Kolkata Court May 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.
Durgagati Banerjee and ors. Vs. Taharulla Mia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal215
Edgley, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff Taharulla Mia, sought to set aside an ex parte rent decree which was obtained against him by the defendants on 22nd December 1935. This decree was put into execution and some property belonging to Taharulla and some of the other defendants was sold at an execution sale which was held on 20th May 1936. The other defendants in the rent suit applied to set aside the sale and the plaintiff, who was defendant 9 in the rent suit was made a party to these proceedings. The application appears to have been made on the usual ground of material irregularity and fraud in publishing and conducting the sale and also on the allegation that the execution case was not maintainable. The sale was set aside by the first Court on 21st December 1936, but this decision was reversed on appeal on 15th May 1937, and the sale was confirmed on 29th June 1937. There-after, on 18th March 1938, a writ for delivery of possession was issued in favo...
Goaldas Daga Vs. Manicklal Baity
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal125
Lort-Wllliams, J.1. The plaintiff is a broker and a member of the East India Jute Association Limited. The defendant also is a broker. The plaintiff's claim relates to a number of transactions in jute carried out by the plaintiff for and on behalf of the defendant and upon his instructions. These resulted in a sum of Rs. 16,511-15-0 becoming due to the plaintiff upon 28th January 1939. On 30th January 1939, the defendant paid to the plaintiff Rs. 5000 on account leaving a balance of Rs. 11,511-15-0. Adding to this interest amounting to Rs. 153-9-6, the plaintiff's claim is Rs. 11,665-8-6. Under the rules of the association future contracts of purchase or sale of jute are made between members of the association only, that is to say, the association only recognizes its members in these transactions. They are forward contracts and are made for a period of three months and each week during the period of the three months a clearing rate is fixed by the board of control of the association an...
Haripada Mukherjee, Shebait of Kali Mata and anr. Vs. Shaila Bala Devi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal530
Edgley, J.1. In this case the appellant filed an appeal in the Court of the Districts Judge of Howrah on 14th December 1938. The memorandum of appeal was filed with a court-fee of Rs. 2-14-0 only as part payment in respect of a total court-fee due of Rs. 52-14-0. On 15th December 1938 the learned District Judge recorded an order to the effect that the balance of the court-fees should be paid within three days and he directed that the matter should be put up on 19th December 1938 for orders. On that date the court-fees had not been paid. So the memorandum of appeal was rejected. On a later date, namely on 3rd January 1939 the appellant filed an application in which he asked for an extension of time under Section 5, Limitation Act. This application was rejected. The appellant's case in his application was to the effect that orders such as the one passed on 15th December 1938 are ordinarily communicated to the pleaders concerned, but in this case neither the pleader nor his clerk was info...
S. SharafuddIn Ahmed Vs. Shamsul Huq.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal147
ORDERMcNair, J.1. This is a. petition by the defeated candidate in Mahomedan constituency Taltolla, Ward No. 14, who polled 304 votes. The respondent who was elected, polled 312 votes, and his election was published in the Calcutta gazette on 4th April.2. A preliminary question has been argued by way of demurrer, namely whether the petitioner is entitled to a recount and by a recount is meant not merely the counting of votes to check the arithmetic of the returning officer, but a scrutiny as well to review his finding as to the validity of the ballot papers. In the earlier paragraphs of the petition it is alleged that the appointment of the returning officer was open to objection and that he was guilty of malpractices. The first three grounds have been abandoned, but Mr. Bose for the petitioner states that he abandoned ground 3 so far as it related to the appointment of the returning officer, but did not intend to abandon his contention that the returning officer had been a party to di...
Ranjit Kumar Roy and anr. Vs. Kabiraj Kisori Mohan Gupta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal401
Lort-Williams, J.1. The plaintiffs are the Receivers of the Co-operative Hindustan Bank Ltd. (in liquidation). On or about 31st May 1929 the Bank at the request of both defendants and upon the guarantee of defendant 2 lent to defendant 1 a sum of Rs. 1000. Defendant 1 executed a promissory note dated 31st May 1929 as follows:On demand I, Kaviraj Kisori Mohan Gupta residing at 167/1/1, Cornwallis Street, Calcutta, promise to pay to the Co-operative Hindustan Bank Ltd, at Calcutta or order for value received the sum of rupees one thousand only together with the interest at 12 per cent, per annum until repayment in full.2. Defendant 2 executed a letter of guarantee dated 30th May 1929 and addressed to the Bank as follows:As at my request and on my guarantee you have agreed to advance Rs. 1000 (one thousand) only on pro-note to Kaviraj Kishori Mohan Gupta, M.A. as may from time to time be required and as sane tioned by you, I do hereby guarantee the due repayment of the amount so advanced ...
Secretary of State Vs. Syed Sadek Reza
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal167
Nasim Ali, J.1. On 11th February 1924, the plaintiff in the present suit obtained from the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad an ijara settlement of certain properties appertaining to Mahal Taraf Sambalpur within tauzi No. 210, Parganah Kanagjole in the district of Maldah on an annual rent of Rs. 10,172 for a period of 21 years commencing from Baisak 1330 B.S. to the end of Chaitra 1350. The material terms of this ijara were : (1) That the rent reserved is to be paid by the lessee kist by kist in the sadar kachery of the Nawab Bahadur in Lalbagh in the district of Murshidabad. (2) That during the term of settlement, the lessor would have nothing to do with possession or dispossession of the properties covered by the ijara and that the lessee will have to pay the fixed annual rent without any objection. (3) That the lessee will have no right to surrender his rights under the ijara during the fixed term of the ijara. (4) That if during the term of the present lease the lessor wants to take kha...
Carritt Moran and Co. Vs. Manmatha Nath Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal691
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of McNair J. delivered on 24th April 1939, and the consequent decree, whereby he awarded a sum of Rs. 28,530-4-1 to the plaintiff as damages. The plaintiff, Manmatha Nath Mukherjee, is a gentleman who has been interested for some time in tea companies; he is also a director of the Bengal Central Bank, Ltd., which has its head office in Calcutta. The defendants are a firm of auctioneers and tea brokers, who sell tea in the wholesale way in Calcutta. The damages awarded are in respect of the sale by the defendants of tea grown and manufactured on the Parkul Tea Estate in Sylhet between April and December 1936, on the ground that the said sales were wrongful sales of the plaintiff's tea.2. In July 1935 the Parkul Tea Estate was owned by the Chandpore Tea Company, Ltd., a company with its registered office in London; the agents of the company in Calcutta were Messrs. Barry & Co. Mr. P.C. Syam, a gentleman of about 35 years of age who had...
Upendra Nath Ghose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal561
Sen, J.1. Two persons Upendra Nath Ghose and Sudhir Pramanik were tried by the Sessions Judge of Khulna and a special jury charged with the offence of murdering one Abala and also with the offence of abducting her in order that she may be murdered or put in danger of being murdered. The Jury by a unanimous verdict have found both these persons not guilty of the offence of murder. By a majority of 6 to 3 they found Sudhir not guilty of the charge of abduction and by a majority of 8 to 1 they found Upendra guilty of the charge of abduction. The learned Judge accepting the verdict of the Jury has acquitted Sudhir of both the charges and has convicted Upendra of the charge of abduction under Section 364, I.P.C. He has sentenced Upendra to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of eight years. The case for the prosecution briefly is as follows : One Sumati is the wife of Baroda Ghose, a person of unsound mind. She had a daughter named Abala who was aged between 11-12 years. The appellant,...
Shekh Tamizali Vs. Md. Nasarali Bhuiya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal58
Edgley, J.1. The judgment-debtor is the appellant in this case and the appeal arises with reference to the dismissal of an application filed by the judgment-debtor under Section 47, Civil P. C., in which he sought to set aside an execution sale. It appears that the decree-holder obtained a decree for rent against the appellant on 12th July 1937. On 28th May 1938 he put this decree into execution and the requisite processes had been served by 14th June 1938. On 30th June 1938 the appellant applied to the Debt Settlement Board for the settlement of his debts and he alleges the rent decree which the decree-holder was seeking to execute was included in the application under Section 8, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. He maintained that the Debt Settlement Board in due course issued a notice under Section 34 of the Act but, in spite of the issue of this notice, the execution sale was held on 9th August 1938. Thereafter, on 11th November 1938 the appellant applied to the Court under Section ...
Abdul Monaf and ors. Vs. Sunamganj Municipal Board
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal482
Mohamad Akram, J.1. These 10 analogous appeals by the plaintiffs arise out of as many suits for a declaration that the personal tax imposed upon them by the defendant Sunamgunj Municipal Board under Act, 1 of 1923 (Assam) was illegal and improper and for an injunction restraining the said Board from realising the same. The suits were heard together and disposed of by one judgment and so were the appeals before the lower appellate Court. The plaintiffs are different but the defendant in all the suits is the same. The case of the plaintiffs was that they resided outside the Sunamgunj Municipality and served as Government servants in the Sunamgunj Munsif's Court within the municipal area; that the plaintiff in suit No. 2354 was the accountant and the plaintiffs in the other suits were the process-servers of the said Court; that as the plaintiffs were not inhabitants of the Municipality they were not liable for the taxes imposed upon them under the Assam Municipal Act (1 of 1928).2. The de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »