Kolkata Court August 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.
Abu Shahid Vs. Abdul Hoque Dobhash and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal363
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for accounts. The plaintiff's case is that in the town of Chittagong there was a market known as Feringibazar which was held at a place close to the land described in the schedule to the plaint and was run by certain persons who may be called the Sahas. The Mitters who are the owners of the schedule land, wanted to establish a rival market on the same, but being unsuccessful themselves, they allowed the plaintiff and the two defendants to start a market on that land and use the structures that stood upon it for that purpose. On 26th August 1925, the Mitters granted a lease of the land and structures to the plaintiffs and the two defendants, for a period of nine years only with an option of renewal for the same period after its termination. Prom the very beginning, the management of the market was left to defendant 1 by his co-lessees and it was he who realized tolls from the vendors and stall holder...
In Re: Sm. Ashalata Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal217
Ameer Ali, J.1. On 12th March 1930, Haricharan Ghose took out an insurance policy with the Sun Life Insurance Co. of Canada. Ashalata the respondent is his widow. Shortly put (reading from para. (3) of the petition) the nature of the policy is as follows: (a) Rs. 5000 payable to the assured if alive on 1st January 1950. (b) Sections 5000 payable to his wife if assured dead before that date, (c) If wife dead before the assured and the assured dead before 1st January 1950, then to the estate of the assured. The assured is alleged to have executed a will on 28th October 1938 in which from the copy supplied to me, he purports to dispose of 'his life insurance monies' as part of his estate. The will is propounded in the District Court by the person named as executor, one Panchanan Ghose a relative and is contested by Ashalata. Panchanan has been appointed administrator pendente lite. The widow applied for the appointment of a special trustee under Section 6, Married Women's Property Act and...
Jnan Kumar Das Vs. Ram Kumar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal264
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an application for removing or discharging an executor appointed under the will of one Magan Chandra Das, an inhabitant of Rangunia in the District of Chittagong. The application is made by one of the sons of the deceased testator, who is also a beneficiary under the will, trader Section 301, Succession Act, and it seeks to remove the executor who is opposite party 1 in the case on various allegations of misconduct, waste and personal disability to carry on the work of administration. A preliminary point was taken on behalf of the opposite party, raising the question as to whether the application could be dealt with by this Bench, or it should be presented to the Judge in the original side who is exercising jurisdiction in matter of testamentary and intestate succession. Section 301, Succession Act, provides that the High Court may, on application made to it, suspend, remove or discharge any private executor or administrator. The oppression 'High Court' has...
Gokul Chandra Das Vs. Manager of Baniachong Mozumdari Ward Estate
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal720
Edgley, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this case, and in the suit out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiff sued for the cancellation of a certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act by which the Beniachong Mazumdari Ward Estate sought to recover rent on the basis of a kabuliat which was executed on 20th Bhadra 1334 B.S. The landlord's case was to the effect that the plaintiff held under them certain patit lands described in Schedule 1 attached to the plaint. It was alleged that he was unable to pay arrears of rent and had therefore executed a bond for the sum of Rs. 100 on 10th Bhadra 1334 B.S. Subsequently, the Court of Wards assumed, charge of the landlord's estate and filed the certificate which the plaintiff sought to cancel. The plaintiff's case was to the effect that he did not hold the land included in Schedule 1 under the Beniaohong, Mazumdari Ward estate but under another landlord. He also maintained that the kabuliat dated 20th Bhadra, 1334 B.S. had been e...
Dinabandhu Roy Brajaraj Saha, Firm Vs. Sarala Sundari Dassya W/O Haral ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal296
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is in proceedings started by the appellant on 5th August 1935 for the revocation of the probate granted to the respondent, Sarala Sundary Dassya, by the District Judge of Pabna on 14th September 1933. The will of which probate had been granted is an unregistered one said to have been executed by the respondent's husband, Haralal Saha, on 24th July 1925. Haralal died on 5th January 1927. The application for probate was made on 27th March 1933, more than six years after the death of Haralal, and it is the admitted case of the propounder, that during this long period of six years nobody knew that Haralal had died testate except the propounder, the alleged writer and the three attesting witnesses. Haralal left three married and grown up sons, Hemendra, Jitendra and Nripendra, a married daughter Sunitibala, and his widow, Sarala Sundary. Nripendra was at America at the time of his death, prosecuting his studies there. He-qualified himself as a mechanical engine...
Bisweswar Banerjee and ors. Vs. Naba Kumar Singh Dudhoria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal16
Henderson, J.1. These three appeals are by the defendants. The point raised is one of limitation. The suits were instituted in order to recover possession of certain resumed choukidari chakran lands. They were mortgaged to the plaintiffs by one Kumar Debendra Nath Roy. The plaintiffs obtained a decree on their mortgage and purchased the lands in execution thereof. The defence is that the Kumar had parted with, his interest before the mortgage and these lands are included in the darputni granted to the defendants' predecessor Rajani Nath Banerji. There is a concurrent finding that the Kumar did not part with his interest in these lands and the plaintiffs have a good title. The point of limitation arises in this way. After the plaintiffs had obtained delivery of possession Rajani Nath Banerji made an application under Order 21, Rule 100 and the Court directed that he should be restored to possession. The present suits were not filed within a year of the date of that order. Both the Court...
Kamal Bros. (1937), Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal488
ORDERLort-Williams, J.1. In this case the Official Liquidator has filed a petition asking that a receiver be appointed of the stock-in-trade, books of account and other books and papers of Kamal Shoe House carrying on business at College Street Market in Calcutta. An interim receiver has already been appointed. In his petition, para. 28, the Official Liquidator states that the defendants in this suit, Santosh Kumar Banerjee, Sunil Kumar Chatterjee and Amita Prosad Chatterjee as well as the Receiver Mr. S.N. Banerjee, were examined under Section 195, Companies Act. Their examination has now been concluded. He further states that the facts elicited by such examinations clearly indicate a well designed conspiracy to defraud the creditors of the company and also to keep the business away from their reach and that he 'will crave leave to take copies of such examinations and use the same in these proceedings.' The depositions were made under the provisions of Section 195, Companies Act, and ...
Prafulla Kumar Maity and ors. Vs. Uday Chandra Pradhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal736
Nasim Ali, J.1. The only point; for determination in this Rule is whether the petitioners are precluded from showing that they are occupancy raiyats. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the petitioners represented to the opposite party that they were mokarari mourasi raiyats and relying on that representation the opposite party advanced Rs. 5000 to the petitioners on the mortgage of the tenancy. This finding is based on the evidence of opposite party No. 1. It is consequently a finding of fact and cannot be interfered with in revision. The contention of Mr. Jana on behalf of the petitioners however is that the law of estoppel cannot be invoked in a proceeding under Section 26.G, Ben. Ten. Act, as that Section clearly states that the mortgagor would get back his property notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or in any other law for the time being in force. His argument is that the Evidence Act which contains the law of estoppel is included within the words 'any oth...
Secretary of State Vs. Shyamapada Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal56
Nasim Ali, J.1. Premises Nos. 13/1 and 13/3 Lake Road were acquired in connexion with Scheme No. 33, Southern Avenue Section by declaration No. 3481-L.A., dated 7th March 1932, which was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 10th March 1932. Five persons including one Kalipada Banerjee claimed interest in No. 13/1 Lake Road, He and a minor named Sunil Kumar Chatterjee through his guardian claimed interest in the other premises, namely 13/3, Lake Road. The Collector gave his award under Section 11, Land Acquisition Act, on 21st August 1933, in respect of premises No. 13/1. He found the area to be 2 cottas, 9 chittacks and 10 square feet which he valued at the rate of Rs. 800 per cottah. He further found that out of the five claimants only two, namely Tara Sundari Dasi and Aswini Kumar Mukherjee were entitled to compensation. Of these two persons in whose favour the award was made by the Collector only Tara Sundari Dasi accepted the award. The Collector published his award in respect of p...
Profulla Chandra Gangopadhaya Vs. Raj Mohan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal81
Nasim Ali, J.1. An occupancy holding was sold in execution of a decree on 9th April 1938. Notice of this transfer was served upon the petitioner on 12th August 1938. The Bengal Tenancy (Amendment) Act of 1938 by which Section 26-P was amended came into operation on 1st August 1938. The petitioner filed an application for preemption under Section 26-F on 22nd September 1938. The learned Munsif before whom this application was filed has come to the conclusion that as the machinery for enforcing the right of pre-emption has already been taken away by the amending Act which came into operation before the application for pre-emption was filed, he had no jurisdiction to entertain that application. He accordingly rejected the application. Hence this Rule was obtained by the petitioner. It is clear that Section 26-F which has now been amended provided also for a procedure according to which the right of preemption had to be exercised. That procedure has now been abrogated. The Munsif, therefor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »