Kolkata Court December 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.
Bhagabat Chandra Jana Vs. Nagendranath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal265
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the plaintiffs-opposite parties to show cause why an order of the Munsif refusing to stay a suit under Section 3 of Bengal Act 9 of 1940 should not be set aside. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a non-agricultural tenant. The term is defined in Section 2 of the Act as follows:'Non-agricultural' tenant means a tenant who holds under another person, and is liable to pay-rent to such person for non-agricultural land which, under the terms of any agreement, such tenant is entitled to use for any homestead or residential purpose or for the conduct thereon of any commercial or industrial enterprise or any trade or business.2. The suggestion of the petitioner is that he holds the land for the purpose of carrying on a business. It does not appear that the terms of the agreement between the parties were ever reduced to writing. The petitioner was a servant of the plaintiffs and was apparently given certain rights in this property. N...
Shewkissen Mohata and ors. Vs. Mangalchand Maloo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal341
1. This appeal is in a suit Instituted by the mortgagee, Mangal Chand Maloo to enforce the four mortgages dated 10th August 1932, mentioned in our judgment delivered in First Appeal No. 96 of 1937. The persons against whom the mortgages are sought to be enforced are Premsukh, Pannalal and their sons and the grandson of Premsukh. Two other persons, Sukhdeo Das Baithi and Hanumandas Baithi were impleaded as defendants as puisne mortgagees. They disclaimed all interest in the mortgaged premises in the lower Court and so have been dismissed from the suit. The learned subordinate Judge has passed a preliminary decree on 16th March 1937. From this decree the sons of Premsukh, except his eldest son Shewratan, that is those of his sons who were minors at the time of the execution of the aforesaid four mortgages, the minor son of Pannalal and the minor grandson of Premsukh, being the son of Shewratan have preferred this appeal. The points pressed by the appellants are: (i) that the mortgages ca...
Md. Mottaki Choudhury and ors. Vs. Mt. Shamsunnessa Khatun Choudhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal314
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by-defendants 1 to 3 against the, judgment and decree of the first Court of the subordinate Judge, Sylhet, dated 15th April 1937, where by the subordinate Judge has decreed a suit for pre-emption instituted by the plaintiff respondent on 17th September 1936. The findings of the trial Judge which are not assailed before us by the appellants in this appeal are these: (1) There is a big estate in the district of Sylhet known as Singcha-pair. Plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2, one Md. Yunus Choudhury and certain other persons were the owners of this estate. (2) Defendants 1 and 2 sold their shares in this estate to defendant 3, a stranger, on 25th October 1935, by a kobala (Ex. A) for a consideration of Rs. 7000. Defendants 1 and 2 registered this kobala on 31st October 1935, and 3rd November 1935, respectively. (3) Plaintiff came to know of this sale on 10th November 1935 and performed the Talab-i-Mowasibat on the same day and the Talab-i-Ishad on the next da...
Naskarpara Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Nirmal Kumar Jain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal434
ORDERLort-Williams, J.1. This is a petition by the plaintiffs, the Naskarpara Jute Mills Co. Ltd., against the defendant, Nirmal Kumar Jain, in suit No. 2053 of 1940. In that suit the plaintiffs allege that by an agreement dated 24th November 1939 the plaintiffs, through their managing agents, Messrs. The Howrah Trading Co. Ltd., sold to the defendant certain hessian cloth through the agency of Basani Lal Masudi, acting as broker for both parties. The defendant failed to take delivery of some of the cloth which was subsequently sold by the plaintiffs who claim the difference between the contract and the market price. The written contract of sale contained an arbitration clause. The plaintiffs allege that in order to avoid payment and to defeat the arbitration proceedings, defendant has filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Arrah in Bihar, being title suit No. 34 of 1940. They allege that the defendant at all material times resided in Calcutta and carried on business the...
Happy India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kumud Bandhu Chakravarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal503
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This is an application under Section 34 of the recently enacted Arbitration Act. The section is in terms identical with Section 19 of the Act of 1899. The facts are that the plaintiff was the medical referee of the defendant company which carries on business as a life insurance company. He was appointed under an agreement in writing dated 16th May 1939. Among other things the agreement provided that the plaintiff should act as medical referee upto 30th April 1947. There was also a clause by which it is provided that the plaintiff shall diligently and faithfully and to the best of his ability and skill examine all medical reports submitted to him by the company, and duly submit his opinion and report on each case sent to him by the company or the general manager thereof. By another clause the company became entitled to terminate the agreement on three months notice in certain cases, one of which is gross negligence of work on the part of the plaintiff. Lastly, ther...
Salamatullah Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal328
ORDER1. This rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Noakhali to show cause why an order should not be made discharging a jury and a fresh jury empanelled to try the petitioners. The material facts are that the petitioner was once tried and convicted under Section 325, Penal Code. This verdict was set aside on appeal and the case remanded for retrial. The jury empanelled on the second occasion included the foreman of the jury at the formal trial. When this fact was brought to the notice of the learned Judge he discharged this juror and substituted in his place a person present in Court. He refused however to empanel a fresh jury and directed that the case should proceed. There does not appear to be any legal authority for the course of action taken by the learned Judge. Apart from that consideration it is clearly most desirable that in circumstances of the nature disclosed in the present case the proceedings should be held before an entirely new jury. In the result we make this r...
Jagat Tarini Dassi W/O Bibhuti Bhusan Pal Choudhury and anr. Vs. Saraj ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal357
Biswas, J.1. The appellants before us are two ladies, Sm. Jagattcarini Dasi and Sm. Binapani Dasi, who obtained a decree in a suit for possession and mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil P.C. The decree directed an enquiry as to the mesne profits, and in this respect was not a final decree. It was passed on 22nd March 1938. About a year later, on 3rd March 1939, while the investigation as to mesne profits was still pending, the decree-holders made an application for attachment of the property of two of their judgment-debtors, defendants 1 and 2, Saroj Ranjan Pal Chowdhury and Prafulla Ranjan Pal Chowdhury. This application was made under Order 21, Rule 42, which provides that where a decree directs an enquiry as to rent or mesne profits or any other matter, the property of the judgment-debtor may, before the amount due from him, has been ascertained, be attached, as in the case of an ordinary decree for the payment of money.2. The property sought to be attached was a money decr...
Rupchand Bothra Vs. Pannalal Johorilal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal415
ORDERMcNair, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., for a revision of a decision of the Small Cause Court. The parties had entered into a contract for the purchase and sale of goods, and that contract contained an arbitration clause providing that any dispute whatsoever arising in or out of the contract shall be referred to arbitration. The plaintiff in spite of that arbitration clause brought a suit in the Court of Small Causes for the differences between the contract rate and market rate of certain goods. The defendant then applied under Section 19, Arbitration Act of 1899 as amended, which was then in operation, for stay of the suit on the ground that it should go to arbitration. The plaintiff opposed that application because he stated that the contract contained an interpolation with regard to import duty. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes has stayed the suit and ordered the matter to be referred to arbitration, and that order was upheld by the full...
Pashupati Sadukhan Vs. Janaki Nath Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1942Cal236
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Howrah dismissing the appellant's application for revocation of the probate of a will. One Suroth Chandra Sadhu Khan of village Salikha in the District of Howrah died on 28th November 1922, leaving a widow Radharani, a daughter Panehumoni by his pre-deceased wife, a minor daughter's son Pasupati and four brothers. On 15th December 1922, three persons Surendra Mukherjee, Kalipada Bhattacharjee and Janaki Nath Mukherji filed an application in the Court of the Additional District Judge of Howrah for probate of a will of Suroth stating inter alia that the will was the last will of Suroth, that it was executed by him on 20th November 1922, and that by the will they were appointed executors. Thereupon special citation was issued to the widow, to the daughter and to the minor daughter's son through his father Kalipada Sadhukhan. There was no opposition to this application for probate, and probate was granted by the Di...
Sm. Chapalabala Dasi W/O Kanikura Bhandari Vs. Sm. Sarat Kumari Dasi W ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal318
Sen, J.1. The defendant is the appellant in this suit which was for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to certain land as a reversioner, and for recovery of possession. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below. The plaintiff's case may be briefly stated as follows. The property in suit was purchased by one Jahuri in the benami of his wife Kalidasi by a kobala dated 4th chaitra 1316 B.S. Thereafter Jahuri died, and his widow Kalidasi sold the property to Indu Bala, defendant 3, who made a gift of it to one Brahmapada. Defendant 1, Chapala, purchased the property from Brahmapada and was in possession thereof. Kalidasi died in November 1933,. which corresponds to Kartic 1340 B.S. and thereafter the plaintiff Shib Chandra Pramanik, who is heir of Jahuri, brought this suit as reversioner. He died pending the suit, and his heirs have been substituted. The plaintiff's case was that the property belonged to Jahuri and that as reversioner he was entitled to the property.2. The def...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »