Kolkata Court March 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.
Kedar Nath Bothra Vs. Baijnath Bothra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal494
McNair, J.1. This is an application by Kedarnath Bothra, an infant, represented by his mother, Mt. Tiju, calling upon Mt. Kesar Bai to appear and answer as to why the Sheriff of Calcutta should not give possession of a portion of No. 48, Nolini Sett Road in terms of the order to that effect dated 19th November 1938. In May 1925 the present applicant brought a suit for partition of the joint properties of his father, Hiralal, and his uncle, Johurmull. The lady who is now resisting possession, which the Sheriff seeks to take, is the widow of Johurmull who died on 16th June 1935. In 1927 there was a partition decree by consent in which it was declared that Hiralal and Johurmull each had a half share, and an order made in May 1931 directed a sale of the premises among the parties. At that sale Johurmull bought No. 48, Nolini Sett Eoad subject to the condition that he would execute a mortgage in respect of the entirety of the property sold to secure the purchase money and he covenanted that...
T.O. Aykut Vs. M.O. Aykut
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal75
ORDERMcNair, J.1. This is a wife's petition for a decree that her marriage with the respondent may be declared null and void. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner at the time of the marriage was domiciled in Austria and was an Austrian subject. The respondent was a Turk. The parties went through the form of marriage at the register office in Calcutta on 8th March 1937. The petitioner has given evidence in which she has stated that she is a professing Christian and a Roman Catholic. She has further stated that she would not marry anybody who was not a Roman Catholic; prior to their marriage the respondent informed her that he was a Roman Catholic and he signed a paper to that effect. She also states that when they went to the register office where the form of marriage was celebrated, the respondent swore that he was a Roman Catholic and she states further that she would never have married him had she known that he was a Mahomedan. That information she obtai...
Biswa Nath Das Vs. Khejerali Molla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal394
ORDEREdgley, J.1. This rule is directed against the order of the Third Munsif, Alipore, dated 23rd December 1938, whereby he refused the petitioner permission to convert a plaint attached to an application to, sue in forma pauperis into a regular plaint with effect from the date of the presentation of his pauper application and directed that the petitioner's plaint should be registered with effect from the date of filing courts fees in the Court below and not with effect from the date upon which the pauper application was presented. The relevant facts connected with this matter are briefly as follows: On 11th April 1938 the petitioner applied in the Court of the learned Munsif to sue the opposite party in forma pauperis for the recovery of a sum of money alleged to be due to him by Khejer Ali Mollah, the opposite party, under a mortgage bond. The case was numbered as pauper case, 112 of 1938. While this particular case was pending, a similar application filed by the petitioner in case ...
BepIn Chandra GoraIn Vs. Hem Chandra Mukherjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal709
ORDEREdgley, J.1. This Rule is directed against the order of the First Munsif of Asansol, dated 27th July 1938, in which he allowed a petition filed by the Opposite party under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P.C. The facts with which we are concerned in this case are briefly as follows: The petitioner Bepin Chandra Garai instituted a suit, Title Suit No. 1165 of 1928, in the Court of the First Munsif of Asansol for a declaration of his title and for possession of certain plots of land including plots Nos. 1044 and 1599 in Mouza Damra. The defendants in the petitioner's suit were: (1) Matilal Marwari, (2) the Maharaja of Cossimbazar and also a number of other people, Promothanath Chattoraj and others, who may be described conveniently as the Chattorajas. The petitioner obtained a decree in the trial Court in respect of plots Nos. 1044 and 1599 against Matilal Marwari and the Maharaja of Cossimbazar, but his suit was dismissed against the Chattorajas. There were subsequently appeals with rega...
PulIn Chandra Chattapadhya Vs. Khetra Mohan Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal748
ORDEREdgley, J.1. From the record in this case it appears that the Court accepted as sufficient security under Section 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, some property which was under attachment. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that security such as this could not be regarded as security for the performance of the decree because with the setting aside of the ex parte decree the attachment would come to an end. It appears however from the clear language of Section 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, that the purpose for which security baa to be furnished is to ensure the performance of the ex parte decree in case that decree is not set aside. I do not think it is possible to hold from the language of the Section that it was the intention of the Legislature that the security to be furnished was for the performance of the ultimate decree that might be passed in the event of the ex parte decree being set aside. This was the view which was accepted by the Bombay High Court in...
Union Cold Storage Co. Vs. Simpson (inspector of Taxes). Union Cold St ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1939
Reported in: [1939]7ITR630(Cal)
SCOTT, L. J. - On the main issue between the parties these two appeals raise the same question, the only difference between the two being that the case in which Mr. Simpson is the respondent relates to the tax years 1923-24 to 1926-27, whereas the appeal in which Mr. Ellerker is respondent relates to the tax years 1927-28 to 1934-35. The question is whether the appellant company is entitled to allowances in those years for depreciation by wear and tear and obsolescence of certain leased machinery and plant under rule 6 of the Rules applicable to Cases I and II of Schedule D. The Commissioners in both cases held that they were precluded by the decision of Finlay, J., in Heyhoe v. Slough Theatre Co., from admitting the companys claim. In that case the respondent company did not appear to support the decision of the Commissioners in its favour and the only argument heard was on the Crown side. Finlay, J., did his best to consider possible answers for the respondent company, but in the end...
R. Ezekiel Vs. the Province of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal746
Panckridge, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows: There was a company named Davidsons Limited which carried on business as importers of wines and spirits. For the purposes of this business they owned a private bonded warehouse, and as a condition of owning it they were required by the excise authorities to secure the liability, which would arise from time to time to pay duty in respect of dutiable liquors imported by them. On 20th September 1933 the company wrote to the Collector of Excise enclosing a Government promissory note in the five per cent, loan, 1945.55, of the face value of Rs. 10,000. The company in their letter to the Collector describe the note asdeposit money in connexion with the establishment of a private warehouse by us at 6, Cooper's Lane in lieu of executing a hypothecation bond.2. This Government promissory note has never been endorsed to the company. The last endorsement is as follows: 'Pay David Ezekiel and Mrs. Ezekiel either or survivor or order,' the end...
Haripada Roy Vs. Krishna Benode Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal430
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and the suit was one for restitution of conjugal rights. The plain. tiff married defendant 5 according to Hindu rites in 1918 and it is not disputed that both of them were Hindus at that time. They lived together as husband and wife from 1918 to 1929, and had three issues, one of whom is still alive. The wife, it appears, went to Calcutta some time in 1930 and stayed there for a few years receiving education at the Saroj Nalini Dutt School. Later on, she went to Puri as a school mistress and remained there till May 1933. On 17th May 1933, she embraced the Mahomedan religion. The reason given by her is that her married life was bitter and unhappy and finding no hope of solace or comfort in her own social system, she -was driven to seek relief in another religion which was based on different social ideas. After becoming Mohammedan, she is said to have requested her husband to adopt her religion and receiving no reply from the...
Agent, Assam Bengal Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. Surendra Chandra Chakravarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal386
Derbyshire, C.J.1. In this matter the learned Munsif at Jorhat on 17th January 1939, made an order upon the Agent of the Assam Bengal Railway Company for the production in Court of certain documents. The agent obtained a rule against that. order and the matter has now come on before us for hearing. The plaintiff in the suit one Surendra Chandra Chakravarty was, formerly a guard on the Assam Bengal Railway and the defendant, B. Sing, a Traffic Inspector on the Railway. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant falsely and maliciously made a report concerning him to his (the defendant's) superior which was conveyed eventually to the Agent and resulted in the plaintiff's dismissal from the railway service. The plaintiff has not sued the Railway Agent for wrongful dismissal but has sued the defendant for defamation. The plaintiff has claimed the production of the documents in question from the agent. Those documents include, according to the order made by the Judge who had got information f...
Mohammad Azizal Bari Vs. Moulvi RaziuddIn Mohammad Idris Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal423
Latifur Rahman, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff arising out of a suit for recovery of khas possession in respect of a piece of land, after evicting the defendants and removing certain structures erected thereon. Notice to quit was served on the defendants on the footing that the tenancy was a tenancy-at-will. The land in dispute is situated within the Municipality of Bogra and appertains to the Wakf Estate of which the plaintiff is the present mutwalli. One Mohammad Goahar Ali created a 'sarasari jote' in respect of the land in dispute in favour of the defendant 1's father by kabuliyat in 1307 B.S., Ex. 3. Thereafter defendant 1's father made a gift of the said jote to defendant 1 by a Hiba-bil-ewaz in 1328 B.S. The wakf estate was created by a wakfnamah in 1321 B.S., Ex. 1. While the plaintiff's father was a mutwalli, defendant 1 obtained a fresh 'sarasari bandabast' of the disputed land from him by a kabuliyat Ex. 3(a) on 30th Chait 1334 B.S. The plaintiff in whose favour his...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »