Kolkata Court December 1932 Judgments
In Re: Anukul Chandra Parihal and anr.; Dainik Nayak and Swadesh Press
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal278
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application under Section 23, Press (Emergency Powers) Act 23 of 1931. Petitioner 1 is the printer and publisher of a newspaper 'Dainik Nayak' and petitioner 2 is the keeper of the 'Swadesh Press' in which it is printed. The Local Government having, by orders made on 1st October 1932, declared forfeited to His Majesty a sum of Rs. 100 out of the security deposit of Rs. 500 made by petitioner 1 and the whole amount of the security deposit of Rs. 100 made by petitioner 2, in the exercise of their powers under Section 8, Sub-section (1) and Section 4, Sub-section (1) respectively of the said Act, the petitioners have made this application to set aside the said orders. The offending article appeared in the issue of the said newspaper of date 24th August 1932. Two passages in that article appeared to the Governor-in-Council to contain words of the nature described in Sub-section (1), Section 4 of the Act, as amended by Section 77 of the Special Powers Ordinance No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Satyaniranjan Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Habibar Sobhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal393
Guha, J.1. The plaintiffs in the suits out of which these appeals have arisen sued the defendants, as Trustees to the Estate of Sam Ranjan Chakravarty, for realization of arrears of rent due in respect of fourteen different jamas or tenancies, for the period from Kartie to Falgun of the year 1334 B.E. The claim as made in the fourteen suits was resisted by the tenant-defendant, who had acquired interest in the tenancies in the year 1325 B.E. (1918), by purchase from the previous tenants the Chongdars, who in their turn derived their interest from the Roys of Duarka, in whose favour the tenancies were created in the year 1289 B.E. (1882), by Maharaja Ram Ranjan Chakravarty, the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs, who are trustees in possession by virtue of a deed of settlement (or trust) executed by the said Maharaja in the year 1284 B.E. (1887). The right of the plaintiffs to realize rent at the rates mentioned in the kabuliyats creating the tenancies in 1882, was denied by the de...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliram Majumdar Vs. Dulalram Choudhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal544
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for delivery of possession of 12 bighas of land on declaration of title. These and other lands originally belonged to one Bhakatram who died on 30th March 1908 leaving a will-by which be bequeathed the lands in suit to his daughter Annapriya, the wife of the plaintiff. She died on 21st August 1910 leaving her mother Parbatipriya as her heir. Parbatipriya died on 16th February 1925. The defendant Dulalram alleged that he had purchased the property from Parbatipriya and he resisted the claim in suit. It appears that on 20th July 1910 Annapriya executed a deed of sale in favour of Parbatipriya. About a month later Annapriya died. On 3rd September 1910 Parbatipriya mutated her name as heir to her deceased husband. On 21st February 1915 she executed a deed of sale in favour of the defendant Dulalram who is the brother's son of Bhakatram. On 22nd February 1915 Dulalram mutated his name. As mentioned already Parbatipriya died on 16th February ...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Varma Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal243
Mitter, J.1. The question raised by this appeal is one of considerable importance and relates to the power of the Corporation of Calcutta to refuse a license to keep open a Carnival when in the public interest it thinks it necessary to do so. The case for the prosecution is that the appellant S.R. Varma was the proprietor of a Carnival in respect of which license had been obtained from the Corporation and that license remained in force up to 1st March 1932; that there had been complaints against the holding of Carnivals of late both in the newspapers as well as by some public bodies like the Marwari Trades Association of Calcutta and the appellant was informed that no further license would be granted after the expiry of the period; that the appellant thereafter changed the site and name of the show and obtained a police licence for the show under the name of Holywood Park Carnival on plots Nos. 21 to 29 of the Calcutta Improvement Trust Scheme and intimated to the Corporation that he w...
Tag this Judgment!Priyambada Debee Vs. Bholanath Basu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal534,145Ind.Cas.663
Mitter, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, by which he allowed an application made under Order 21 Rule 100, Civil P.C, by some of the opposite parties to the present Rule. Sreemati Priyambada Debee, the petitioner in the present Rule, is the patnidar of the lot mahal Pingur in Burdwan. The opposite parties Nog. 1 to 10 claim to be the sepatnidars of the said mehal. She brought a suit for recovery of the darpatni rent for the years 1331 to 1334 B.S. against Praphulla Datta and others, the darpatnidars. The suit was decreed and in execution of the rent decree she purchased the darpatni on 2nd December 1929. The opposite parties made an application for setting aside the sale. That application was numbered as Misc. Case No. 28 of 1930. A compromise was arrived at between the parties and it was agreed that, if the opposite parties deposited the decretal amount by 29th April 1931 the sale would be set aside, otherwise the sale would be confirmed....
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath Sarkar Vs. Poornachandra Mukherji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal609
Mukerji, J.1. Prior to the amendment introduced in 1928 into the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, which has secured some measure of protection to utbandi raiyats in the matter of rent and status, their position was very precarious under the Act as it stood till then. The nature of their rights and liabilities have been explained in several cases amongst which reference may be made to Kinny v. Issur Chunder (1864) WR Gap (Act X) 9, Mirzan Biswas v. Hills (1865) 3 WR (Act X) 159, Dwarkanath v. Noboo Sirdar (1870) 14 WR 193, Premanund v. Shoorendra Nath (1873) 20 WR 329 and Beni Madhab v. Bhoban Mohan (1890) 17 Cal 393. Descriptions given of the characteristics of utbandi holdings are not quite the same in all these cases and it is clear that the incidents of such holdings vary under the influence of custom. But the outstanding general conception of all utbandi holdings seems to be that the land which is specified remains the Khas Khamar land of the landlord, and the raiyat is allowed to occupy ...
Tag this Judgment!H.G. Bolton Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal240
Panckridge, J.1. A preliminary point of jurisdiction is raised by the Crown in showing cause against the rule. The petitioner states that he is a European British subject. His statement is verified by an affidavit sworn by his brother, and Mr. Bhattacharjee agrees that in the absence of any evidence to contradict it, it must be taken to be correct. He was convicted at Port Blair on 2nd May 1932 by a First Class Magistrate of offences punishable under Sections 408 and 468, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of eight months. On 6th May 1932 the learned Sessions Judge of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands allowed the petitioner's appeal against his conviction under Section 468 and acquitted him on that charge, but dismissed his appeal against his conviction under Section 408 and maintained the sentence. On 12th July 1932 the petitioner obtained this rule calling upon the Chief Commissioner of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands to show cause why the order of the Se...
Tag this Judgment!Abbas Bahara and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal362
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case we directed the appeal to be re-argued because it turns upon a comparatively recent amendment of the Penal Code, namely, what is now Section 366-A which was added by Act 22 of 1923. At the original hearing, Mr. Talukdar contended that, if the two accused persons were found to have induced the girl to go from her father's house to some other house, nevertheless, if the intention or knowledge was that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with themselves and not with another person, the offence under Section 366-A would not be made out. It appeared to mo at the time that this state of the law was a little paradoxical and I confess I did not appreciate that so much can be said for that argument. The case before us is of a widowed girl, It is fairly evident that the jury were not prepared to find that she was under 16 years of age. It is also evident that the jury were not prepared to find that force or fraud had been used upon her. They acquitte...
Tag this Judgment!Majidan Bewa and ors. Vs. Basanta Kumar Basu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal772
Guha, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen, was for ejectment of an under-raiyat, according to the terms of a registered lease executed by him (the under-raiyat) on 15th Agrahayan 1324 B.E. The defence of the under-raiyat was that be had acquired right of occupancy by custom, and was not liable to be ejected. The right of occupancy claimed by the under-raiyat was recorded in the settlement records, as finally published. The controversy in the case before the lower Courts appears to have centered round the question whether the terms of the contract evidenced by the registered lease could bar the operation of the local custom, in the matter of acquisition of occupancy right, as claimed by the under-raiyat. The trial Court answered the question in the negative, and in that view of the case, held that the defendants could not be ejected from the lands in suit, in which he had acquired right of occupancy by custom. On appeal by the plaintiff, the decision arrived at by the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Nath and ors. Vs. Kulesh Chandra Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal793
Mukerji, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal. The appeal has arisen out of a suit which the plaintiffs instituted for recovery of rent for the years 1331-33, B.S. Rent was claimed at the rate of Rs. 65 with cesses and damages. The contention of the defendant was that he had been dispossessed from a portion of the land and on that account he was entitled to suspension of the entire rent. The Munsiff decreed the suit overruling this contention of the defendant and gave him a decree though not for the entire amount but making certain deductions on account of the cesses that were claimed. On appeal preferred by the defendant the Subordinate Judge sat aside the trial Court's decree and allowed the plaintiffs a decree for rent at a rate to be ascertained by comparison of the kabuliyat which formed the basis of the tenancy with the settlement records which, according to the learned Subordinate Judge, showed that the defendant was in possession of lands less than what was covered...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »