Kolkata Court May 1939 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.
A.W. Lobo Vs. J.A. Lobo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal753
Sen, J.1. There are two reports by the Registrar in the matrimonial suit instituted by the wife against her husband. One report deals with the amount payable as alimony pendente lite and the other deals with the amount payable as costs. Both these enquiries were referred to the Registrar and he made his report on 22nd February 1939. Both the reports were filed on 8th March 1939. When the reports came up for further directions the husband appeared in person and objected to the reports. This was on 18th April 1939. Before this date the husband took no steps. The objections of the husband are twofold. As regards the amount fixed for alimony pendente lite the husband says that the Registrar took into account his gross income, not his net income. By net income the husband means income left after meeting all what he terms his necessary expenses. The next objection is that the wife is not entitled either to alimony pendente lite or to her costs because she has private means of her own. As the...
Rabindra Nath Roy Choudhury and ors. Vs. Dhirendra Nath Roy Choudhury ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal82
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit commenced by them for specific performance of a contract embodied in a petition of compromise which was filed and, made the basis of the decree in T.S. No. 103 of 1931 of the Court of the First Sub-Judge at Alipore. The facts are not in controversy. Suresh, the father of the plaintiff and defendant 2, who is the father of defendant 1, are two brothers. There was an estate bearing Touzi No. 1300 of the 24 Parganas Collectorate which was purchased ostensibly by defendant 1 at a revenue sale. Upon that, Suit No. 103 of 1931 mentioned above was commenced in the Court of the First Sub-Judge at Alipur by Suresh as plaintiff, and his brother Rajendra and his son, the present defendant 1, were made parties defendants to that suit. The plaintiff Suresh sought for a declaration in that suit that the purchase in the name of defendant 1 was really for the benefit of himself and his brother Rajendra and he p...
Sm. Ashamayi Basu, W/O Charu Chandra Basu Vs. Baranagore Jute Factory ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal141
Edgley, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff, Sm. Ashamoyee Basu, sued the defendants for the establishment of her title on recovery of possession of a certain property which had been purchased by her predecessor-in-interest at a revenue sale which was held on 13th January 1922. The plaintiff's case was to the effect that Kazi Rasid Jaman purchased Touzi No. 166 of the 24 Parganas Collectorate on 13th January 1922 and his heirs had conveyed this estate to her on 26th January 1929. Thereafter she issued a notice annulling the various tenures under Touzi No. 166 including two tenures which are recorded in Khatians 426 and fJ22 of the settlement records and comprise certain lands mentioned in schedules Ka and Kha attached to the plaint. From the terms of the plaint, it appears to have been admitted by the plaintiff that these particular tenures which were the subject-matter of the suit were held by the defendants not only under touzi No. 166 but also under severa...
Smt. Bhagia Vs. Chittagong Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal608
Henderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Chittagong to show cause why certain proceedings pending against the petitioner should not be quashed. The petitioner is a sweeper woman who was serving under the Municipal Commissioners of Chittagong. She left Chittagong on the 11th and reached Calcutta on 13th March 1938. She took service as a sweeper under the Calcutta Corporation on 1st April and has been so working ever since. She has now been prosecuted for an offence under Section 71, Bengal Municipal Act. The complaint was made on 21st February 1939. A warrant was issued for her arrest and she then obtained this rule. The ground upon which this rule was pressed is that the prosecution is barred by limitation. It is not now contended that she may not be guilty of an offence under the substantive Section. In showing cause Mr. Choudhury took two points. First of all he contended that mere failure to attend is not an offence; for example, such failure might be d...
Suresh Chandra Sen Vs. Jogesh Chandra Sen and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal658
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an order dated 23rd January 1939 passed by the Subordinate Judge of Dinajpore under Section 151, Civil P.C., by which a final decree passed on compromise in a suit for partition was set aside on the ground of fraud. The facts are not indispute. The plaintiff who is opposite party 1 instituted a suit for partition in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dinajpore some, time in the year 1926 for partition of certain homestead and jote lands belonging jointly to him and to the two defendants. Defendant 1 is his brother and defendant 2 who has since died was his cousin. On 21st December 1927 a preliminary decree was passed on consent and the shares of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 in the suit properties were declared to be 7 annas, 4 annas and 4 annas respectively. The work of making the partition was at first given to certain arbitrators, but that having failed a pleader commissioner named Makham Lai Sen was appointed to make the ...
Purna Chandra Bhowmick Vs. Barna Kumari Devi W/O Bibhuti Bhusan Chakra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal715
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of defendant 2 and it arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff for a declaration that as an assignee of a decree passed in money suit No. 258 of 1928 he was entitled to realize the decretal amount amicably or by execution of the decree. The facts lie within a narrow compass and are for the most part undisputed. Defendant 1 filed a suit, being Money Suit No. 258 of 1928, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur against the London Mission Society and another person, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7997-0-5 only. Defendant 1 borrowed money at different dates from the plaintiff aggregating to Rs. 1500, to carry on this litigation and on 23rd August 1932 he executed a mortgage bond in favour of the plaintiff assigning by way of security the decree that would be passed in the money suit instituted by him. The stipulation was that the plaintiff would be entitled to realize out of the decretal amount the sum of Rs. 1500 due to him tog...
Mahendra Chandra Roy and ors. Vs. Rajani Kanta Kar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal609
Edgley, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiffs sued the defendant for the recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1338 to 1341 B.S. on the basis of a kabuliat which was executed by the defendant on 3rd June 1929. Various pleas were put forward by the defendant in the Courts below. He denied the validity of the kabuliat and maintained that he bad not undertaken to pay the rent of Rs. 23 per annum and that the kabuliat dated 3rd June 1929 had not been acted upon. The first Court decreed the plaintiff's suit. The defendant then appealed to the lower Appellate Court and the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the decision of the first Court mainly on the ground that the kabuliat of 3rd June 1929 had been taken by the plaintiffs after an invalid sub-division of the original holding. It appears from the facts found in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge that originally three brothers were tenants in respect of the land covered by the holding in respect of ...
Emperor Vs. Hiralal Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal636
Henderson, J.1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal P.C., made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of 24-Parganas and it involves a short point of law. The petitioner is a Commissioner of the Baragore Municipality and he was elected as Vice-Chairman. The prosecution case is that taking advantage of his position as such, he abetted the other accused in cheating the Municipality. The point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that he cannot be prosecuted without the sanction of the local Government in view of the provisions of Section 197, Criminal P.C. The reference has been opposed on behalf of the Crown and the contention of the learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer is that inasmuch as the petitioner can be removed from his office as Vice-Chairman by a vote of two-thirds of the Commissioners under the provisions of Section 61, Bengal Municipal Act, Section 197 has no application to the proceedings. In our judgment, it is impossible to divorce the position of the petition...
Ghulam Dastgir Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal623
Sen, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta on a charge under Section 46, Excise Act, (Bengal Act 5 of 1909). The case against him briefly is that he was in possession of ten seers of charas valued at about Rupees 1600 in contravention of the provisions of the aforesaid Act. The facts alleged by the prosecution are briefly these: On 22nd February 1939, three Customs Preventive Officers, H. Ghose, P.C. Ghose and Section Huq, on the receipt of certain information waited at a place in Chowringee Square. A taxi drew up near where they were standing and two Indians and a European got out from the taxi. Thereafter the accused got out of the taxi with a suit case he was promptly arrested by these Customs Officers and in the suit case were found ten seers of charas. The defence taken is that the appellant was a casual visitor to an hotel near by and that he was wrongly arrested while coming out from the hotel. In view of the decision at which we ha...
Dhirendra Nath Das Vs. Indra Chandra Kisriwala and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal578
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and the suit was one commenced under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C., for establishing his title to the property in suit. Defendant 1 is the decree-holder, who obtained a money decree against defendants 2-5. This decree was put into execution in Money Execution Case No. 30 of 1935 of the Court of the 1st Subordinate Judge of Howrah and the property in suit was attached. The plaintiff thereupon preferred a claim under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C., but that claim was refused, and following the adverse decision in the claim proceeding the present suit was started. The plaintiff's case in substance is that the property in suit belonged to Debendra Nath Sadhukhan, defendant 5, who was one of the judgment-debtors, and he made a gift of it in favour of his wife by a document which was executed on 3rd May 1933. The plaintiff purchased the property by a kobala from Mrinalini on 9th May 1935, for a consideration of Rs. 2000 only and w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »