Kolkata Court August 1937 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.
R.B. Sett Sukhlal Karnani Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal583
Guha, J.1. This rule was issued on 30th April 1937 calling upon the District Magistrate of 24 Parganas to show cause why the proceedings complained of should not be set aside or, in the alternative, the order of transfer of proceedings to the Police Magistrate quashed or such other order or further orders made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. The proceedings referred to are proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P.C. It appears that proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P.C. were started on a petition filed before the Subarban Police Magistrate of Alipur on 11th September 1936, by one Hasanera Begum against certain persons named in the petition of complaint, Hamid, Nazir, Wazid, Soleman and five or six other Goondas whose names are not known. The 'Police Magistrate before whom the petition of complaint was filed on 11th September 1936, sent the same to the Police Officer in charge of section S' for enquiry and report by 18th September 1936. A report was submitted by the pol...
Chaitanya Das Banerjee Vs. Ranjit Pal Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal263
Nasim Ali, J.1. The facts which are not in dispute now are these : One Haripada Ghose, husband of defendant 2, held a mokarari tenure under defendant 1. He sold it to defendant 3 by a kobala on 21st Agrahayan 1329 B. S. corresponding to 15th November 1922. The kobala was registered on 9th December 1922, and registration fee was paid in the Registration Office. In the Record of Eights which was finally published at about this time, the name of Haripada Ghose appeared as a tenant in respect of this tenure. In 1923 defendant 1 instituted a suit against Haripada Ghose for recovery of arrears of rent of this tenure for the years 1326.1329 B. S. and obtained a decree on 9th July 1923. In the same year he made an application under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, for settlement of fair and equitable rent of this tenure impleading Haripada as the only defendant in the proceeding. On 21st December 1923 defendant 1 put the rent decree into execution. On 29th January 1924 he made an application to the...
Panchanan Choudhury Vs. Samatul Chandra Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal695,173Ind.Cas.602
S.K. Ghose, J.1. In this second appeal the question that is raised for decision is whether Section 182, Ben. Ten. Act, applies to the case of a homestead which itself is not an agricultural tenancy. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for ejecting the defendants from a piece of bastu land situated within Serampore Municipality. In 1907 the defendants' father executed a kabuliyat for 3 cottas out of the present 4 cottas in dispute for a period of 9 years. Before the expiry of that period in 1909, a fresh lease was taken for 10 years in respect of 4 cottas. In 1918 the defendants executed a fresh lease which is described as Ticca bemeadi lease agreeing to quit on receipt of notice for one month. The plaintiff's case is that the tenancy is governed by the Transfer of Property Act. The contention of the defendants was that the kabuliyat of 1918 had not been acted upon, that they had acquired occupancy rights and so were not liable to eviction. Both Courts agreed in negativing ...
Tari Bala Suklabaidya Vs. Kibal Ram Suklabaidya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal144,173Ind.Cas.785
ORDERBiswas, J.1. This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge of Sylhet under Section 438, Criminal P.C. An order was made in this case against a person under Section 488, Criminal P.C., directing him to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs. 5 per month. The order was made on 15th August 1934. Thereafter the husband applied for cancellation of the order under Sub-section (5) of the section on the ground that the wife was living in adultery. This was proved, and the order was cancelled on 13th March 1937. It appeared that the husband still owed the wife maintenance for several months up to the date of the cancellation. Attempts to realize these dues by distress warrant had failed. On the application of the wife, the Additional District Magistrate Mr. S. Goswami, while cancelling the maintenance order made an order on the same date calling on the husband to show cause why he should not be sentenced to imprisonment for default in payment of the arrears. This was don...
Emperor Vs. Nibharesh Mandal Mohar Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal295
Guha, J.1. This is a reference under Section 307, Criminal P.C., by the learned Sessions Judge of Murshidabad. In the case before us five persons Nibharesh Mandal, Mohsin Mandal, Saber Shekh, Abed Shekh and Mobed Shekh were tried before the Sessions Judge of Murshidabad and a special jury, for causing the death of a woman named Sushila Dasi.2. The jurors before whom the trial of these accused persons was held returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty. In the Judge's opinion, the verdict of the jurors was unreasonable and against the weight of evidence. The learned Judge considered that in the interest of justice the case should be sent in reference to this Court. The five accused persons named above, it may be noticed, were related to each other. The accused Mohsin Mandal is a brother of Nibharesh Mondal; Saber and Abed are their cousins; Abed is Nibharesh's sister's husband. The accused Nibharesh Mondal was charged with having committed murder on or about the midnight of 5th February...
Bhupendra Nath Chatterjee and Four ors. Vs. Sm. Elokeshi Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal318
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants who are the landlords. The plaintiff is an occupancy raiyat in respect of a horticultural lease. This status of the tenancy was decided in a suit between the parties. The judgment in Second Appeal No. 438 of 1921 passed by this Court on 8th June 1922 shows that it was held that the tenant was not entitled to use the land by erecting structures and sheds for the purpose of habitation on different parts of the land in addition to the dwelling house which was already in existence. After this judgment, the landlords brought Title Suit No. 339 of 1921 praying for demolition of structures then existing on a portion of the tenancy and for an injunction restraining the tenant from building on other portions of the tenancy. On 15th November 1922, this suit was decreed, it being ordered that the defendant do remove the huts standing on the land described in Schedule C to the plaint and be farther perpetually restrained from erecting any ...
Sm. Indumati Devi Chowdhuri Vs. Bengal Court of Wards
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal385
Panckridge, J.1. This application for writs of certiorari and prohibition raises several interesting and important questions. The applicant Indumati Devi Chowdhuri is the widow and executrix of the late Birendra Chandra Roy Chowdhuri, who died on 12th August 1935. Birendra was the son of Hem Chandra Roy Chowdhury, zamindar of Dhakora in the district of Dacca, who died intestate some time prior to 1925. At the time of Hem Chandra's death there was an application by him pending to be declared a disqualified proprietor under Section 6 (e), Court of Wards Act, 1879. After his death, a similar application was made by his heirs, of whom Birendra was one, and they were in March 1925 declared disqualified proprietors, and in pursuance of the order the Court of Wards took charge of their property including their shares in Hem Chandra's estate. On Birendra's death the Court of Wards retained charge of his property in terms of Section 13-A, Court of Wards Act. The applicant and her co-executor, D...
Ahmad Ali Vs. Abul Kasem Fazlul Haq
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1939Cal119
Costello, Ag.C.J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Remfry J. whereby he dismissed an application which originated by a notice dated 7th April 1937, and purported to be made in an insolvency matter described as Case No. 109 of 1926, in which the insolvent was one Abul Kassem Fazlul Huq. The present application was made by one Syed Ahmad Ali, described as a creditor, and in it he asked for an order re-adjudicating the debtor insolvent and annulling a composition or scheme of arrangement; and that the properties of the debtor should vest in the Official Assignee without prejudice to the validity of any transfer or payment made or anything done or in pursuance of the composition or scheme. There was a claim in the alternative for the enforcement of the composition or scheme. It is quite clear however from the course of the proceedings that what the applicant really desired was that the debtor should be readjudicated in. solvent. The notice was supported by an affidavit affirmed by...
Mahammad Yusuf Vs. Krishna Mohan Bhattachariya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal17
ORDERBiswas, J. 1. This is a simple case, but there is a good deal of feeling behind it. It is all about the possession of a bull. The petitioner questions the propriety of an order supposed to have been made in respect of it under Section 517, Criminal P.C. The complainant who is a pleader at Serampur missed a bull. A few days later he got information that the animal had been seized and detained by the accused. Accordingly on 20th February 1937, he lodged a complaint before the police. On the same day the police seized a bull from the yard of one Abdul Gani on the identification of the complainant and several other persons. Abdul Gani stated that the animal had been left there by the accused Yusuf. Yusuf questioned the identification, and undertook to produce another bull within the next five days which, if proved to be the complain-ant's, the complainant was to accept, returning the bull seized to the accused. In case the accused failed to produce such an animal or it was found to be...
Kishori Prosad Bhakat and ors. Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal151
M.C. Ghose, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for Rs. 1117 odd as compensation on an indemnity bond. The facts which are not; disputed were that at a place named Nithpur within the district of Dinajpur there was a post office. In May 1927, the defendants or their predecessors agreed to apply to the Telegraph Department that a telegraphic office should be opened at Nithpur. The Department were not willing to open a telegraphic office at the place unless local merchants would guarantee against loss. Thereupon six merchants who were predecessors of the appellants here executed an indemnity bond dated 26th May 1927 agreeing each to pay a certain indemnity if the Accountant General of the Tele-graph certified the loss and that his certificate would be final on the matter. Upon this the Accountant General certified a loss of working for the first year up to the end of March and again for the second year to the end of March and the loss of those two years amounted to the sum...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »