni under Section 37 of Act 11 of 1859. The plaintiff's case is that notwithstanding the sale and the annulment, the defendant went on realizing rents from the tenants under him which it is alleged were payable in quarterly kists....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »