Kolkata Court August 1942 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.
Gobind Das Bhattar Vs. Gajanand Pandey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1944Cal189
ORDERKhundkar, J.1. This is an application for payment to the petitioner of a sum of Rs. 1500 now lying in the hands of an attorney who acted for the defendant in a suit in which the petitioner is the plaintiff. It is opposed by the attorney who claims a lien for his costs on the sum in question. The relevant facts are as follows: The petitioner instituted a suit on 17th August 1939 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3694-11-0 on a signed adjustment of account. In that suit on 18th August 1989, he applied for attachment before judgment of a decree which the defendant had obtained against one Prahladram on 8th August 1939, in suit NO. 1000 of 1938. On that date Mc Nair J. made an interim Order on the application restraining the defendant from withdrawing the sum of Rs. 3694-11-0 out of the decretal amount in suit No. 1000 of 1938 by execution or otherwise. Then, on 31st August 1939 Mc Nair J. made the following order:Without prejudice to the contention of the parties, application adjourned af...
Bogra Bank Ltd. Vs. Ramani Mohan Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal569
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule is not opposed. The petitioner is the decree-holder. He does not dispute the right of the opposite party to have the decree reopened on his application under Section 36(6), Bengal Money-Lenders Act. He accepts the calculation of the Munsif of the new decree for Rs. 165-10-9 including principal, interest and costs. The petitioner purchased a certain property in execution of the decree in 1931. The learned Munsif calculated that by the usufruct he had made a profit of Rs. 136-12-0. Now the learned Munsif would have certainly been justified in making this a ground for refusing to give the petitioner any additional interest for the period between the passing of the original decree and the passing of the new decree. That question, however, does not arise in the present case, because the decree itself has given the petitioner the full amount of interest allowable under the provisions of the Act. What the learned Munsif has done is to deduct this amount from the...
Chandrabhan Bilotia and anr. Vs. Ganpatrai and Sons
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1942
Reported in: AIR1944Cal127
ORDERBlagden, J.1. On 24th September 1941, the Champdany Jute Co. Ltd., made out a delivery Order for 50,000 yds. hessian cloth in favour of Messrs Adamjee Hajee Daud & Co. Ltd., or order. Various dealings with this document took place, it being endorsed gen-erally by those in whose favour it was drawn and endorsed again by six persons or com-panies before finally this document came into the hands of the present applicants. Where a document of this kind is negotiated in this manner and treated as though it were the goods that it represents, that which takes place is sometimes called 'symbolic delivery' of the goods. It is also, I think, quite accurate to say that it is a conditional delivery of the goods, much in the same way as the handing over of a cheque is a conditional payment of money, the condition being that when the holder of the Order wants his goods he should be able to get them by presenting it. On 1st October 1941, the present applicants sold the goods represented by this ...
Banamali Charan Bhunia and anr. Vs. Dharanidhar Bhunia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal41
ORDER1. This is a rule for quashing certain proceedings pending at present before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Diamond Harbour, in which the petitioners have been summoned under Section 417, Penal Code, for cheating. The only allegation of cheating is that these petitioners who were being prosecuted previously under Section 408 had induced the complainant 'to compromise the ease' as he calls it. Assuming for the present purpose that this is correct, we do not see how it will be possible to prosecute these two (petitioners for cheating. The charge under Section 408 is not compoundable and even if the petitioners made some promise and the case was dropped, in the first place the promise would not be enforceable and secondly, it would always be open to the complainant to have the case revived if the Magistrate was so disposed. Actually it appears in the present case that an attempt was made by the complainant to have a revival of his case and that when this failed some legal adviser sug...
Pramatha Nath Sanyal S/O Bhabani Nath Sanyal Vs. Sailesh Chandra Chowd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal214
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. (Civil Revision Case No. 1093 of 1942). - This rule is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Mymensingh, dated 15th April 1942, by which the judgment-debtors opposite parties were allowed an extension of time for paying the first instalment of the mortgage-money payable under a new preliminary decree made under Section 34, Bengal Money-Lenders Act. The material facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows : The petitioner as mortgagee obtained a decree against the opposite parties in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge at Mymensingh in mortgage Suit No. 4 of 1935 of that Court on 9th July 1935. The decree was made by consent and a sum of Rs. 2,33,393-13-0 was payable under it by the judgment-debtors to the decree-holder in 20 annual instalments commencing from chaitra 1343 B.S. It is not disputed that the instalments for the years 1343 and 1344 B.S. were duly paid by the judgment-debtors. Thereafter, thei...
Haradhone Palit and anr. Vs. Panchanan Palit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal570
Pal, J.1. This appeal is by the defendants in a suit under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, for settlement of rent in respect of the land held by the defendants under the plaintiff. The lands in suit have been recorded in C.S. Khatian No. 201 of the finally published record of Mouza Tala, J. L. No. 61 of P.S. Arambagh. The defendants have been recorded therein as tenure-holders under the plaintiff in respect of these lands and the tenure has been recorded as liable to be assessed to rent. The C. Section record was finally published on 16th March 1936 and the plain, tiff Sir Bejoy Chand Mahtab G.C. I.E.K.G.S.I.I.O.M., instituted the present suit on 11th July 1936 under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, for the settlement of rent in respect of the tenure. The defendants appeared and contested the claim saying that the lands constituted their niskar holding and that these were wrongly recorded as liable to be assessed to rent under the plaintiff. The Assistant Settlement Officer who heard the case d...
Bireswar Moral and anr. Vs. Indu Bhushan Kundu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal573
1. The respondents obtained a decree for money against the appellants in a g suit for recovery of the price of Barga crops in the Court of the Munsif at Khulna. They put this decree into execution. The appellants then filed an application for relief before the Debt Settlement Board under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act (Act 7 of 1936). A notice under Section 34 of this Act was issued on 25th June 1940. In pursuance of this notice, the Munsif stayed the execution proceedings on the next day. On 11th July 1940 the Bengal Agricultural Debtor's Amendment Act (Act 8 of 1940) came into force. By this Act, Section 20 of Act 7 of 1936 was amended by inserting therein the following words: 'or I whether a liability is a debt or not' before the words 'the Board shall decide the matter.' On 24th August 1940 the respondents objected to the order of stay made by the Munsif on 26th June 1940 on the ground, that the appellants' liability under the decree was not a debt within the meaning of Act 7 ...
Monfar Raja Choudhury Vs. Dewan Rowsan Kamar Khatun Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal586
1. The facts which are not in dispute in this appeal are these : On 24th Kartick 1342 B.S. corresponding to 10th November 1935, defendant 1 executed in favour of the plaintiff an unregistered document Ex. l. The material portion of this document is as follows:I am owner in possession of 1 anna 71/2 gandas share zemindary right by inheritance from my late daughter Taisukernessa Khatun in respect of all properties with taluk No. 27206/1 Md. Ami in Pergunah Sukhair Mouza Rajapur Shubangpur, Sarisabanda, Prakharpur, Sariaapur, Sannadpur, Najapur, Bhati, Najapur, Mouza Killa Nazapur, Monza Daulatpur with lands, Bheels, Jheels, Ditches, Rivers, Drains, cultivated and uncultivated lands, Kharaar lands, Khanabari, two bazars and including all sorts of lands whether covered with water or not. You having proposed to me to take Ijara settlement of the said share, I agree to your proposal and give you settlement for the period with effect from 1342 B.S. to 1352 B.S. The rent for the period having ...
Krishna Chandra Saha and ors. Vs. Jogesh Chandra Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal140
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule has been obtained by the defendants and is directed against an order of the Munsif refusing to stay a suit under the provisions of the Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenants Act. The petitioners are admittedly non-agricultural tenants and the dispute between the parties is whether the suit is one for ejectment. The petitioners hold under a permanent lease. The cause of action is based on a covenant in the lease entitling the plaintiffs to take khas possession on payment of compensation, if they require the land themselves for their own use. The Munsif held that such a suit was not a suit for ejectment. In opposing the rule Mr. Sen supported this view. He said that, inasmuch as the lease has not been determined in the Transfer of Property Act, the suit is in the nature of one for a reconveyance and not for ejectment. He admitted that this argument would not apply apart from the provision for compensation. In my judgment it makes no difference. The wording of the ...
Prosanna Kumar Roy Choudhury Vs. Smt. Adya Sakti Dasi W/O Hari Kishore ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal586
1. The facts which are not in dispute in this appeal are these : The respondent purchased a portion of a raiyati holding from one Govinda Chandra Modak on 27th March 1934, by a registered kobala (Ex. 1), In this kobala the holding was described as an occupancy holding. After this purchase, notice was given to the appellant landlord under the provisions of Section 26C (3), Bengal Tenancy Act. On 22nd August 1934, the appellant landlord made an application under Section 26F, Ben. Ten. Act, for pre-emption of the portion of the raiyati holding purchased by the respondent. On 4th February 1935, the record of rights of the village in which this holding is situated was finally published. In this record the holding was recorded as an occupancy holding. The application of the appellant landlord under Section 26F, Ben. Ten, Act, was put up for hearing on 1st January 1935. In April 1935, Govinda Chandra Modak filed a suit under Section 106, Ben. Ten. Act, to correct the record of rights by recor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »