Kolkata Court June 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.
Upendra Nath Das and anr. Vs. Durlav Chandra Kundu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal117
ORDERMcNair, J.1. This is an application by the auction-purchaser to set aside a sale by the Registrar on the ground that good title has not been made out. The applicant contends that the property is subject to charges under the will of Krishna Das Kundu which have never been disclosed. The will was not mentioned in the abstract of title, nor in the conditions of sale, and it is alleged that the existence of the charges were deliberately suppressed. The mortgagee contends that the charges do not exist. The will was discovered after searches. Probate has never been granted. The will in Clause 3 provides that the testator's two sons who are the mortgagees shall each get at the rate of Rs. 50 a month from his estate month by month 'for defraying the expenses of maintenance etc., of their sons, daughters, wives and their own selves' after the testator's death. There is a further provision that the sons shall get 'at the rate of Rs. 2000' from the testator's estate for defraying the expense...
Trailokhya Nath Banerjee Vs. Sukumar Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal202
Sen, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : There was a dispute regarding land between the appellant and the respondent and two others. The dispute was referred by the parties to the arbitration of three gentlemen who are pleaders of Jessore. They made an award. The appellant applied under Para. 20 of Schedule 2, Civil P. C., to the Court of a Munsif at Narail in the district of Jessore for an order that the award be filed. The respondent alone objected. His objections broadly were (1) that there was no valid reference to arbitration, and (2) that the award was liable to be set aside on the ground of misconduct on the part of the arbitrators. The learned Munsif held that the reference was valid and that there was no misconduct. He then passed the following order:Ordered that the suit be decreed in terms of the award with costs on contest against defendant 1 and ex parte against the rest. The award do form part of the decree.2. Defendant 1, it may be noted, is the re...
Raja Kritanand Singh Bahadur and ors. Vs. Secretary of State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal506
1. This appeal is by defendants 1 to 3 in a suit instituted by the Secretary of State for India in Council on 27th March 1929, for recovery of nine Jalkars or Fisheries. They are known as (1) Patalchandi (2) Nimajole (3) Chandmari (4) Gangaprosad (5) Mayamari (6) Goaltuli (7) Laldhubri (8) Tulsiganga. The ninth Jalkar is over a portion of the river Bhagirathi which for brevity's sake will hereafter be called by the name of Ganga Bhagirathi or Bhagirathi simply. At the trial the plaintiff gave up his claim to Goaltuli and Laldhubri on the admission that they are no longer fisheries, being now dry lands. Tulsiganga is a long narrow channel, but the remaining five jalkars are in beels or almost land locked waters connected by narrow channels or daras with the river Bhagirathi, except Mayamari which is connected with another river called Pagla. The plaintiff claims the exclusive right to fish not only in those beels but also in some of those connecting channels or daras.2. There were five ...
Radharani Dassi Vs. Mati Lal Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal569
Bartley, J.1. This rule was issued upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why an order made on a petition under Section 488, Criminal P.C., should not be set aside. The facts briefly are that the petitioner obtained a maintenance order against her husband at the rate of Rs. 25 a month. Subsequently, the opposite party, her husband, was adjudicated an insolvent under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. In the interval he paid no maintenance to his wife. She applied for a distress warrant and the order made by the learned third Presidency Magistrate was 'the accused has been adjudicated insolvent. Petitioner referred to the Insolvency Court. The case is filed.' The rule came up originally for hearing before Edgley J., who has referred it to a Division Bench for decision. The point for decision is whether an order of adjudication is or is not a complete bar to realization of maintenance under Section 488, Criminal P.C.. On behalf of the opposite party it is conten...
Ranendra Nath Datta Vs. Munick Lal Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal118
ORDERMcNair, J.1. This is an application for variation and discharge of the report by the official referee on 30th August 1938, and that the petitioner's claim for over Rs. 8000 be allowed to the extent of two-thirds against the estate of Khokalal and Sourendra Nath Mitra, and similarly that the petitioner's claim of nearly Rs. 22,000 be allowed against the estate of Sourendra Nath Mitra. The reference was made in a suit by a creditor against Manick Lal Mitra, Samarendra Nath Mitra, Mukul Kumar Mitra and the official trustee who is trustee of the estate of the infant defendant Manick Lal Mitra, and also receiver of the Hooghly Mitters' Estate including the shares of the minor. The order referred to was made on 10th August 1934. The order was for the taking of accounts and directed that advertisements should be published directing the creditors of Khokalal Mitra and Sourendra Nath Mitra to come in and prove their claims. The advertisements were issued, and the present applicant was one ...
Abdur Rouf and ors. Vs. Abdur Rahim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal205
Edgley, J.1. In the case out of which this appeal arises the decree-holders had obtained a final mortgage decree against certain persons on 28th March 1935, and this decree was subsequently affirmed on appeal. Thereafter, on 25th May 1937, the decree-holders put this decree into execution in execution case No. 50 of 1937 and in that particular execution proceeding they brought to sale the interest of defendant 1 Pran Gobinda Bhandari in the mortgage property. The sale took place on 11th August 1937, and the interest of this particular judgment-debtor was sold for the sum of Rs. 175. Thereafter the decree-holders instituted a further execution case No. 81 of 1938, for the realization of the balance of their dues which amounted to Rs. 113-10-6. On this occasion they proceeded against the interest of defendant 2, Abdur Rahim alias Manglu Mian, in certain items of the mortgaged property which he had purchased from Pran Gobinda Bhandari subject to the mortgage. In these proceedings an objec...
Hansraj Bhuteria and anr. Vs. Askaran Bhuteria and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal244
ORDERMcNair, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiffs for liberty to spend out of the estate, which is being administered by this Court, a sum of Rs. 25,000 to meet the marriage expenses' of the plaintiff, Hansraj Bhuteria. The plaintiff is a minor who has not yet reached the age of 16 years. Apparently both the plaintiff Hansraj and his prospective bride are domiciled in Bikanir. The sagai ceremony has taken place in Bikanir, and the marriage ceremony is due to take place at Sujangarh in Bikanir on 12th June 1940. The application is opposed by the executors to the estate. They point out that the marriage would not be valid in India owing to the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act. They also point out that even under the Bikanir Hindu Marriage Act, 1928, the plaintiff will be a minor under the definition contained in Section 2 of that Act, in that he will not have completed his 16th year until 29th June 1940, and the marriage is to be performed on 12th June 1940.2. The ...
Southern H M Inspector of Taxes Vs. Cohens Executors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1940
Reported in: [1942]10ITR8(Cal)
Scott, L. J..-We need not trouble you, Mr. Solicitor.In this case the question arises out of an agreement of sale by a gentlemen now deceased of, broadly speaking, his business to a limited company in the year 1934. In the agreement entered into on 9th August of that year there are certain provisions with which I must deal because it is out of those provision that the question in the presents appeal arises. I add this, that the question is as to the profits received by the vendor or his executors on orders which he had obtained before he sold his business on 9th August. The Commissioners before whom the question came decided and that consequently the assessment upon his personal representatives under Rule 18 of the General Rules applicable to all Schedules of the Income tax Act, 1918 could not properly be made upon the personal representatives.The agreement in question provided that the vendor should sell and the company should purchase : 'First the goodwill of the business of the Vend...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›