Kolkata Court August 1938 Judgments
Kumar Gonesh Chunder Mullick and ors. Vs. Sm. Narayani Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Cal179
ORDERSen, J.1. The facts giving rise to this application briefly are as follows : Kumar Gonesh Chunder Mullick hereinafter described for convenience as the client engaged Messrs. Charu Chunder Bose & Co. as his attorneys for the conduct of Suit No. 950 of 1934 instituted by him against one Sm. Narayani Dassi for the recovery of a sum of money. The suit was decreed in favour of the client on 17th August 1934 for the sum of Rs. 17,206-6-0 with interest and costs. Premises No. 13, Bentinck Street which belonged to the estate of the defendant Narayani Dassi's husband was acquired by the Calcutta Improvement Trust and the compensation money paid therefor lay in deposit with the Calcutta Improvement Trust Tribunal. In execution of the aforesaid decree the client through his attorneys, Messrs. Charu Chunder Bose & Co., attached the sum of Rs. 18,000 lying in, deposit with the said tribunal on 20th December 1934. Thereafter, the two daughters of Narayani Dassi, namely 8m. Lajabati Dassi and Sm...
Tag this Judgment!Bonomali Bhattacharjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Cal85
Bartley, J.1. The ground on which this rule was issued was that the search was not conducted in accordance with law, inasmuch as the search witnesses do not come from the same locality and as such the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. The conviction was under the Excise Act, and the offence charged was being in possession of illicitly distilled liquor. In the first place there is nothing in the record to establish the point that the witnesses do not come from the same locality. In the second place, even if they did not, we are unable to see how that fact by itself would entitle the petitioner to an acquittal. Conviction or acquittal depends upon the credibility of the witnesses as assessed by the Court and not on the question whether their presence on the scene of the alleged offence was in accordance with a particular legal procedure. This rule must accordingly be discharged. The petitioner must surrender to his bail and serve out the remainder of his sentence.Henderson, J....
Tag this Judgment!Munshi and ors. Vs. Muzaffar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal781
Bartley, J.1. This rule was issued upon the District Magistrate, Tipperah, to show cause why the conviction of and sentences passed on the petitioners should not be set aside upon certain grounds specified in the rule. The brief facts of the case were as follows : The petitioners were placed upon their trial before a Magistrate. After the examination of a certain number of prosecution witnesses, charges were framed against them on 1st November 1937 and 27th November 1937 was fixed for cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. On 27th November, the petitioners refused to cross-examine these witnesses on the ground that they wanted time to engage a senior pleader. The petitioners' prayer for time was refused and the case proceeded. On a subsequent date the petitioners applied for the recall of the prosecution witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination. This prayer was also refused. Subsequently defence witnesses were examined and the accused were convicted. When the case came o...
Tag this Judgment!Gurudas Roy Choudhury Vs. Bhupendra Nath Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal206
Sen, J.1. This is a suit principally for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to certain lands and for other ancillary reliefs. One Girish Chandra Ghose, a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law, died in March 1908, leaving him surviving his widow Bhutomoyee Dassi, his three sons Anukul, Charu and Jatindra by a predeceased wife, the three wives of the aforesaid three sons, viz. Nababala, Sailabala and Prafulla Sundari, respectively, Khelat a son by his second wife Bhutomoyee and Khelat's wife Parulbala Dassi. The genealogy so far is admitted by all parties. The plaintiff's further case is that at the time of Girish's death Khelat and Parul had a daughter, Padma, living, that she was born in July 1907, and died on 24th May 1908. Some of the defendants deny the existence of Padma. I give below a genealogical table in accordance with the plaintiff's case for easy reference: 1st wife, Hemangini = GIRISH CHANDRA GHOSH = 2nd wife Bhutomoyee (Predeceased testator) (died March ...
Tag this Judgment!ThIn Yen Vs. Secy. of State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal763
Panckridge, J.1. This suit has been set down for the trial of the issue whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain it. The following are the facts: In December 1934 two consignments of goods arrived in Calcutta by sea per S.S. 'Hosang' for the plaintiff. A person named Achan was the plaintiff's authorized clearing agent. One consignment consisted of 66 packages, and I will call it the 'A' consignment, the other consignment consisted of 35 packages and I will call it the 'B' consignment. There was a bill of entry in respect of the 'A' consignment which showed that the packages bore no marks; it also showed that there were no silk goods among the contents. On 14th December 1934 seven packages were seized by the Customs House Authorities of which one was subsequently released. As regards the remaining six the Customs House Authorities assert that they were seized in the public street outside the Customs House, whither the plaintiff's agent had caused them to be removed. The plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad Ali Vs. Fajarali Rasuli
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal869
ORDER1. The petitioner in this rule is the judgment-debtor in an execution case pending before the Munsif, Sixth Court at Comilla. It appears that sometime after the filing of the execution case the judgment-debtor started proceedings before a Debt Settlement Board. It is said that the Board issued a notice for stay of proceedings under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors' Act, but it is admitted that the notice had not been received by the Munsif's Court. ' The sale in the execution proceedings took place on 17th July 1937 and 20th August following was fixed for orders as to set-off and confirmation of sale, the decree-holder being the purchaser. It appears that on 26th July the judgment-debtor filed a copy of a rubakari from the Debt Settlement Board whereupon the Munsif stayed further proceedings in the execution case, but subsequently on 20th August on the petition of the decree-holder, the Munsif vacated the order of stay, confirmed the sale and dismissed the execution case on...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Behari Datta Vs. Margaretha Heh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal544
Sen, J.1. This is a suit by one Ratan Behari Dutt for declaration that the marriage solemnized between him and one Margaretha Heh is null and void. The parties went through a form of marriage under the Special Marriage Act, Act 3 of 1872. According to that Act, the parties have to make certain declarations in accordance with the terms of Section 2 of the Act, before the Registrar of Marriages appointed under Act 3 of 1872. The declarations made by the parties' have been proved. Ratan Behari Dutt declared that he professed the Hindu religion, while Margaretha Heh declared that she did not profess the Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Mahomedan, Parsi, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain religion. In short she did not profess to follow any religion at all. They made other declarations which are not material for the purposes of this suit. The plaintiff says that this marriage is null and void inasmuch as it offends against the provisions of Section 2, Special Marriage Act.2. In my opinion, the contention on b...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Latif and ors. Vs. Nawab Khajeh Habibulla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal354
1. This appeal is on behalf of defendants 2 and 7 to 10 in a suit for establishment of title and recovery of possession. The plaintiffs are 32 in number. Plaintiffs 1 to 31 claim title on the basis of a patni taluk granted to their predecessor in interest, Bibi Manjura Banoo by the 13 annas proprietors of Touzi No. 22 of the Tippera Collectorate in the year 1880. The patni kabuliat is Ex. 28, an extract from which is printed at 11-181. It included village Sovarampore, alias Jitrampore. Plaintiff 32 is the proprietor of the remaining 3 annas share of the said estate. The plaintiffs' case is that the lands in suit which are described in three schedules, A, B and C, annexed to the plaint are re-formations in situ of their village Sovarampore, on the other side, namely the eastern side, of the river Meghna, which at the time of the that and revenue survey, formed the eastern boundary of their village, but which since then has shifted its course far to the west. According to them the lands ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohendra Narayan Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Profulla Kumar Guha and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal795
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for arrears of rent for the holding described in the plaint from the year 1337 to 1340 B. S. at the rate of Rs. 117 per year plus cess at Rs. 16.15-9 per year with damages at 25 per cent. The defendant claims that the rent payable is Rs. 94 only per year. The suit was decreed in full in both the Courts below. The rent is claimed on the basis of a registered kabuliat, Ex. 1, by which the rent is fixed at Rs. 117. The defendant relies upon certain statements made in a lease and also upon an alleged compromise of a suit by which the landlords agreed to reduce the rent to Rs. 94 on the ground that certain lands included in the lease were not really under the putni but were held by the plaintiff in khas. The terms of the lease relied upon are as follows:That the putni lease was executed relying solely on the words of the lessors as to the title, share, and condition and sthith of the property without making any independent queries on these poi...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhir Chandra Nag and ors. Vs. Nazir Mamud Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal30
ORDEREdgley, J.1. In this case certain judgment-debtors made an application under Section 174(3), Ben. Ten. Act, in order to have an execution case set aside on the ground that there had been material irregularities in publishing the sale and that they had sustained substantial injury as a result thereof. Their application was dismissed by the learned Munsif and the judgment-debtors thereupon appealed to the learned District Judge who set aside the order of the first Court on findings to the effect that the judgment-debtors' property had been sold at an inadequate price and that it had not been established that the requisite processes had been properly served.2. In this Court the main point taken on behalf of the decree-holders petitioners is that the appeal to the lower Appellate Court was incompetent having regard to the provisions of Section 174(5), Ben. Ten. Act. That Section provides that an appeal shall lie against an order refusing to set aside a sale provided that no such appea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »