Kolkata Court January 1940 Judgments
Haji Eakub Shaikh and anr. Vs. Samjan Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal275
ORDEREdgley, J.1. This rule arises with reference to an application filed by the judgment-debtors, who are the petitioners before this Court, for the purpose of setting aside a certain rent sale which had been held on 11th July 1938. The learned Munsif allowed the petitioners' application by his order dated 30th November 1938, his order being to the following effect:Ordered therefore that the application will be allowed and the sale set aside on deposit of the decretal amount and legal compensation to which the auction-purchaser is entitled within ten days, failing which the present application will stand rejected.2. On 10th December 1938 the petitioners filed an application in which they asked for an extension of the time allowed under the order of 30th November 1938 for the purpose of depositing the dues of the decree-holder. The learned Munsif thereupon granted an extension of time until 20th December 1938, on which date the deposit was made and the rent sale was set aside. An appea...
Tag this Judgment!TahsinuddIn Ahmad and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal250
Khundkar, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted of rioting under Section 147, I.P.C., and their appeal to the learned Sessions Judge against their conviction has been dismissed. The case for the prosecution was that these petitioners trespassed upon the bari of the complainant and there assaulted him. This rule must succeed upon one ground argued before us. The second petitioner Safiuddin Ahmad when examined under Section 342, Criminal P.C., was questioned in the following manner:Q. - You have heard the prosecution evidence and cross-examination. Have you got anything to say?A. - I have committed no offence.Q. - How did they come by injuries?A. - They raised a structure on the land of Muksed Mia. They went to enter forcibly. Then there was a maramari with us.Q. - When did they go to effect a forcible entry?A. - In the small hours of the morning.Q. - Who were there?A. - A woman, Babu Mia, Nasimaddin, Dhola Mia.Q. - Had they lathis in their hands?A. - Yes. Babu Mia, Dhana Mia and Nasi...
Tag this Judgment!Mittulal Singhania and ors. Vs. Pursotome Debi Bagla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal385
Sen, J.1. The plaintiffs who claim to be reversioners have instituted this suit in which they pray that the defendant Sm. Pursotome Devi Bagla, be restrained from dealing with certain property on the allegation that she is a limited owner thereof and is threatening to waste it. I set out below a geneological table, the accuracy of which is now admitted to show how the parties are related.1st wife Brahamadutt = JAMUNADAS = Johura Bibi (separated) died about 2nd wife died died about 1899. 18-12-16 24.2.37. _______________________________________________________________ | | | |Rameswardas (adopted) Pursotome Rampeary-K Manvhari Bai-diedD. 12-3-37= Devi Bagla Singhania in the lifetime of Mt. Mayna | | Johura Bibi | Keshabdeo Padampat- | Dwarkaprosad Kailashpat _________________ (minor) Lachmipat | | Mittulal Sasonlal2. The plaintiff's case is that Johura Bibi died possessed of certain stridhone property. She left behind her Eameswardas, the adopted son of her co-wife and two daughters Purs...
Tag this Judgment!PulIn Krishna Mukherjee Vs. Adya Nath Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal98
Panckridge, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff seeks to obtain a declaration that he is entitled to the shebaitship and para or turn of worship, particulars of which are given in para 10 of the plaint. His claim is based on a registered deed of gift of 14th August 1929, whereby the plaintiff's father, Nibaran Chandra Mukherjee, purported in consideration of natural love and affection to transfer to the plaintiff his (the donor's) right, title and interest to and in the worship of the deity Sree Sree Sidheswari Thakurani and in his several palas or turns of worship. The plaintiff also asks for the partition of a certain joint pala among the parties entitled thereto, or in the alternative a direction for the sale of the said joint pala to the highest bidder among the parties to the suit. The most complete pedigree of the family with which we are concerned is to be found in the written statement of the defendant Adya Nath Mukherjee. ANANTA RAM CHAKRABURTI | ----------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!S. Huda and anr. Vs. Ali HussaIn M. Iqbal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal367
Khundkar, J.1. This is a rule to show cause why proceedings under Section 409, I.P.C. now pending against the petitioners in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta should not be quashed on the ground that a Magistrate In Calcutta has no jurisdiction to try the case. The material circumstances are to be gathered from the petition upon which this rule was granted. It would appear that the complainant, who is a partner of a firm carrying on business in the town of Calcutta made a complaint in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate to the following effect: On 14th March 1939 one Manindra Bhusan Sarkar, a contractor at Barisal, placed an order for certain goods valued at about Rs. 607 with the complainant's firm. The goods were to be sent to Barisal and it was arranged that the purchase price would be remitted to the complainant's firm by a bank at Barisal which is known as the Barisal Union Bank. It was alleged that the purchase...
Tag this Judgment!Tripura Charan Chowdhury Vs. Nikunja Behari Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal380
Lodge, J.1. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows : On 10th February 1929, the plaintiffs executed a deed of sale in respect of four plots of land in favour of the defendant, representing that all four plots were free from incumbrances. The consideration agreed upon was Rs. 1500, out of which Rs. 1067-5-3 was to be paid by the vendee to Nibaran Chaudhury, a creditor of the plaintiffs, and the balance, Rs. 432-10-9 was to be paid by the vendee to another creditor, viz. the Mahalaxmi Bank. The vendee paid Rupees 1067-5-3 to Nibaran Chaudhury in accordance with the agreement. But on 11th February 1929, that is to say on the day following the execution of the deed, he discovered that one of the four plots together with other properties of the plaintiffs had been mortgaged to the Mahalaxmi Bank. On coming to know of this mortgage, the yendee paid Rs. 300 only to the Mahalaxmi Bank, and retained the balance, Rupees 132-10-9, in his own hands. Subsequently the Mahalaxmi B...
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Nath Basu Thakur and anr. Vs. Surendra Kumar Basu Thakur and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal260
1. These three appeals arise in three proceedings started under Section 144, Civil P.C., by three sets of plaintiffs. The said plaintiffs brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dacca for possession of 3 annas, 12 gandas share of a property known as the Taltola hat and bazar (Title Suit No. 33 of 1920). There were twenty-two defendants in that suit. On 23rd January 1922 the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit except with regard to a share in four small parcels of land. No cost was awarded to any of the parties. The plaintiffs appealed to this Court. On 28th May 1925 that appeal was decreed against nine of the defendants and the plaintiffs were awarded costs of both Courts against the said defendants. The said nine defendants preferred an appeal to His Majesty in Council and while the said appeal was pending the plaintiffs took possession (in Title Execution No. 174 of 1925) and took proceedings for realizing the costs decreed by the High Court from one of the d...
Tag this Judgment!Nidhusudan Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Smt. Bibhabati Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal395
Panckridge, J.1. This case raises questions of considerable difficulty with regard to the construction of the Provident Funds Act (Act 19 of 1925) and of the General Provident Fund (Bengal Services) Rules. The facts are as follows : Dr. Madhusudan Mukherjee was a member of the Bengal Medical service and he died intestate on 5th March 1936. According to the written statement of the Accountant-General of Bengal who has been made a party defendant to this suit, at the date of the doctor's death he had standing to his credit in the Government Provident Fund a sum of Rupees 22,760-13-0 which had become at the date of the Accountant-General's written statement which was filed on 13th February 1939 Rs. 24,433-13-0. The plaintiffs are the three adult sons of the deceased doctor and they claim a declaration that they are solely entitled to receive the entire amount standing to the doctor's credit in the Government Provident Fund (Bengal Services).2. Three of the defendants are the three daughte...
Tag this Judgment!Badridas Agarwalla Vs. Sohan Lal Oswal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal545
Khundkar, J.1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal P.C., by the learned Sessions Judge of the Assam Valley Districts in which he recommends that a part of an order passed by a trying Magistrate in proceedings under Section 147, Criminal P.C., should be set aside. One Sohan Lal and another had been called upon to show cause why they should not be restrained from interfering with a right of way claimed by the first party, one Badridas Agarwala. The case for the first party was that he was the owner of a latrine which was connected with the public road by means of a narrow pathway over which the municipal sweepers used to pass and which was the only access which the sweepers had to this latrine. Upon the evidence in the case the learned Magistrate found as a fact that the first party had established a right of way over this pathway, and he thereupon went on to pass the order which is the subject, matter of this reference and which is in the following terms:I accordingly direct...
Tag this Judgment!Nafar Chandra Sardar and ors. Vs. Kali Pada Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal257
Nasim Ali, J.1. (Revision No. 963 of 1939.) The facts which are not in dispute in this rule are as follows : On 10th November 1937, the petitioners filed an application for settlement of their debts before the Debt Settlement Board, Howrah, under Section 8, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The application was dismissed by the Board on 19th January 1938, on the ground that the petitioners were not 'agriculturists.' They appealed against this decision to the Appellate Officer. This appeal was dismissed on 25th May 1938. They applied for review under Section 44(b) of the Act, but this application was also rejected. Petitioners 1 to 4 thereafter filed another application before the Special Debt Settlement Board, Howrah under Section 8 of the Act for settlement of their debts. This application was dismissed on 27th November 1938, on the ground that a fresh application was not maintainable. They applied for a review of this order. The opposite party creditor was not present on the date of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »