Kolkata Court November 1936 Judgments
Bengal Young Men's Zamindary Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Nritya Gopa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal159
B.K. Mukherji, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendant and arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff in pursuance of a reference made by the Commissioner, Burdwan Division,under Section 74, Land Registration Act (Bengal Act 7 of 1876). The facts shortly stated are these: Gobardhan Behari Basu and others were the proprietors of Tauzi No. 3500 of the Hooghly Collectorate which is a revenue paying estate, comprising four mouzas, viz. Tegachia, Bhabanipur, Narainpur and a certain share of Kaikala, the annual revenue being Rs. 894-13-7. The defendant company purchased two of the mouzas, viz., Narayanpur and Kaikala by a private conveyance dated 12th May 1916, and in that kobala there was a recital made by the vendors to the effect that the revenue payable in respect of the two mouzas that were sold to the defendant was Rs. 200 a year. On 21st July 1919 the remaining two mouzas were mortgaged by the receiver appointed in respect of the said property to the defendant company, who...
Tag this Judgment!J.B. Beattie and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal84
Cunliffe, J.1. These appeals have given me considerable difficulty with regard to my decision. Appellant 1, Mr. J.B. Beattie, was convicted by the Officiating Fourth Presidency Magistrate under Section 44, Calcutta Police Act, for owning, occupying and having the use of the premises used as a common gaming house. Under this conviction he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 with an alternative of three months' rigorous imprisonment if the fine was not paid. Appellant 2, Mr. A.W. Smedley, who is said to have been the manager of Mr. Beattie's business, was convicted also under the same section but under another part of it for managing or having the care of this firm and he was further convicted under Section 45, Police Act, for being engaged in gambling on the premises.2. Under the first conviction he was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 400 with an alternative on non-payment of three months' rigorous imprisonment, but no separate sentence was passed under the second conviction for contraven...
Tag this Judgment!Siba Das Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Hemchandra Kar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal473
1. These two appeals have arisen out of two suits instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents in this Court, for declaration that a revenue sale held on 21st June 1926 is null and void against the plaintiffs in the suit and for issue of permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit, appellants in this Court, for taking possession of the shares of the plaintiffs in the estate that was sold for arrears of revenue. In one of the suits which has given rise to one of the appeals the plaintiffs prayed for recovery of possession of their share by evicting the defendants. The sale for arrears of revenue which was sought to be annulled was in respect of a residuary share of Tauzi No. 395 of the Bankura Collectorate. The residuary estate sold for arrears of revenue consisted of the shares of the plaintiffs in the two suits giving rise to these appeals, of defendants 1 and 2, of one Kulada Chatterji and Harihor Das and others, in Mauzas Chaukan or Chaugan, Patpur, Hatbari, Tapoban, Bak...
Tag this Judgment!Tarak Nath Roy Vs. Panchanan Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal152
B.K. Mukherji, J.1. The question raised in this revision case relates to the amount of court-fees that are payable on a memorandum of appeal filed against an order passed in a proceeding for restitution under Section 144, Civil P.C. The facts shortly stated are these: In the year 1913, when the present petitioner was a minor, there was a mortgage suit started against him by one Rama Nath Banerjee, predecessor of opposite parties 1 to 3, on a mortgage bond alleged to be executed by the petitioner's father. The petitioner was represented by his mother, who was an illiterate lady and could not look to his interest properly, and a decree was passed in this mortgage suit which was based on an award made by an arbitrator, who was no other than a brother of the said mortgagee, Ramanath. In execution of this mortgage decree all the properties of the petitioner were gradually sold and purchased by the decree-holder except the properties described in schedule (gha), but Rama Nath took forcible p...
Tag this Judgment!Jessore District Board Vs. Surendra Nath Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal127
Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Jessore District Board which figured as defendant 1 in a suit commenced by the plaintiff for a declaration that a certain resolution of the Finance Committee and adopted by the District Board was illegal and ultra vires of the latter. The resolution was passed on 18th January 1930 and sanctioned a sum of Rs. 3,000 for purposes of a propaganda work to be carried on for the welfare of Union Committees, wherever necessary, the Chairman being authorized to spend the money by appointing workers or in such other way as he deemed proper. The propaganda was necessary in the opinion of the District Board in view of an anti-Union propaganda started at Bandabila and other places, and the plaintiff's case was that the District Board had absolutely no authority to spend any money for this purpose. He prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining defendant 1 from spending any money in pursuance of the said resolution, and there was a prayer also for...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Jatindra Mohan Ra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal156
Cunliffe, J.1. This appeal was admitted by a Bench of two of our brothers. Having had the benefit of a careful argument from Bhattacharya, both my brother and I are of the opinion that had we been considering the question of its admissibility ourselves, we would have dismissed the appeal summarily. The appeal in question is preferred by the Crown against acquittals of 14 men on charges comprising those of riot, wrongful confinement and causing hurt. Originally there were a much greater number of the accused brought before a Magistrate. He, however, was not satisfied with regard to there evidence in ten or more cases and as a result only seventeen were sent up to stand their trial. Of these three alone were convicted and sentenced to six months apiece on charges excluding the riot and wrongful confinement.2. It was a very difficult case to try indeed by reason of the fact that there was a. great deal of hard swearing apparently,, I should say a certain amount of suppression of evidence,...
Tag this Judgment!Hemanta Kumar Sarkar and anr. Vs. Nanda Kumar Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal64
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is an application for transfer under Section 526, Criminal P.C., the relevant facts being these: Petitioner 1 was the Managing Director of a certain Limited Company, and petitioner 2 was another employee. On 9th December 1935 one of the Directors Nanda Kumar Singh, filed a complaint before Mr. L.K. Sen, Suburban Police Magistrate, Alipore, alleging that the petitioners had misappropriated the funds of the company. The result of this was that after certain preliminary proceedings a case was started against the petitioners, on 25th May 1936, charges were framed under Sections 406, 120-B and 424, I.P.C. On 1st September the two accused were examined under Section 342, Criminal P. C, and the case was adjourned to 15th September. On that date the defence asked for the recall of certain witnesses for further cross-examination. The learned Magistrate allowed the prayer in regard to some witnesses and rejected it in regard to others. Thereupon the accused asked for an adj...
Tag this Judgment!Kusum Kumri Debi and anr. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal218
ORDERJack, J.1. These two Rules had been issued on the Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta as well as on the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation of Calcutta, to show cause why the order convicting the petitioners under Section 317, read with Section 488, Calcutta Municipal Act, and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 10 each, should not be set aside. It appears that the case against the accused was heard in their absence, and this is one of the grounds on which the rules were issued, viz. that the learned Magistrate erred in law in hearing and determining the ease in the absence of the accused persons. In support of the action of the Magistrate Section 533, Calcutta Municipal Act, is referred to, which states:If any person summoned to appear before a Magistrate to answer a charge of an offence against the Municipal Act... fails to appear at the time and place mentioned in the summons, the Magistrate may, if (a) service of the summons is proved to his satisfaction, and (b) no suffici...
Tag this Judgment!Kusum Kumari Debi and anr. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1936
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.698
ORDERJack, J.1. These two Rules had been issued on the Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, as well as en the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation of Calcutta, to show cause why the order convicting the petitioners under Section 317, read with Section 488, Calcutta Municipal Act, and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 10 each, should not be set aside. It appears that the case against the accused was heard in their absence, and this is one of the grounds on which the rules were issued, viz., that the learned Magistrate erred in law in hearing and determining the case in the absence of the accused persons. In support of the action of the Magistrate Section 533, Calcutta Municipal Act, is referred to which states:If any person summoned to appear before a Magistrate to answer a charge of an offence against the Municipal Act fails to appear at the time and place mentioned in the summons, the Magistrate may, if (a) service of the summons is proved to his satisfaction, and (6) no 'sufficie...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Krishna Ghowdhury and ors. Vs. Surendra Bijoy Dewanji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal148
B.K. Mukherji, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in these four analogous appeals, which arise out of as many suits commenced by them for enhancement of rent under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act. The plaintiffs are co-sharer landlords to the extent of 10-as. 7 1/2-gds. share of the lands in dispute and it is admitted that they have separate collection of their share of the rents. The defence of the defendants is of a threefold character. It is contended in the first place that the tenures having been in existence from the time of the Permanent Settlement, the rents are not enhancible under law. In the second place a presumption of fixity of rent is sought to be raised from uniform payment of rent under Section 50, Ben. Ten. Act. Lastly, reliance is placed upon certain pottas which were executed in the year 1912, and which, the defendants allege, created mukarrari tenures with rents fixed in perpetuity.2. The Assistant Settlement Officer negatived all the three contentions of the defend...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »