Kolkata Court May 1939 Judgments
Surpat Singh and ors. Vs. Ratan Chand Sreemal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal92
Henderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why an order restoring him to possession of certain property should not be set aside. The petitioner purchased the property in question in execution of a decree. The opposite party then filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.O. This was rejected as incompetent. The opposite party appealed. In the meantime the sale was confirmed and the petitioner took possession. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to be heard on the merits. The Subordinate Judge restored possession of the property to the opposite party acting, under Section 151, Civil P.C. The petitioner then obtained this rule. A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. Das on behalf of the opposite party on the ground that no application under Section 115, Civil P.C., lies. His contention is that it was open to-the petitioner to appeal against the order. In support of this proposition, he relied upon the case in Gn...
Tag this Judgment!Raghupati Dutt and ors. Vs. Ram Gopal Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal557
Derbyshire, C.J.1. The facts of this matter are set out very fully in the judgment which is appealed from. At one time it appeared that there were difficulties in this case, but that was before our attention had been drawn 'to the fact that the sub-mission to arbitration here was made under Para. 17(1), Schedule 2, Civil P.C. When that was realized it became clear - and indeed the learned advocate for the appellants did not contend otherwise - that the guardian mother of the minor appellant in this case had authority to agree to refer the disputes that had arisen inside the family to the decision of arbitrators under Para. 17(1). Those arbitrators who were a barrister and a pleader had made their award. It was contended first that the award was invalid because the guardian mother had no authority to agree to refer the disputes to arbitration. That contention has gone and with it the argument that the submission and the award were both invalid.2. Next it was contended that the award was...
Tag this Judgment!Sreeman Rai Kissenji Vs. Sri Kissen Mackar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal26
ORDERSen, J.1. The only point for determination in this application is whether the Sheriff of Calcutta who attached certain property pursuant to a precept issued to this Court by a Court at Benares is entitled to poundage, the claim under the decree having been satisfied on a compromise entered into after such attachment. One Eai Kissenji brought a suit against the petitioner in the Court of the Civil Judge at Benares and got a decree for over two lacs of rupees. Thereafter the decree-holder applied under Section 46, Civil P.C. to the Court at Benares for the issue of a precept to this Court for the attachment of certain property belonging to the petitioner at Calcutta. The precept was issued and under orders of this Court the Sheriff attached the properties some time in January 1938. As an attachment under a precept lapses after the termination of two months the period of attachment was extended from time to time. In the meantime the decree was transmitted to this Court for execution,...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Hemangini Dassee Vs. Sm. Sarnalatika Dassee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal227
ORDERSen, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff for an injunction restraining the defendants from preventing or hindering the plaintiff from acting as a member of the Board of shebaits and restraining them from spending any money belonging to the debutter estate for the purposes of this litigation without the leave of the Court. The plaintiff also prays that the defendant Sm. Sarnalatika Dassee be restrained from acting as a member of the Board of Shebaits until the disposal of this suit. There was some litigation regarding this debutter estate before matters in dispute were referred to arbitration and a scheme of management was prepared by the arbitrator Mr. S.N. Banerjee, Barrister-at-Law. According to that scheme there was to be a Board of Shebaits consisting of five members selected periodically. Pursuant to that scheme there was a selection by lot on 5th February 1939 and five persons including the petitioner Sm. Hemangini Dassee were selected. A sixth name was drawn at the...
Tag this Judgment!Achinta Nath Sasmal Vs. Gobinda Prosad Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal705
Henderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why an order of the District Judge dismissing an appeal summarily should not be set aside. The opposite party filed an application under Section 26-G, Sub-section 5, Ben. Ten. Act of 1938, asking that he might be restored to possession of the property. An objection was filed by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the mortgage was not a usufructuary mortgage. The Munsif allowed the application. The petitioner appealed to the District Court and the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal summarily on the ground that it was incompetent. The petitioner then obtained this rule. The question for our decision there fore is whether an appeal lies in these cases. The solution of the problem depends upon the meaning to be attached to the words 'such order shall have the effect of a decree of a Civil Court' in Sub-section 6. In our opinion it is not necessary to consider now what precise meaning is to be a...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Nath Nag and ors. Vs. Ashalata Devi W/O Nishi Bhushan Mukhopa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal86
ORDERS.K. Ghose, J.1. This rule has arisen under the following circumstances : The opposite party-purchased by a registered kobala on 6th June 1938, from a tenant of the petitioners certain tenancies described in the plaint as mokarari-raiyati though according to the petitioners they are occupancy holdings. The opposite party paid Rs. 2 as landlord's transfer fee. The petitioners on receipt of the notice of transfer filed an application under Section 26-J, Bengal Tenancy Act, for recovery of the balance of the landlord's transfer fee of Rs. 40 with compensation, Rs. 40. The Munsif by his judgment dated 6th February 1939 has decided that the tenancies are occupancy holdings but that the application under Section 26-J, Ben. Ten. Act, is not maintainable under the Bengal Tenancy Act as now amended. Against that order, the present rule has been issued. The Munsif has referred first to the Bengal Tenancy Ordinance, 1938, which was published on 3rd June 1938. The effect of that Ordinance, vi...
Tag this Judgment!Sreematy Bajroga Khatun and ors. Vs. Province of Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal113
Roxburgh, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiffs for declaration of their raiyati right in one-third share of the suit land and for recovery of possession. The suit land formerly belonged to one Hakimuddin Patwari who died in Pous 1331 B.S. leaving six daughters, one son and a widow. Three of the daughters are plaintiffs and the other three daughters and the son and the widow are pro forma defendants 5 to 9. The suit was contested by the Secretary of State, defendant 1, who had purchased the holding of Hakimuddin Patwari in a certificate sale in respect of arrears of rent for 1337-1338 B.S. The plaintiffs claim, as they were not certificate debtors in those proceedings, their interests were not affected by the certificate sale, and they also claim to have been dispossessed of the holding in the latter part of 1340 B.S. by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's case is that the three plaintiffs were represented by pro forma defendant 6, Selnn Mia, son of Hakim...
Tag this Judgment!G.P. Stewart Vs. Brojendra Kishore Roy Chaudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal628
Narsingha Rau, J.1. Appeal No. 91 of 1939 (F.M.A.) - This is an appeal from an order passed on 31st January 1939 by the Second Subordinate Judge, Sylhet. The appellant is the Collector and Deputy Commissioner of Sylhet in his capacity as manager of the estate of Kumar Gopika Raman Roy, a ward of Court under the Court of Wards, Assam. The respondent is Brojendra Kishore Roy Chaudhury of Gouripore in the District of Mymensingh in Bengal. The facts, so far as they are necessary for the purposes of this appeal, can be briefly stated: The respondent lent to the aforesaid Kumar various sums of money aggregating to Rupees seven lacs on five simple mortgage bonds and obtained a decree thereon for the sale of the mortgaged properties. On 16-11-1938 the learned Subordinate Judge, on an application by the Deputy Commissioner, Sylhet, stayed execution on the ground that the Court of 'Wards in Assam had taken possession of the property of the mortgagor and that in consequence, Section 10-C inserted...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Missir and ors. Vs. Province of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal733
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an order passed by the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal dated 18th April 1939 rejecting a reference made to it by the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, under Section 49(1), Land Acquisition Act. The material facts may be shortly stated as follows: Premises No. 40, Lake Road which comprises an area of 6B-5C.6ch of lands was scheduled for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Calcutta Improvement Act, under declaration No. 12578L-A, dated 19th June 1937. One Saradindu Mukherji, who is stated to be the owner of the premises, applied to the Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta for exemption of this property from acquisition under Section 78, Calcutta Improvement Act. This application was rejected. Thereupon there was an agreement entered into between the owner and the Board on 24th January 1939 by which a portion of the premises measuring 58ct 12ch only which was coloured blue in the map was to be...
Tag this Judgment!Mukundalal Pakrashi Vs. Prokash Chandra Pakrashi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal739
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 against an order made by the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Alipur, dated 15th September 1937 directing an award to be filed under Schedule 2, Rule 21, Civil P.C. Four points were urged by Mr. Chakravarty on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal: (1) that there had been misconduct on the part of the arbitrators within the meaning of Rule 15 (1)(a) of Schedule 2 of the Code (2) that the illegality of the award is apparent on the face of it (Rule 14(c) of Schedule 2); (3) that the award was bad as it left undetermined some of the matters which were referred to arbitration; and (4) that it determined some matters not referred to arbitration (Rule 14(a) of Schedule 2). The argument in support of the first point is twofold: (1) that the appellant was not allowed to cross-examine in full the wife of the plaintiff who was examined as a witness before the arbitrators on behalf of the plaintiff; and (2) that one of the arbitrators, v...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »