Kolkata Court August 1931 Judgments

Ahmad Kasim Molla Vs. Khatun Bibi

Court: Kolkata

Costello, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff, Ahmad Kasim Molla, seeks a declaration that he has validly divorced his wife, Khatun Bibi. He also asks for an injunction restraining her from taking out the sum of Rs. 232-14-0 deposited by him in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta.2. The plaintiff's case is that he married the defendant on 25th August 1929, at No. 63/1, Sovaram Basak Street, Calcutta, according to the provisions of the Sunni School of Mahomedan law. He then says that on 20th September 1929 he divorced his wife at No. 17, Zakaria Street, in accordance with Mahomedan law and that he duly intimated to the defendant that such divorce had been pronounced by him.3. The defendant, on 20th March 1930, obtained from the Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, an order for payment to her of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. It was as a result of execution, proceedings under that order that the sum of Rs. 232-14, which I have already mentioned, was paid by the plainti...

Rajendra Kumar Roy Vs. Bal Govinda Tewari and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1932Cal65

1. Reference No. 90. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Howrah under the following circumstances: It appears that there is a person named Bal Govinda Tewary who has erected a tin shed in Pandit Ghat Road within the Municipality of Howrah and has thereby been guilty of an encroachment on the public road. The Municipality through their Sub-overseer R. K. Roy lodged a complaint under Section 202, Bengal Municipal Act, 3 (B. C.) of 1884, which runs as follows:The Commissioners may issue a notice requiring any person to remove any wall which he may have built, or any fence, rail, post or other obstruction or encroachment, which he may have erected in or on any road or open drain, sewer or aqueduct, after the date on which the District Municipal Improvement Act, 1864, or the District Towns Act, 1863, or the Bengal Municipal Act, 1876, as the case may be, took effect in the Municipality; or, in case none of the said Acts was in force in the Municipality before the commencement ...

Matilall Kalwar Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1932Cal122,140Ind.Cas.257; AIR1932Cal122

1. The first point taken on behalf of the petitioner in this rule is that the confession of Matilal Kalwar to Anath Nath Goswami (P. W. l) who, we understand, is the Excise Sub-Inspector was inadmissible, having regard to the provisions of Section 25, Evidence Act which says that no confession made to a police officer should be admitted in evidence. The point therefore resolves itself into this: whether an Excise Sub-Inspector can be considered to be a police officer within the meaning of Section 25, Evidence Act. There has been a string of cases in this Court: Rukumali v. Emperor [1917] l9 Cr. L.J. 524 Ah Foong Chinaman v. Emperor [1917] 46 Cal. 411 Harbhanjansao v. Emperor : AIR1927Cal527 and Tura Sardar v. Emperor : AIR1930Cal710 whore it has been held that an Excise Sub-Inspector is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 25, Evidence Act. But the learned advocate who appears for the petitioner draws our attention to a recent case decided in this Court and reported in Ib...

Hooghly - Chinsura Municipality Vs. Keshab Chandra Pal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1933Cal347

S.K. Ghose, J.1. One Keshab Ch. Pal was charged under Section 273(2), Bengal Municipal Act (3 of 1884) for having used a place as a kiln for making tiles within the Municipality of Hooghly-Chinsura without a license from the Commissioners as contemplated by Section 261 of the Act. The case was tried summarily and the accused was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30 in default simple imprisonment for 30 days. It appears that the Municipality is in existence from the year 1864. There is a resolution of the Municipality dated 12th February 1867 by which under Section 77, Municipal Act of 1864 (B. C. Act 3 of 1864), the whole of the municipal area was declared to be a prohibited area within which bricks, &c.;, could not be manufactured without a licence. Ex. 6 (1) is the resolution. In 1868 by Ex. 6 (2), a resolution dated 27th July 1868, the prohibition was extended to tiles under the same section. The Act of 1864 was repealed by B. C. Act 5 of 1876. Section 285 of the latter A...

Rajbndar Kumar Roy Vs. Bal Govinda Tewari and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.903

1. Reference No. 90. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Howrah under the following circumstances : It appears that there is a person named Bal Govinda Tewary who has erected a tin shed in Pandit Ghat Road within the Municipality of Howrah and has thereby been guilty of an encroachment on the public road. The Municipality through their Sub-overseer R. K. Roy lodged a compliant under Section 202, Bengal Municipal Act, III (B. C.) of 1884, which runs as follows:The Commissioners may issue a notice requiring any person to remove any wall which he may have built, or any fence, rail, post or other obstruction or encroachment, which he may have erected in or on any road or open drain, sewer or aqueduct, after the date on which, the District Municipal Improvement Act, 1864, or the District Towns Act, 1868, or the Bengal Municipal Act, 1876, as the case may be took effect in the Municipality : or, in case none of the said Acts was in force in the Municipality before the commencem...

Amulya Chandra Bhaduri Vs. Satis Chandra Giri and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1932Cal255,136Ind.Cas.901

1. This is a Rule calling upon four persons named Satish Chandra Giri, Probhat Giri, Narendra Samanta and Gobordhone Kamle to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt. The circumstances under which the present Rule came to be issued, shortly stated, are as follows: It appears that some time in February 1930 the receiver of the admittedly debuttar estate attached to the Tarakeswar temple made an application to the District Judge of Hooghly praying that proceedings in contempt might be taken against the above-named persons inasmuch as they had been attempting to impede and stultify the administration by the receiver of the debuttar estate by resorting to improper and unlawful means and artifices, as they had been guilty of direct illegal obstruction offered to the officers in the discharge of their lawful duties, as they had used criminal force and criminal intimidation under the circumstances stated in the petition or report of the receiver and as they had been guilty of...

Satya Charan Law and anr. Vs. Rai Mohan Sil Das and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1932Cal436

1. We propose to deal first with Appeals Nos. 410 and 2430 as the question in both these appeals turns on the construction of the same lease Ex. A. The appeals arise out of certain proceedings taken in the Court of the Assistant Settlement Officer of Khulna under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act. The plaintiffs who are the landlords contended that they are entitled to enhancement of the rent of the tenures now in question. The defendants on the other hand contended that they are entitled to reduction of rent for reduction of area. The further question for determination before the settlement officer was what should be the fair and equitable rent of the tenure in suit. The settlement officer was of opinion that the tenure was not mukarrari and that its rent was enhanceable and he accordingly settled fair and equitable rent which was to take effect from Baisakh 1336. Two appeals were filed by the defendants tenants against the orders of the settlement officer in the two applications under Secti...

Rajendra Nath Das Vs. Chairman, Jessore District Board

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1932Cal408,137Ind.Cas.672

S.K. Ghose, J.1. The Chairman of the District Board obtained a rent decree against some persona and in execution of that decree he got the following attached, namely three boats, one cow, one cycle, and one water pot. The petitioner in this rule filed an objection for investigation under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C., claiming the moveables as belonging solely to him. The learned Munsif bus found that the cow belongs to the claimant, but that as regards the remaining moveables he has only a half-share. In that view he has directed that a half-share be released from attachment. The present rule was issued by my learned brother Hitter, J., on the ground that the learned Munsif ought to have hold that without complying with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 47, there could be no legal attachment and as that was not done, the attachment is liable to be set aside. The learned Munsif remarks in his judgment that Rule 60 is a complete answer to this objection and this is also contended for by ...

Surendra Mohan Rai Choudhury Vs. Mohendra Nath Banerjee and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1932Cal589,140Ind.Cas.662

1. (F.A. No. 144 of 1928.) Defendant 10 is the appellant in this appeal, which arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for enforcement of a mortgage against defendants 1 to 7 who are the heirs of the mortgagor one Khetra Prasad Banerjee deceased, and in which defendants 8 to 12 were impleaded as defendants as being subsequent transferees. The plaintiff's case was that on 24th May 1923, Kshetra borrowed Its. 15,000 from him by executing a hand-note in his favour agreeing to pay inter-oat thereon at the rate of 1 per cent per month and that by way of security for the repayment of the said sum together with interest he, at the same time, deposited with the plaintiff the title-deeds relating to some immovable properties. The property concerned in this appeal is one of those properties and is premises No. 76, Barrackpore Trunk Road, The case of defendant 10 was that on 19th March 1924 Kshetra borrowed from defendant 10 a sum of Rs. 20,000 agreeing to pay interest thereon at the rat...

Fulchand Tepriwalla Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1932Cal442,137Ind.Cas.819

1. The appellant was charged with an offence under Section 366, I.P.C., and was tried by the Sessions Judge, Murshidabad and a jury who unanimously found him guilty and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The charge was that he had kidnapped Saraswati, a girl, with the intent that she might be compelled to marry against her will and that she might be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. It seems reasonably clear from the evidence that the girl was the illegitimate daughter of a man named Ramjiban and the complainant Jasoda and the story of the prosecution was that the accused took her away from Jasoda's guardianship while she was at work and took her by train to Calcutta and lived with her there. The defence was that she had been married to the accused according to the Marwari marriage rites and ceremonies and that it was for this purpose that Ramjiban had brought -her from home to Calcutta. On 30th May 1930, Ramjiban instituted a case against the accused chargi...