Kolkata Court June 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.
Dharanidhar Mandal Vs. Nitya Gopal Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal732
ORDERS.K. Ghose, J.1. This rule has arisen in the following circumstances: The opposite party-defendants brought a Small Cause Court suit against the petitioner and obtained an ex parte decree. The petitioner's case is that processes were suppressed. Failing to get a review, the petitioner brought Title Suit No. 147 of 1937 to have the ex parte decree set aside on the ground of fraudulent suppression of summons, and for a finding that the claim in the Small Cause Court suit was false. The Munsif dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge reversed that decision and decreed the suit. In the course of his judgment he remarks as follows:It must therefore be held that so far as this suit is concerned, the defendants failed to prove that their claim in the previous suit was a true one. It has been shown that the summons in the previous suit had not been served on the plaintiff, and that the defendants have failed to prove so far as this suit is concerned that the claim in th...
Seshaingar Rajagopalan Vs. Unique Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal373
ORDERSen, J.1. This is an application to set aside a decree passed ex parte. The suit was filed in August 1936 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5330-12-9. The defendant filed his written statement and thereafter there was discovery and inspection by both sides. The suit appeared on the special list on 5th May 1938 and it was then directed to be placed on the prospective list. Eventually the suit appeared on the peremptory list on 31st March 1939 and it was decreed ex parte on 5th April 1939. The defendant has applied by way of motion to have this decree set aside, the application being endorsed by the Assistant Registrar of this Court as being made on 5th May 1939. The notice of motion was served on 9th May and the returnable date was 15th May 1939. The defendant states that he is a resident of Madura some 1400 miles away from Calcutta. He left instructions with his attorney Mr. P.C. Palit to instruct counsel and to let him know in time when the suit would be taken up for hearing. He w...
HarnaraIn Misra Vs. Kanhaiyalal Lohawalla and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal166
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This application raises a question of some importance. In December last year the plaintiff filed a suit against Kanhaiyalal Lohawalla and the Rajputana Films Co. Ltd. It now appears that prior to the institution of the suit, that is to say, on 6th October 1938, an order was made at the instance of a creditor by the District Judge of Ajmere for the compulsory liquidation of the defendant company. The plaintiff states that at the time when the suit was instituted he was unaware of the order for compulsory liquidation, and accordingly he made no application to the Court having jurisdiction in the winding up proceedings for leave under Section 171, Companies Act, to sue the company. The liquidator now applies that the suit should be dismissed against the company as being incompetent on account of the plaintiff's failure to ask for and obtain leave to sue.2. The position, when a suit has been instituted against a company after an order for its compulsory liquidation wi...
Emperor Vs. Bande Ali Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal163
ORDERS.K. Ghose, J.1. Eleven persons were convicted under Sections 379 and 188, I.P.C, and each of them sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 weeks. These persons then petitioned to the Sessions Judge against conviction. The learned Judge rejected the petition except with regard to four of the petitioners, namely Bande Ali Sheikh, Derajtulla Sheikh, Asimuddin Sheikh and Ajer Sheikh. As regards them the learned Judge has made a reference recommending that they should be acquitted of the charges in respect of which they have been convicted on the ground that they were not parties to the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C., out of which the prosecutions arose. For the reasons stated by the learned Judge 1 accept the reference and direct that these persons be acquitted of the charges under Sections 379 and 188, I.P.C. The fines, if paid, should be refunded.2. As regards the remaining seven petitioners the question is whether the convi...
Emperor Vs. Hemendra Prosad Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal529
1. The two articles out of which these two references arise are alleged to be attacks upon the Council of Ministers in Bengal and it is complained that they are seditious and in breach of Section 124-A, I.P.C., which provides:Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards His Majesty or the Government established by law in British India, shall be punished with transportation for life or any shorter term, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.2. Section 17, I.P.C., provides:The word 'Government' denotes the person or persons authorized by law to administer executive government in any part of British India,3. The questions asked are: Under case No. 2 of 1939,(a) whether the Hon'ble Minis, ters of Bengal are subordinate officers to H.E. the Governo...
Star Trading and Investment Ltd. Vs. Ashutosh Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal627
Henderson, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the apposite party to show cause why an order of the learned Subordinate Judge directing the petitioner to pay additional court-fees should not be set aside. There is no difficulty in discovering the nature of the suit. The basis of the plaintiff's case is that a compromise decree in a partition suit was obtained by fraud. He therefore desired to get rid of it and to have the property partitioned by the Court. The plaint was drafted on these lines and the prayer is for a declaration and for partition. The suit accordingly comes within Section 7, Sub-section (iv)(c), Court-fees Act, being a suit to obtain a declaratory decree where consequential relief is prayed for. Under that sub-section the plaintiff is bound to pay ad valorem court-fee according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The opposite parties raised an objection that the court, fee paid was not sufficient and this was tried as a preliminary issue. The...
Comilla Electric Supply Ltd. Vs. East Bengal Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal669
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an order dated 24th March 1939 by which the District Judge of Tipparah exercising the functions of the Court under the Land Acquisition Act, rejected a reference made to him by the Collector of Tipperah under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, on the ground that the reference was incompetent in law. The material facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows: A quantity of land measuring '595 acres situated in mouza Dharampur, in the district of Tipperah, was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act at the cost of the Comilla Electric Supply Ltd., who are the petitioners before us, for the purpose of construction of a power house at Dharampur. In the land acquisition map the area acquired was shown as divided into 15 plots and in some of the plots the petitioner company themselves claimed to have tenancy and revenue-free rights. The Collector made his award on 8th June 1938 and compensation was given to the petitioner ...
Promatha Nath Pramanick Vs. Nirode Chandra Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal187
Panckridge, J.1. This is an application to vary or set aside a special report made by Mr. S.C. Ghose acting as special referee under a decree made by me on 10th February 1938. The suit was instituted by two persons of the name Pramanick against the defendant on the allegation that he was the manager of a business which traded under the style of Kali Krishna Pramanick and of which the plaintiffs were the owners. On this basis, the plaintiffs claimed an account on the footing of wilful default. Alternatively the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was a partner in the firm of Kali Krishna Pramanick, his share being six annas, the remaining ten annas being the property of the plaintiffs. On this basis they sued for partnership accounts. In his written statement, the defendant denied that he was a servant of the plaintiffs, and alleged that he was a partner in the firm of Kali Krishna Pramanick, his shares in the partnership being eight annas while the remaining eight annas belonged to t...
Promatha Nath Pramanick Vs. Nirode Chandra Ghose.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1939
Reported in: [1939]7ITR570(Cal)
PANCKRIDGE, J. - This is an application to vary or set aside a special report made by Mr. S. C. Ghose acting as special referee under a decree made by me on February 10th, 1938.The suit was instituted by two persons of the name of Pramanik against the defendant on the allegation that he was the manager of a business which traded under the style of Kali Krishan Pramanick of which the plaintiffs were the owners. On this basis the plaintiffs claimed an account on the footing of willful default. Alternatively the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was a partner in the firm of Kali Krishna Pramanick, his share being six annas, the remaining ten annas being the property of the plaintiffs. On this basis they sued for partnership accounts. In his written statement the defendant denied that he was a servant of the plaintiffs, and alleged that he was a partner in the firm of Kali Krishna Pramanick, his shares in the partnership being eight annas, while the remaining eight annas belonged to th...
Punjab National Bank Vs. Balikram Kissenchand and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal225
ORDERSen, J.1. This is an application by the Punjab National Bank which has obtained a decree against a firm Balikram Kissen chand for leave to execute the decree against Beharilal Jhamb on the footing that he is a partner of the firm. Beharilal opposes the application on various grounds. When the matter came up for hearing two preliminary objections were taken on his behalf as to the maintainability of the application. First it was contended that the application is barred by the principle of res judicata by reason of a previous decision of this Court in its insolvency jurisdiction and that it is also barred by reason of that decision being a judgment in rem. The second objection is raised in the following manner. The suit out of which the application arises was instituted in accord-dance with the provisions laid down in Order 30, Civil P.C., against Balikram Kissenchand in its firm name. Belying on the decision of this Court in Lalchand Anonmal v. M.C. Boid & Co. : AIR1934Cal810 and I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »