Kolkata Court May 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.
Nirmal Nalini Dasi Vs. Harsha Mukhi Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal233
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the First Court of the Subordinate Judge of Alipore. It arises out of a suit for annulment of the sale of an entire estate for arrears of revenue held under the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act, 1859. There was an alternative prayer in the plaint for reconveyance of plaintiffs' share in the estate sold and for recovery of possession thereof. The plaintiff is the owner of seven annas six gandas two karas and two krantis share of Touzi No. 1088 of 24-Paraganas Collectorate. Defendants 2 to 20 were the owners of the remaining share. Eight separate accounts in respect of this estate, namely No. 1088/1 to 1088/8 were opened under Section 10, Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act, 1859. The plaintiffs were the owners of a half-share in the separate account No. 1088/1 and the whole of the residuary share. He let out his entire interest in the estate in patni and the patnidars under the terms of the patni lease had to ...
Sm. Meghmala Debi W/O Nibaran Chandra Chakravarti Vs. Saday Parhya and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal577
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit commenced by her under Order 21, Rule 103, Civil P.C. following an adverse decision in a claim case under Order 2.1, Rule 100, Civil P.C. The facts are not disputed and the whole controversy centres round the point whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that Article 11-A, Limitation Act operates as a bar to the plaintiff's suit, she having not instituted the suit within one year after the order was passed against her in the claim proceedings. It is admitted that the order in the claim proceedings was passed on 25th July 1933. Against that order there was a petition in revision presented by the plaintiff to this Court upon which a rule was issued on 14th November 1933. The rule was ultimately discharged on 29th January 1935 and on 1st March following, the present suit was started. Mr. Banerjee who appears on behalf of the appellant has...
Amarendra Nath Shaw Vs. Satya Prokash Sarcar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal692
Bartley, J.1. This rule was issued on the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Section 171-A, Calcutta Improvement Act, should not be set aside. The offence alleged against the petitioner was that he failed to comply with a notice served upon him by the Trust directing him to remove certain masonry structures at 4A and 4B, Old Ballygunge Road. It appears in the charge that notices were issued upon him as owner of the structures and lessee of the land on which they stood. The proceedings were instituted upon the complaint of an assistant valuer of the Improvement Trust. The complaint stated that he was authorized to institute and conduct the present proceeding against the defendant, and then went on to set out the facts upon which the complaint was based.2. The first ground urged in support of this rule is that the complaint in question was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. We are of opinion that this is a ground of...
Haradhan Maity Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal701
Khundkar, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 46 (a) and (f) read with Section 62, Bengal Excise Act, and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months. The Courts below have found that a quantity of illicit liquor and materials for illicit distillation were recovered from his house. The petitioner's defence was that he was not the owner of the house in which these articles were said to have been found, and that he had no knowledge of them, and that indeed he was not present at the time of recovery. The evidence for the prosecution consists of the testimony of the Excise Sub-Inspector who carried out the search, and of two search witnesses. On behalf of the defence four witnesses were examined all of whom deposed that the house in which the articles were recovered belonged to the petitioner's wife and that the petitioner was not there when those articles were found by the Excise Sub-Inspector. Upon an examination of the evidence of the Excise Sub-Inspecto...
Bhagwati Dasi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal638
Bartley, J. 1. The rule was issued on the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Section 40, Bengal Children Act, should not be set aside. Section 40 of the Act lays down that if any person over the age of 16 years, who has the custody, charge or care of any child or young person, assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons or exposes such child or young person to be assaulted or ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed in a manner likely to cause such child or young person unnecessary suffering or injury to his health, that person shall be punishable with imprisonment and with fine. The essentials of the offence are (a) that the person convicted should have a child in his custody, charge or care, and (b) that he should ill-treat, or expose that child to ill-treatment. In the present case the facts are that one Saraswati Pal, a child under 16 years of age, was married to a man Sachindra Nath Pal. Both of them shared a house or r...
Sabitribai Debi Vs. Jugal Kishore Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal639
S.K. Ghose, J. 1. These two second appeals arise out of two suits which along with other two suits were tried analogously. The two suits in question are Suit No. 17 of 1931 and Suit No. 72 of 1932. The plaintiffs' case is that Mouza Daskalgram appertains to certain touzis which are held in ejmali by him and the pro forma defendants and that the plaintiffs had two-annas odd share in the land in Suit No. 17 and four annas odd share in the land in Suit No. 72. In the Record of Rights however, the lands were erroneously recorded in touzi No. 1247 which belongs exclusively to defendant 1. The plaintiffs' case is that the lands in Suit No. 17 appertain to eleven touzis and the lands in the other suits appertain to ten touzis held jointly by them and the pro forma defendants. They accordingly brought the suits for declaration of their title to the aforesaid lands and confirmation of possession. The only contesting defendant is defendant 1. Her defence is that the Record of Rights is correct a...
Firm Hari Mohan Gobinda Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Amritalal Chaudhury a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal665
Nasim Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 21,303-13.5 gd.s on a bond executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs on 24th Assar 1340, corresponding to 8th July 1933. The consideration of this bond is Rs. 18,740-6-0. This amount is made up of Rs. 4257-13-3 advanced in cash by the plaintiffs to the defendants from the year 1916 up to the year 1922 and the arrears of interest due on the amount advanced. The claim in the suit includes Rs. 2526-7.5 as interest on the amount mentioned as consideration for the bond. The only defence which is relevant for the purpose of the present appeal is that Section 4, Bengal Money-lenders Act, applies to this case and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover more than Rs. 8515-10-6, that is Eg. 4257-13-3 advanced in cash as principal and an equal amount as interest. This defence has been given effect to by the trial Judge and the plaintiffs' suit has been decreed for Rs. 8515-10-6. Hence this appeal by the plai...
Suresh Chandra De Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal782
ORDER1. This rule is directed against an order of remand made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Mymensingh. The petitioner before us was convicted by a Magistrate under Section 381, I.P.C. The evidence against him was purely circumstantial and on appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge the latter pointed out that there was absolutely no evidence as to whether the appellant had any access to a certain seal of a railway station. The importance of that point was that the appellant had been convicted of stealing the contents of a leather bag from the station safe. This bag was sealed by the appellant before it was placed in the safe by the station master, and the seal remained intact until the bag reached the head office of the Railway. When it was broken there, the contents of the bag were found to have vanished. As the learned Judge pointed out, the question whether the appellant had access to the station seal is absolutely material for the decision of the charge ag...
Radhika Mohun Karmakar Vs. Surendra Nath Acharji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal797
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., by the plaintiff who on 15th April .1937 brought a suit in the Munsif's Court at Naogaon against four men of the opposite parties for a sum of Rs. 305 due under a promissory note executed by the opposite party No. 2 as the managing partner of the firm known as Sulabh Bhandar of which the four persons were partners. Summonses were issued on the four persons and on the opposite party No. 1 the summons was served on 21st May 1937. Thereafter there was a great delay in serving the summonses upon the other parties. But the said summonses having been served, the case was taken up for ex parte hearing on 25th August 1937. It was heard and decreed ex parte. Thereafter opposite party No. 1 filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 13 to set aside the ex parte decree. His case was that he was present on the day when the ex parte decree was passed and he filed a petition asking for time to file a written statement. The office ...
A. Milton and Co. Ltd. Vs. Ojha Automobile Engineering Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal145
McNair, J.1. This is an application by a decree-holder for the appointment in execution of a Receiver of the right, title and interest of one of the judgment-debtors in a mortgage executed in his favour in 1934, and for liberty to the receiver to sell such right, title and interest. The decree-holder sued in 1929 and obtained a consent decree in December 1932 by which the matters in dispute were submitted to a reference. The referee found in favour of the plaintiff who was given a decree for Rs. 13,487-15-3 with interest and taxed costs Rs. 3773-10-0. The decree was against the defendant firm and execution was ordered against the partners Ojha Dario Singh, (who opposes this application), Ojha Shiva Prasad, and Ojha Gurdial Singh. The decree was transmitted for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Etawah in the United Provinces. The decree-holder in 1936 applied in Etawah for execution by attaching the interest of Dario Singh in a mortgage debt executed in his favour by Sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »