Kolkata Court March 1938 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.
Jitendra Kumar Pal Vs. Debendra Chandra Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal50
1. This appeal is on behalf of defendant 124 and relates to the greater portion of plot No. 2, the eastern portions of plots Nos. 3 and 4 which are to the east of what has been shown in the commissioner's map as a silted up khal and to plots Nos. 10 and 26 of the plaint. There is also a memorandum of cross-objection by the plaintiffs-respondents, which relates to plot No. 1 of the plaint. The suit is a suit for khas possession in respect of 82 plots of land described in detail in the plaint, and the principal defendants 190 in number. The plaintiffs-respondents are the heirs of one Dianatram Saha and one Sitaram Saha, two important names in these proceedings. The basis of their claim is that Dianat and Sitaram, whose heirs the plaintiffs-respondents are, were assignees from the purchasers at a revenue sale of the residuary share of Taluk Hamid Raja, touji No. 54730-2 of the Sylhet Collectorate. The plaintiffs-respondents accordingly say that they are entitled to have the said estate fr...
Gopaldas Khetriya Vs. Jnanendra Nath Dawn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal677
ORDERAmeer Ali, J.1. I should have delivered judgment in this matter before but for the intervention of other urgent work. This is an application under Section 476, Criminal P.C., read with Section 195 of the same Code. In other words the applicant asks me to direct a criminal inquiry against the respondent for the two offences under 8. 193 of the Penal Code for giving false evidence and fabricating written evidence. The position is as follows : (a) As against Dawn : False Evidence; (b) As against Dey Fabricating Documents; (c) Against Dawn and Dey : For abetting the fabrication. That is the position of the contemplated charges. The facts are as follows : In 1916 Dawn's father-in-law, Bhuban Dutt, mortgaged to him certain property in the mofussil. In or about 1922 the present applicant Khetriya leased the premises, 4 Armenian Street to Dawn at a rent of about Rs. 325 a month. In the beginning of 1928 there was an account of the Dey's money-lending, money lent to the Deys in Kamala's na...
Kunja Behary Chakrabarti Vs. Kristo Dhone Majumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal42
Costello, J.1. This matter comes before us as an outcome of a rule which was issued so long ago as 8th May 1936, where, by it was ordered that the plaintiff-respondent do on Friday, 29th May at 11 O'clock in the forenoon, show cause before this Court why the application of the defendant-appellant for review of the judgment and decree passed by the Appeal Court on 30th July 1934 should not be granted and why the said appeal should not be set down in the list of appeals for re-hearing and why additional evidence of witnesses as this Court may deem fit and proper should not be called at the time of such re-hearing and why the plaintiff-respondent should not pay to the defendant-appellant his costs of and incidental to this application. It was further ordered that until the hearing of the rule or until further orders of the Court the sale of the properties belonging to the defendant which had been attached should be stayed and the Registrar of this Court would communicate the order to the ...
C.A. Stevenson Vs. Shahzadi Begum Mahmoodi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal627
Ameer Ali, J. 1. In 1905 the Official Receiver was appointed, at the instance of Prince Bukhtyar Shah's creditors, to take charge of his leasehold property, the Dalbhum Mining Estate, consisting of some 1100 square miles of property in the Singh-bhum District. The Official Receiver was, from the said estate, to pay off the creditors and restore the property to Prince Bukhtyar Shah or his heirs. In these proceedings the latter have been referred to as beneficiaries. They are in a position analogous to mortgagors. In 1922 the balance of the creditors' claim together with interest was ascertained at the figure 3,86,785-9-7. The matter first came to my notice by an application by one of the beneficiaries, Prince Kamgar Shah, on 21st June 1937. The main points raised on that occasion by the beneficiaries may be summarized as follows: (1) that the estate had not been developed; (2) that the estate was not being efficiently administered, i.e., want of activity and want of system; (3) that the...
Lala Gopinath Vs. Salil Kumar Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal705
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of Panckridge J. One Lala Gopinath demised certain premises known as the Minerva Theatre to one Salil Kumar Mitter. The lease was effected by a registered document and is dated 2nd December 1933. It was for a period of two years from 1st December 1933. Clause 2, Sub-clause (20) of the lease provided that:Upon the expiry of the term hereby created or other sooner determination and after possession of the same is obtained by the lessee, the lessor will have the demised premises and the furniture fixtures and machineries and things, scenery, dresses, stage fittings, etc examined by a surveyor or other person competent to examine the same and any defect that may be found therein shall be made good by the lessee....2. Clause 5 provided that disputes touching the construction, meaning or effect of the lease or any clause or thing therein contained or the respective rights or liabilities of the parties under the lease or otherwise in re...
Emperor Vs. SayeruddIn Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal159
Jack, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Rajshahi under Section 435, Criminal P.C., for quashing a commitment made to his Court by the Magistrate of Natore in the case of Emperor v. Sayeruddin Pramanik under Sections 363 and 376, I.P.C. After the jury had been empannelled and the Public Prosecutor had started the case for the prosecution, it was noticed by the Court that the occurrence took place within Nandigram police station which had been transferred by the Local Government from the jurisdiction of Natore sub-division of Rajshahi District to the Sadar sub-division of Bogra District. The learned Judge is therefore of opinion that since the place of occurrence is now within the local jurisdiction of the district of Pabna and Bogra, he has no jurisdiction to try the case. He therefore recommends that the commitment having been by a Magistrate without local jurisdiction to a Sessions Court without local jurisdiction it should be quashed and that the Magistrate should be ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›