Kolkata Court June 1942 Judgments
Commissioners of Pabna Municipality and anr. Vs. Nirode Sundari Dasya ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal544
Biswas, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendants, and arises out of a suit for damages. The defendants are the Commissioners of the Pabna Municipality (defendant 1) and its Vice-Chairman (defendant 2). The plaintiff Laid his claim at Rs. 50, and the act for which he claimed this compensation was the cutting down of three simul trees standing in the plaintiffs' land. The suit was resisted on a variety of grounds. On the merits it was alleged that the municipality or any of its officers had nothing to do with the cutting down of the trees but that this was the work of some enthusiastic volunteers of a body known as the Anti Malaria Society who were operating in the area at the time The defendants further claimed statutory protection for the act complained of. It appears that sometime in the month of August 1937 the municipality had actually served a notice on the plaintiffs, calling upon them to clear the jungles and other noxious undergrowth and vegetation from their lands on the...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Bibhabati Devi W/O Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy Vs. Kumar Ramendra N ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal498
ORDER1. Raja Rajendra Narayan Roy of Bhowal died leaving him surviving three sons, Ranendra Narayan, Ramendra Narayan and Rabindra Narayan, who inherited his properties, known as the Bhowal estate, in equal shares. His second son, Ramendra Narayan, married Bibhabati Debi, the petitioner before us. There is no issue of that marriage. In April 1909 Ramendra Narayan went to Darjeeling accompanied by his wife, Bibhabati Debi, and other relations. There he fell ill and to all appearances died on 8th May 1909. Whether he actually died or not is the most important point in the case. On the assumption that he was dead his wife Bibhabati took possession of his one-third share in the Bhowal Estate as his heir and continued to be in possession, when in the year 1911 she was declared a disqualified proprietor and the Court of Wards assumed charge on her behalf.2. On 24th April 1930 opposite party No. 1 instituted the suit in the first Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dacca, being Title Suit No. 7...
Tag this Judgment!Asmaboo Kurban HossaIn and ors. Vs. Province of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal569
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Trust Tribunal dated 10th April 1942, passed in connexion with an application made by the petitioners, in whose favour an award was made by the Tribunal, for transmission of a certificate of non-satisfaction of the award to the Calcutta Small Causes Court, under this following circumstances : The petitioners were the owners of premises Nos. 1-A and 1-B, Pollock Street in the town of Calcutta which were acquired by the Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta and the Land Acquisition Collector made an award for a sum of about Rs. 95,000 as compensation for the said premises. There was a reference taken to the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal at the instance of the petitioners who were not satisfied with the award and the Tribunal by its order dated 6th August 1940, enhanced the award of the Collector by Rs. 59512-8-0. There is no dispute that the original sum given as compensat...
Tag this Judgment!Radhica Lal GossaIn Vs. Jitendra Nath GossaIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal458
Nasim Ali, J.1. The appellant obtained a decree for money against the respondents on the basis of a promissory note executed by the respondents in favour of the appellant. The appellant put this decree into execution on 24th January 1939. The Bengal Money-Lenders Act, came into force on 1st September 1940. On 6th November 1940, some immovable properties belonging to the respondents were sold in execution of the decree and were purchased by the appellant. The purchase money and the amount due on the decree were then set off against one another under Order 21, Rule 72, Clause (2), Civil P.C. and the executing Court entered up satisfaction of the decree in whole as the purchase money was equal to the amount due on the decree. The judgment-debtors then made an application for setting aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. While this application was pending he made another application under Section 34(1)(b), Bengal Money. Lenders Act, praying that he might be allowed to pay off ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendranath Sarkar and ors. Vs. Sree Sree Iswar Laksmi Durga and ors. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal537
ORDER1. Defendants 1 to 3 are the petitioners before us. They filed this application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council under the provisions of Section 109, Civil P.C. The judgment of this Court is not a judgment of affirance. Besides, the proposed appeal to His Majesty in Council involves substantial questions of law. As it is a judgment of reversal, two questions will have to be determined before we can grant leave. The first question is whether the value of the subject-matter of the suit and of the proposed appeal is over Rs. 10,000; and the second is whether the proposed appeal is against a decree or final order of this Court. On the first question a report was asked for from the lower Court and that report is that the subject-matter of the suit and of the proposed appeal, which are three leasehold properties is valued at Rs. 35,000. The plaintiff opposite party does not challenge the report of the learned Subordinate Judge. The first condition, therefore, is satisfied. ...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakishen Mull Vs. Maganlal Brothers
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal206
Gentle, J.1. The plaintiffs as buyers claim from the defendants, the sellers, damages for non-delivery of 25 cases of umbrella ribs described as '25 x 8 Big Ball Steel Flex. Ribs Japanese Association Quality.' The contract asserted by the plaintiff is contained in the defendants' printed document, called an indent, dated 20th January 1939. By this indent the plaintiffs requested the defendants to supply or to instruct their e friends abroad to buy for the plaintiffs and to ship, if possible, the goods above mentioned upon the terms and conditions stated on the reverse of the form. After setting out the goods as I have detailed earlier, the indent provided that each case should contain 40 dozen, the price being 2 yen per dozen C.I.F., net quality, shipment March 1989. In his evidence the plaintiff said that goods shipped from Japan ordinarily take from 1 month to 11/2 months in transit. They should, therefore, arrive in Calcutta at the end of April or the early part of May 1987. It is c...
Tag this Judgment!Purna Chandra Biswas S/O Biswamber Biswas Vs. Sm. Kshiroda Sundari Dut ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal610
ORDERHenderson, J.1. The question common to all these rules is whether, when a new decree in a money suit is passed on an application for review under Section 36(6), Bengal Money-Lenders Act, the Court has jurisdiction to allow interest for the period between the passing of the original decree and the passing of the new decree. There is nothing in Section 36 of the Act itself which confers any such power; but the solution of the question depends upon the extent to which Section 34, Civil P.C., has been affected by the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. On behalf of the debtors it was pointed out that both in an application for review under Sub-section (6), and in a suit under Sub-section (1) the substantial relief asked for is the reopening of an existing decree, and it was suggested that the data upon which such an order may be made is quite irrelevant for the purpose of calculating interest for the period subsequent to the filing of the suit. This argument would undoubtedly have had force, if...
Tag this Judgment!Jagabandhu De Vs. Akshoy Kumar Sil
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal137
1. This appeal arises out of a series of transactions commencing with a loan of Rs. 1000 advanced on a promissory note by the plaintiff to the defendant on 15th November 1919. The promissory note was renewed on 6th November 1922, after Rs. 5 only had been paid, by a promissory note for Rs. 1450. This in turn was renewed on 2nd November 1925 by another note for Rs. 2000 with interest at 12 per cent, and the latter by a further note on 6th November 1928 for Rs. 2720 with interest at 9 3/4 per cent. The plaintiff then sued for his dues in money suit No. 62/293 of 1931-30 claiming Rs. 8272-8-0. On 9th May 1932 a consent decree was passed for Rs. 2780. Thereafter, various execution proceedings were taken, and in all Rs. 825 was realised. The plaintiff then started Execution Case No. 102/39 on 14th July 1939 for an amount of Rs. 2034-11-6. On 30th September 1940, the judgment-debtor made an application under Section 36, Bengal Money-Lenders Act, which had just previously come into force. The...
Tag this Judgment!Daityari Tripatty Vs. Subodh Chandra Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal575
Blagden, J.1. On 27th April 1942, this Court granted a rule nisi against the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, and a Mr. S.C. Choudhury to quash certain proceedings pending before the former in which, on the complaint of the latter, a charge had been framed against the petitioner, Omitting formal facts, this charge reads as follows:That you being a servant of the Chandbali Steamer Service Co., Ltd. of 29, Strand Road, Calcutta, and in that capacity being entrusted with property to wit the monies received and realised by you on behalf of the said company and being bound under the contract of service to deposit the said monies in the Head Office at 29, Strand Road, Calcutta, dishonestly disposed of between 8th October 1941 and 23rd November 1941, the total gross sum of Rs. 7800-4-0 the property of the said Chandbali Steamer Service Co. Ltd., in contravention of the terms of contract of service and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 408, Penal Code and within my co...
Tag this Judgment!Khalilar Rahman and ors. Vs. Sm. Mamuda Khatoon and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal446
1. This is an appeal against an appellate decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chittagong which allowed in effect the whole e of the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff sued for khas possession of seven plots on declaration of title, the plots appertaining to Noabad Taluk Mohammad Safi in Mouza Khata. gong. The plaintiff acquired title in the taluk by purchase in a revenue sale, and the defendants contend that they have protected interests under the provisions of Sections 12 and 14, Land Revenue Sales Act of 1868. The tenants in plots Nos. 972, 973 and 1004/1052 claimed protection under Section 14 of the Act as rayats having a right of occupancy, and the trial Court found against them. Those interested in plots Nos. 972 and 973 filed a cross-objection when the plaintiff appealed with respect to other plots, but the cross-objection was dismissed. They have preferred an appeal to this Court but this had not been pressed, and it is dismissed.2. The tenants in plots Nos. 954 and 1004/1054 also ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »