Kolkata Court June 1939 Judgments
Smt. Lakshmi Debi Vs. Lala Hansraj Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal377
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Srimati Lakshmi Debi, plaintiff, against 1. Lala Hansraj Gupta, 2. Gordhondas, 3. Mt. Bhagabati Debi and 4. Sm. Angira Debi, defendants in the suit and respondents in the appeal. The plaintiff joined Gordhondas as a defendant as being one interested in the property, the subject of the suit. The suit was to set aside a sale held under the directions of the Court on the ground that Hansraj, defendant 1, who was a trustee of certain property, had purchased the property in violation of Section 210, Succession Act. Gordhondas did not appear and took no part whatever in the proceedings before Panckridge J. Panckridge J. dismissed the suit in its entirety. Thereupon the plaintiff appealed. Gordhondas believing that Lakshmi Debi had come to some arrangement with the other respondents raised cross-objections which are set out. He also applied to be substituted as an appellant. That application was refused. Lakshmi Debi does not pursue the appeal, but Gord...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Roy Chaudhury and ors. Vs. Ahammed Ali Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal23
ORDERS.K. Ghose, J.1. The present petitioners are decree-holders auction-purchasers in execution of a rent decree. The sale was originally fixed on 16th June 1930, on which date the judgment-debtors opposite parties applied for an adjournment waiving service of fresh sale proclamation, and the adjournment was granted. Thereafter several more adjournments were granted on similar conditions. The sale took place on 17th September 1930 and was confirmed on 23rd March 1931. On 1st February 1937 the judgment-debtors opposite parties made an application under Section 174, Ben. Ten. Act, for setting aside the sale. The Munsif dismissed the application finding that there was no fraud or material irregularity, and that the application was barred by limitation. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge came to a similar finding but nevertheless he set aside the sale on a single ground, namely that it was void for want of notice under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P.C. Against that order the present rule...
Tag this Judgment!Rameswar Marwari Vs. Amar Nath Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal76
ORDERS.K. Ghose, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted under Sections 406 and 407 read with Section 48B, Calcutta Municipal Act, which has been extended to Howrah and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The prosecution case is that the petitioner stored for sale 127 tins of mustard oil which was not of the prescribed quality and which was adulterated. It appears that there was a previous trial at which the petitioner was convicted but that conviction was set aside on appeal. There was a retrial with the result as stated above. At the trial the petitioner pleaded not guilty. He also examined one witness to show that he acted as a broker in respect of sale of the 127 tins of mustard oil, and that at the material time he was keeping the tins, because they were returned by the purchaser who was unable to pay the price. The learned Magistrate was clearly in error in referring to an alleged plea of guilty at the prev...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Srish Chandra Nandy Vs. Rai Harendra Lal Roy Choudhury Bahadu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal19
Sen, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant is Maharaja Srish Chandra Nandy, who in-stituted this suit by his next friend, the Manager of the Kasimbazar Eaj Wards Estate. His case briefly is as follows: He is the owner in zamindari interest of a 12 annas 6 pies share and in patni interest of a 3 annas 6 pies share in an estate bearing taluq No. 5582 of the Faridpur Colleetorate. The lands in suit are situated in Muktarer Char and they are recorded in khewat No. 69/27. The plaintiff's case is that this land which measures about 9.44 acres appertains to taluq No. 5582. This land was diluviated by the river Padma and then re-formed in situ. On re-formation some of the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants went and took possession of the lands under the then maliks of taluq No. 5582. No rent was paid by these persons. Later on negotiations took place between the plaintiff's predecessor and the defendants for settling a rent for the land of which they had taken possession. Before any decision co...
Tag this Judgment!Kazi Ali Haidar Vs. Upendra Nath Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal662
Henderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of 24-Parganas to show cause why certain proceedings against the petitioner should not be quashed. There was a bye-election in Ward No. 4 of the Barrackpur Municipality. The petitioner headed the poll and was one of the two candidates deolared to be elected. The complainant, who had just been unseated on an election petition had the mortification of finding himself at the bottom of the poll. No steps were taken by him to challenge the election but he instituted criminal proceedings against the petitioner and the other successful candidate charging them with offences under Section 29, Bengal Municipal Act, in connexion with the election. No such charge was made against the other unsuccessful candidates. The petitioner then obtained this rule. The first ground upon which the rule was issued was that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint made by this complainant. The controlli...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath Ghosh Vs. Surendra Nath Jordar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal593
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff and the suit was one for recovery of arrears of rent due in respect of a tenure which is described as a putni tenure for the period commencing with Chaitra kist of 1340 B.S. and ending with the Aswin kist of 1342 B.S. There were ten defendants in the suit and out of them defendant 10 did not appear or contest the proceeding. The defence of the other defendants was substantially of a two-fold character. It was contended in the first place that defendants 1 to 8 having executed a conveyance in respect of their 2/3rds share in the tenure in favour of defendant 9 on 29th Chaitra 1340 B.S. were not liable for rent for the period in suit. The other contention raised was that as defendant 9 subsequently purchased the tenure at a rent sale in the beginning of the year 1342 B.S. the claim for rent of that year for -which defendant 9 alone was responsible, was improperly joined with the claim for the earlier year, and the suit was...
Tag this Judgment!Sripat Singh Dugar Vs. Rani Mohini Sundari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal626
Henderson, J.1. The short point raised for determination in this Rule is the interpretation of the words 'any person interested' in Section 39, Guardians and 'Wards Act, and it does not appear that it has ever been raised before. The opposite party was appointed guardian of the properties of two wealthy minors. The petitioner filed an application for her removal under Section 39 of the Act. The District Judge without considering the application on its merits dismissed it as incompetent. In view of a report submitted by an auditor of the accounts it appeared that all was not well with the administration of the estate and the learned Judge proposed to consider the matter on his own motion. The petitioner then obtained this Rule. The term 'any person interested' is obviouly very wide. Possibly it might be easier to say whom it excludes rather than whom it includes. We do not propose, and in fact the learned Advocate General did not ask us, to attempt to formulate any definition or to give...
Tag this Judgment!Moolji Sicka and Co., in Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1939
Reported in: [1939]7ITR493(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - The facts are stated in full in the Case and the Supplementary Case; details appear in the annexed documents.Shortly, the position is as follows : the assessee make biris which are cigarettes composed of tobacco wrapped in tendu leaves. The tobacco is purchased by the assessee; tendu leaves are gathered by the assessee agents from the tendu tree or shrub, made into bundles of 60 to 150, the bundles are dried in the sun for about 10 days, then made up into larger bundles for transport to the factory, sometimes after watering.According to the Supplementary Case, the tendu plant is entirely of wild growth and propagates itself by root-suckers or by self sown seed; it is never planted by human agency and grows in jungle or waste lands; there is no breaking up of the land nor ploughing nor raising up of the soil; there is no watering nor manuring. No fencing nor other protection is afforded. Occasionally patches of tendu occur in cultivated holdings but the land on which ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Igustins Rohdirick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal192
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This application raises an important question with regard to the position of creditors of Government pensioners who have the misfortune to be adjudicated insolvents. The facts are that the insolvent was adjudicated on his own petition on 4th July 1938. He was formerly an employee of the Posts and Telegraph Department of the Government of India, and on his retirement he was granted a monthly pension of Rs. 308 net after deduction of income-tax. Prior to his adjudication he had admittedly borrowed money from the opposite party, Jagannath Panday, in whose favour he had executed a promissory note for Rs. 5000. The insolvent states in his petition that he arranged with Jagannath Panday that he should pay a certain portion of his pension month by month in liquidation of the sum previously advanced, and should deposit with Jagannath his pension pay order and pension papers. Without these documents he is unable to draw his pension from Government.2. It appears that after ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Makhan Lal Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal167
Narsing Rau, J.1. In the course of the examination of the prosecution witness Ratipati Banerjee, P.W. 2 in this Court, a question has been raised whether the signed statement made by him to the investigating police officer on 17th January 1939 comes within the scope of Section 163, Evidence Act, and whether the accused can be required to give it as evidence in the circumstances mentioned in that Section. It may be explained at the outset that Section 162, Criminal P.C., has no application to the case because the Code does not apply to the police in the town of Calcutta unless expressly made applicable to them, and there has been no notification making the Section 30 applicable (see Section 1, Sub-section 2 of the Code).2. The circumstances in which the question5 has arisen are briefly these: After the witness had been examined-in-chief and while he was under cross-examination by Mr. Banerjee representing accused 6 and 7, learned Counsel asked him whether he had made certain statements ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »