Kolkata Court November 1940 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.
Golaghat Municipal Board Vs. Sonaram GohaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal609
Sen, J.1. This appeal is by defendant 1 who is the Golaghat Municipal Board and it arises out of a suit instituted against the municipal board and certain other persons for damages. The facts which need be stated for the purposes of this appeal briefly are as follows: There was certain land belonging to the Golaghat Municipal Board which was let out to one Rebakanta Gohain. He erected a hut on the land which, I am told, was used as a stall in the municipal market. Rebakanta sold the hut to Jewram who is defendant 4. The municipality renewed the lease of the land in favour of Jewram. The rent for this land fell in arrear. Rebakanta owed some rent and after him Jewram owed it. The municipal board purporting to act under Section 144,. Assam Municipal Act, brought the hut to sale on 27th February 1937. Defendant 3, Shankar Chandra Barua, was the purchaser. On 24th June 1937 Shankar Chandra Barua dismantled the hut. The plaintiff sues the municipal board, Sankar Barua, Jewram and the chairm...
Nitya Ranjan Mukherjee and anr. Vs. Niranjan Chandra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal330
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against the appellate judgment of Mr. S. O. Chakravarty, Subordinate Judge, Burdwan affirming an order of the Munsif, Second Court, Katwa made in a proceeding under S.85A, Ben. Ten. Act. There is no dispute about the facts of this ease which lie within a very short compass. Opposite party 1 owns a fractional share in a certain putni appertaining to touji No. 93 of the Burdwan collectorate of which the proprietors are the petitioners and opposite parties 2 to 5. On 2lst July 1939, opposite party 1 presented an application before the Munsif, Second Court at Katwa for surrender of his share of the putni under section 85A, Ben. Ten. Act, on grounds, inter alia, that under the present economic conditions prevalent in the country it was not profitable for him to hold the putni any longer. The application was opposed by the petitioners, whose main contention was that S.85A was not applicable to a putni tenure. This contention was negatived by the Mun...
Kumar Sanat Kumar Mukherjee Vs. Debendra Nath Sarcar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal332
Bartley, J.1. These are appeals against the decision of the special Judge in proceedings under Sections 105 and 105A, Ben. Ten. Act, in which the learned Judge set aside the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer. The landlord who is the appellant before us instituted a number of suits under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, for settlement of rent in respect of certain lands. At the same time he raised a special issue under Section 105A of the Act, upon which he paid court-fees, as to the correctness of certain entries in the settlement record. After the institution of the Section 105 proceedings the landlord stated in a petition that he would be satisfied if the issue under Section 105A only were decided treating the proceedings as proceedings under S.106 leaving the question of enhancement: of rent open for the present. On that petition the Settlement Officer made an order to the effect that he did not think it necessary to try the case under Section 106 of the Act as the special iss...
N. Banerjee and Co., a Firm Vs. Wilfred John Younie and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal308
Derbyshire C.J.1. This is a rule obtained under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act of 1887, in respect of a judgment and decree obtained by Wilfred John Younie and others against Messrs. N. Banerjee & Co., in the Small Cause Court of the second subordinate Judge of Howrah. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover a sum of Rs. 668-7-0 for the price of goods sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants. Messrs. John King & Co., Ltd. carried on business as engineers and shipbuilders at Howrah. The defendants, Messrs. N. Banerjee & Co. are a firm of contractors who supplied goods which were used by Messrs. John King & Co., Ltd. There had been dealings between Messrs. John King & Co., Ltd. and Messrs. Banerjee & Co.; at times the company supplied goods to Messrs. Banerjee & Co. and at other times Messrs. Banerjee & Co. supplied goods to the company.2. On 7th May 1934 the company, which was incorporated under the Companies Act and was registered in Calcutta, owe...
Srish Chandra Sen Vs. Mohim Chandra Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal256
Derbyshire C.J. 1. As the petitioner in civil Revision Case No. 417 of 1940 is dead and no substitution has been made, that rule must be discharged. As regards the other revision cases, namely Nos. 58 and 418 to 421 of 1940, they must be made absolute. The learned Judge has refused to stay the suit on the ground that the amount of the debt which each of the petitioners was liable to pay was Rs. 17,000 and so above the ordinary jurisdiction limit of the Debt Settlement Board which was Rs. 5000. It must fee noted, however, that the Debt Settlement Board has jurisdiction up to Rs. 25,000 where the consent of the Collector has been obtained. The debt of Rs. 17,000, it is alleged, was a joint and several debt of each of the five individual petitioners. The petitioners have alleged, so we are told, to the Debt Settlement Board that each of their debts was several and below Rs. 5000. The learned Judge has refused a stay on the ground that the debt payable by each is Rs. 17,000. It appears to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›