Kolkata Court April 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.
Biman Behary Sinha Vs. Sm. Chancharkeshi Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal639
Panckridge, J.1. On 22nd January 1936, the defendants, who are the executrix and executors of the will of one Arun Bhusan Basak, deceased, entered into an agreement in writing with the plaintiff for the sale to him of certain premises known as No. 19/1 Ultadinghi Road, Calcutta. Clause 1 of the agreement states that the defendants have got an absolute estate in the premises free from encumbrances. The consideration is to be the sum of rupees 1500 (per cottah), subject to the approval of title by the purchaser's solicitor. Clause 2 states that the plaintiff has paid to the defendants the sum of Rs. 251 as and by way of earnest money, the balance of the price to be paid on completion. Clause 4 provides that there will be four several conveyances in regard, to the land intended to be sold, and that the purchasers will not be bound to pay any extra expenses for approval of the same. Clause 5 provides that, if the title be not good, the purchaser shall be at liberty to rescind the agreement...
Sundarpur Tea Estate Represented by P.C. Barua Vs. Indian Tea Licensin ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal508
Edgley, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Indian Tea Licensing Committee, dated 14th October 1938, under which the committee determined the crop basis of the Sundarpur Tea Estate in Assam to be 50,236 lbs. The appellant maintains that the Indian Tea Licensing Committee have proceeded upon a wrong basis of calculation and that on a proper calculation the crop basis for his garden should have been fixed at 55,836 lbs at least. The appeal has been preferred to this Court under the provisions of Section 7(2), Tea Control Act, (Act 8 of 1938). It is one of the first of its kind as the former Indian Tea Control Act of 1933 which expired on 31st March 1938, contained no provision whereby an appeal was allowed to this Court. One of the most important functions of the Indian Tea Licensing Committee under the Act is to determine the crop basis of the tea estates to which the Act relates as it is with reference to the crop basis that the export quota of a tea estate has to be ...
River Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. Owners and Parties Interested in S ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal513
Sen, J.1. On 14th December 1935 the paddle steamer Kharoti belonging to the River Steam Navigation Company Limited towing a flat named 'The Singara' on her port side was voyaging from Khulna to Calcutta. On the same day the Steamer 'Janardan' belonging to the East Bengal River Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., was voyaging from Calcutta to Khulna. The ' Janardan' was towing two flats the 'Megnath' and the 'Jogendranath' on her starboard and port side respectively. At some time between 8 and 9 P. M. these two flotillas came into collision in the Aura Sibsa River. As a result of the collision the flat 'Singara' was holed in three places. She sank with her cargo of jute and became a total loss. The bows of the vessels of the ' Janardan ' flotilla were damaged by the collision. At the time it was ebb tide the speed of the tide being about 2 1/2 to 3 miles per hour. The 'Janardan' flotilla was steaming against the tide and the 'Kharoti' with her tow was steaming with it. When the collision occurre...
In Re: Goods of Mt. Golab Daye
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal718
ORDERSen, J.1 This is an application for the revocation of a grant of letters of administration limited for the purpose of representing the deceased in a suit and for grant of probate to the executors named in the will of one Mt. Golab Daye, deceased. The petitioners are the executors named in the will. The application is opposed by the administrator ad litem and the plaintiffs in the suit in which the administrator was appointed. Mt. Golab Daye was the defendant in a mortgage suit instituted by certain persons; she died pending that suit. The plaintiffs in that suit tried to get the heirs and legal representatives of Mt. Golab Daye substituted and a long correspondence ensued between the plaintiffs and the attorney for one of the executorss named Baijnath Khettri. Although the executors were asked repeatedly to get themselves substituted in the suit they took no steps. Thereafter an application was made in that suit for the appointment of an administrator ad litem and citations were i...
Ladha Singh Bedi Vs. Raja Sree Sree Jyoti Prosad Singha Deo Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal105
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The question in this appeal, preferred by the defendants, is whether Suit No. 8 of 1938 pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Asansol should be stayed or not under the provisions of para. 18, Schedule 2, Civil P.C. That suit was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for the recovery of rent, royalty and cesses (with interest) payable from 1st July 1932 to 1st January 1938 on the basis of an indenture of lease executed by the parties on 30th July 1937. It is unnecessary at this stage to recite all the prayers made in the plaint. In the plaint the plaintiff has made the case that though the indenture was executed on 30th July 1937 the defendant was put in possession in 1932 and became liable to pay rent, royalty and cess from 1st July 1932 in terms of express covenants made in the said indenture. The said indenture of lease is on the record. By it the defendant was given a lease for 35 years commencing from 1st January 1932 (para. 4) with an option of renewa...
Ali Mohamed Ebrahim Shakoor Vs. Adam Hajee Peer Md. Essack and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal134
Sen, J.1. This is an application by, defendant 6, Hajee Adam Abdul Bhakoor, for an order that the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this Court to the plaintiff to institute this suit in this Court be revoked, in the alternative for an order staying the suit. There was a prayer for security for costs; that was abandoned by learned Counsel for the petitioner. This motion arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff Ali Mohamed Ebrahim Shakoor against six defendants. They are (1) Adam Hajee Peer Mohamed Essack, for self, (2) Adam Hajee Peer Mohamed Essack, as manager of Peer Mohamedi Fund, (3) Ahmed Hajee Peer Mohamed, (4) Abdul Karim Adam, (5) Taiyub AH Mohamed, and (6) Hajee Adam Abdul Shakoor. It will be more convenient, I think, to refer to the defendants by their respective numbers and not by their names which are confusing by reason of the fact that the names of the different defendants are very similar and seem to be a permutation and combination of one ano...
Ray Satish Chandra Sen Bahadur and ors. Vs. Syamsul Haque Moktear
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal17
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs. They were proprietors of a 2 annas 15 gandas share in a certain estate in the district of Dacca. They opened a separate account. There were subsequent partition proceedings as a result of which their separate account was formed into a new estate which was given the number 16751 on the roll of the Dacca Collectorate. Revenue was fixed at Rs. 15-10-6 to be payable in two instalments, Rs. 10 in January and the balance in March. It may be noted that this revenue is greater than that attached to their previous separate account. The plaintiffs went on paying revenue as before. Their case is that they did not know that the partition had been given effect to and a new estate was created. It is difficult to see what object they could have had in behaving in this way if they really knew of it and for my part I should have no difficulty in accepting their explanation. Be that as it may, the estate naturally fell into arrears and was brought to sal...
Gobinda Nath Saha Choudhury Vs. Durga NaraIn Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal171
ORDERSen, J.1. This is an application by a decree-holder for recording the deaths of certain judgment-debtors and for leave to execute the decree against their legal representatives. Notice of this application has been served on all these legal representatives. One of them has appeared and opposed the application. His name is Samarendra Narain Saha. In his affidavit in opposition he takes up the position that the decree is over 12 years old and that its execution is barred by limitation inasmuch as there has been no revivor of the decree within the meaning of Article 183, Lim. Act, within 12 years of this application. At the hearing, counsel on behalf of Samarendra Narain Saha took up a different position. He admitted that there had been revivors of the decree within the meaning of Article 183, Lim. Act, the last one being on 29th September 1926, when the decree-holder received a part payment of the decretal amount pursuant to an order dated 11th August 1926 passed by this Court, direc...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Dulal Chandra Pramanik and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal470
Rau, J.1. This is a reference by the Presidency and Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta under Section 432, Criminal P.C. The question of law on which he seeks the opinion of this Court is whether 'Article 146(a), Schedule 1, Limitation Act, applies to this case.' Presumably the reference is to Article 146-A, for there is no such Article as 146(a) in that Act. The case before the learned Magistrate was an application under Section 364(1), Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923 for the removal of a masonry platform alleged to be causing obstruction on Ran Nath Pal Road. The question, as framed, therefore is whether Article 146-A, Schedule 1, Limitation Act, applies to an application under Section 364(1), Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923. Such an application is plainly not a suit and therefore the aforesaid Article, which applies only to suits cannot apply to such an application. This is conceded by both parties. It may be that the question which the learned Magistrate meant to refer to this Court was...
Abul Jamil Samsul Hamid Chowdhury Vs. Ambia Khatun W/O Amatali Bepari ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal663
ORDEREdgley, J.1. This rule is directed against the order of Mr. S.K. Ganguly, Additional District Judge of Bakarganj, dated 5th August 1938, under which he set aside a Civil Court sale which had been held on 17th December 1934. Some two and a half years after the date of the sale, opposite party No. 1 in this case applied to have the sale set aside on the ground of fraudulent suppression of the processes and for irregularities connected with the publication, of the sale. Her application was rejected by the trial Court. She then appealed and her appeal was heard in due course by the learned Additional Judge who reversed the decision of the trial Court and set aside the sale. It may be mentioned that there was some discussion in the Courts below on the question whether the sale with which we are dealing was one under the Bengal Tenancy Act or under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is, however, now admitted that, in view of the circumstances of the case, it must be treat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »