Kolkata Court February 1931 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.
U.K. Mitra Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal63,136Ind.Cas.465
Cuming, J.1. In these four cases one U. K. Mitra who is the lessee of the building known as the Minerva Theatre has been prosecuted and convicted under Section 391, Calcutta Municipal Act, for keeping open a theatre without a license.2. The first point which has been argued by the petitioner is that it is the owner of the theatre and not the lessee who is obliged to take out the license under Section 391.3. The decision on this point depends entirely on who can be said to keep the theatre open. As to the meaning of the expression certain English decisions have been cited to me. They are of no assistance whatever. In the first place the wording of the English Act is different for the expression in the English Act is 'keep' and obviously 'keep' and ' keep open' are entirely different things. Secondly, they are in no way binding on me and so have no more value than any other opinion as to the meaning of an expression.4. The practice of citing English decisions to interpret Indian statutes...
Probodh Chandra Guha Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal64,136Ind.Cas.136
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case are these:2. On 4th February 1928 a gentleman described as a Theatre Inspector brought a charge against the present petitioner Probodh Chandra Guha for not taking out a license under Section 391. Of what Act Section 391 is a section does not appear, but I am told it is a section of the Calcutta Municipal Act. The parties themselves then do not seem to have taken any further interest in the ease. The Magistrate records a number of orders of absentee and fixes a number of dates of which not the slightest notice seems to have been taken. I have referred to the manner in which this Magistrate keeps his record in another case (1261). I would only remark this record is kept in the same dirty and slovenly way.3. At last on 13th October 1930, nearly three years after the ease was instituted, the parties condescended to be present and the Magistrate passed the following extraordinary order the meaning of which I have been unable to discover:Agent says P.C. Guh...
Mon Mohan Pande Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal62,136Ind.Cas.135
Cuming, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been found guilty under Section 391, Calcutta Municipal Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 120. The ground on which the rule has been granted is first of all that no summons having been served on the petitioner his conviction in his absence was illegal. The contention appears to be well founded. The summons itself bears the endorsement 'served on the durwan.' Section 69, Criminal P.C., provides that a summons shall, if practicable be served personally on the person summoned and Section 70 provides that if by the exercise of due diligence he cannot be found in a Presidency Town a' duplicate may be left with his servant.2. The peon's return does not show that any attempt was made to find out the . petitioner. Obviously no attempt has been made to comply with the provision of the Coda for service of summnos and for that reason the Magistrate's order is illegal. The rule must be therefore made absolute and the conviction set aside, I cannot...
Gourishankar Chattoraj Vs. Sm. Satyabati Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal470
1. In this rule we are invited by the learned advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Bankim Chandra Mukherji to set aside the order of the learned District Judge of Berhampore dated 24th November 1930 rejecting the caveat filed by one Gourishankar Chattoraj, or to make such other or further order as to this Court may seem fit and proper.2. In order to understand the contentions of the parties it is necessary to set out the following genealogical table.Nanda Dulal _______________|_______________| |Sachi Rohini| || ____________________________________________________ | || | Lal Behari RashbehariSridhar Bansidhar | _____________________| | | |__________________ Shyamsundar Hiralal Kishorilal| | | wife |Pulin Janaki Bhuban Charumati Atulananda-Tribhanginy| |Kali Banasobhini| Gourishankar3. The opposite party represented by Dr. Mukherji applied for Letters of Administration to the estate of one Shyam-sundar who has died. The opposite party is the deceased Shyamsundar's wife's brother's daughter. ...
Narsingdas Agarwala Vs. Shaik Bhortoo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal472
Mitter, J.1. This rule was obtained for a revision of the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court Judge of Sealdah dismissing plaintiff's suit which was brought on the basis of a loan which was said to have been taken by defendants 1 to 5, in respect of which, it is said, that these defendants executed a hand note. The suit was contested by defendants 2 to 4. Defendant 1, although he filed a written statement, did not appear when the case was called on for hearing. A thumb-impression expert was examined in this case and he was of opinion that defendant 1 put his mark on the hand note but not defendants 2 and 4. The Subordinate Judge exercising Small Cause Court power came to the conclusion that as the hand note was tampered with by putting in the names of defendants 2 and 4 in the said hand-note although they were no parties to the instrument and did not take the loan and on this finding he dismissed the entire suit including the claims against defendants 1 and 5, relying on a dec...
Gobindachandra Poddar Vs. Subdivisional Officer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal163
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, who have been unsuccessful in the Courts below, in a suit for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing a pucca ghatla in execution of his order, dated 16th August 1926. The order was made by the defendant in his capacity as the Subdivisional Officer of Chandpur and Supervisor of the Chandpur Khal, purporting to act under Sections 14 and 16, Canals Act (Bengal Act 5 of 1864). The order was made on the ground that the ghatla in question was an obstruction to the line of navigation ' and a nuisance.'2. The contention urged in appeal is that the place where the ghatla is situate is not within the line of navigation. It has boon pointed out that the khal at the spot is about 750 feet wide, that there are other obstructions on both sides of the ghatla projecting much farther into the khal, and that for several months in the year the place where the ghatla is situate is dry land. It has been argued that the expression...
Ajitulla Vs. Bilati Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal383a,137Ind.Cas.556
Mukerji, J.1. Defendant 1 is the appellant in this appeal. The plaintiff sued for recovery of possession of two jotes on the allegation that they belonged to his sister Bagiran Bibi who died leaving her as the only heir. Defendant 1 contends that Basiran Bibi was his stepmother and has made a gift of the jotos to him long before her death and delivered possession thereof to her. The Munsif dismissed the suit. The Subordinate Judge has decreed it.2. The Subordinate Judge disbelieved the story of the gift. This finding of his cannot be challenged now. The question that has been raised is the question of limitation Basiran died in 1326, i. e., within 12 years of the suit which was instituted in 1923. She was living under protection of her husband Edol, father of defendant 1, who was looking after and cultivating the lands on her behalf. Ho evidently behaved perfidiously and allowed the name of defendant 1 to be recorded in the landlord's sherista. This was in 1316. The findings of the Sub...
Rajeswar Prosad Bhakat Vs. Rajani Nath Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal493
Guha, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen, described by' the trial Court as ' a suit to enforce certain statutory mortgages ' was instituted on 21st April 1926, by three idols, Sree Sree Iswar Lakshmi Narain Jiu Thakur, Sree Sree Iswar Sarodia Durga Debi Thaku-rani and Sree Sree Iswar Jagadhatri Debi Thakurani, represented by their shebait, Rajani Nath Banerjee. As stated in the plaint the claim in suit was for recovery of money on declaration that the property mentioned in Schedule (ka) of the plaint was liable for the amounts paid or deposited under Section 270, Ben. Ten. Act, and under Section 13, Bengal Patni Regulation (Regn. 8 of 1819), for the protection of the darpatni interest of the idols, the plaintiffs in the suit. The payments were made by the shebait for the time being, on various dates, and they were necessitated by the zamindar's refusal to receive the patni rent from the she-bait. The first payment was made on 4th August 1914, in Execution Case No. 83 of ...
Ananda Chandra Dutta and ors. Vs. Shariatulla Fakir and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal92
Guha, J.1. This rule is directed against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bogra, on an application under Section 95, Civil P. C, for compensation for obtaining attachment of the applicants' property on insufficient grounds. The facts of the case have bean set out in the judgment of the lower Court, and it is not necessary to refer to them in detail. The attachment complained of was made on 28th August 1929, in the course of a Small Cause Court suit; and it would appear that on the day that the plaint in the suit was filed, an application was made by the plaintiffs, the petitioners in the application on which this rule was granted, under Order 38, Rule 5, Civil P. C, for attachment of certain moveable properties belonging to the defendants in the suit, opposite party in this rule. An order was made by the Court on that application, directing a conditional attachment of some items of moveable property, and an attachment as contemplated by Order 38, Rule 5 (1) followed. On securi...
Arun Chandra Ray and ors. Vs. Ramanath Karmakar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal115
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for declaration that a certificate of sale did not affect the right, title and interest of plaintiff 1 Arun Chandra Roy and the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3, Sudhanya Kumar Roy and for recovery of possession of the land concerned with mesne profits on the ground that the sale was null and void. The suit was dismissed in both Courts holding that the sale was not vitiated by fraud as alleged and that it was otherwise a valid sale.2. In this appeal it 19 contended that the sale is ab initio void inasmuch as the sale certificate was in the name of the manager of Sudhanya, one of the co-sharers and not in his own name. The owners of this tauzi, viz., tauzi No. 14468 in Register D are shown as Jayalakhi Debya, manager of minor Sudhanya Chandra Roy and Arun Chandra Roy. At the time when the entry was originally made in Register D Sudhanya was a minor, and it appears from the findings of the Court of appeal below that after he became major the en...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »