Kolkata Court November 1940 Judgments
Sm. Pursottome Devi Bagla Vs. Dwarka Prasad Bajaj and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal458
McNair, J.1. The plaintiff in Suit No. 2154 of 1938 has given notice to the Manager, Reserve Bank of India, to show cause why he should not carry out the orders of this Court and renew a Government promissory note in the name of the plaintiff and pay to her the accrued interest. The Reserve Bank of India is admittedly not a party to this suit, and the learned Advocate-General has suggested to the Court that the Reserve Bank of India cannot be brought before the Court on an application of this nature. He has referred to the third party procedure, known to the Courts in England, and has argued that no such procedure is available in this Court. It appears, however, that the Reserve Bank of India have in the course of correspondence with the plaintiff's attorney set out their views with regard to the controversy, and, after stating that in their opinion the full facts have not been placed before the learned Judges who had made previous orders, they have asked in the event of the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Jitendra Mullick and anr. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal560
Sen, J.1. The two appellants have been prosecuted for exercising their rights as the owners of a market without taking out a license and each of them has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 855. The case against them briefly is as follows. Both the appellants are shebaits and also trustees of the estate of the late Raja Rajendra Mullick Bahadur and as such shebaits they are in possession of a market at 356 Upper Chitpore Road called the Nutan Bazar. For the first half of the municipal year 1937-1938 they paid a scavenging tax of Rs. 450 calculated on the basis that the quantity of rubbish removed daily was 180 cubic feet. They have been prosecuted for not taking out a license with respect to the second half of the year 1937-1938. On or about 13th. August 1937, the Superintendent of the market complained to the Corporation that the refuse of the bazar was not being properly removed and that a big heap of refuse had collected. To this a reply was sent on 3rd or 4th September 1937 by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Hare Krishna Dhupi and anr. Vs. Upendra Kumar Bhoumik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal383
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The whole controversy in this appeal centres round the point as to whether the predecessor of plaintiffs 1 to 4 did acquire any title to an eight annas share of the disputed holding by virtue of his purchase at the mortgage sale which could enure beyond the lifetime of Sarada, Sarada admittedly had eight annas share in the disputed holding which she inherited from her father, Lochan Dhupi, the other eight annas share devolving on her sister Iswari. Iswari's two sons, Kali and Chandra, succeeded to the interest of their mother after the latter's death. It is not disputed that four annas share of Kali has passed by transfer to plaintiff 5 and Chandra has made a gift of his four annas share to defendant 6. The dispute is only with regard to eight annas share of Sarada. Now, Sarada's husband, Ram Manikya, had acquired a superior interest in respect of this holding sometime before his death and after his death this interest devolved upon his three sons, defendants 1 and...
Tag this Judgment!Amulya Mohan Bysack Vs. K. MoinuddIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal505
Derbyshire C.J.1. The learned Judge refused to make an order annulling the adjudication of the insolvent. From that decision an appeal is brought to this Court. The applicant-appellant is a creditor. The insolvent supports the order of adjudication made against him. The learned Judge could annul the insolvency where in his opinion the debtor ought not to have been adjudged an insolvent or where it was proved to his satisfaction that the debts of the insolvent had been paid in full. There is no contention that the debts of the insolvent in this instance have been paid in full. The only question is, therefore, whether the debtor ought to have been adjudged insolvent or not. It is contended that the debtor did not come within the provisions of Section 11 Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, as he had not ordinarily resided within the jurisdiction of the Court within a year previous to the date of the presentation of the insolvency petition. As regards that the learned Judge had before him the...
Tag this Judgment!Sourendra Mohan Chowdhury Vs. Kanai Lal Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal384
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiff claimed rent for the years 1340 B.S. to 1343 B.S. at the rate of Rs. 29-2-11 per year, from the defendant who is a purchaser of the holding at a rent sale. The defence was that the defendant was not put in possession of c.s. plot No. 3242 which was a part of the holding, and so the entire rent should be suspended. This contention found favour with both the Courts below, and the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed in its entirety. It is against this decision that the present second appeal has been preferred.2. Having heard the learned advocates on both sides, I am of the opinion that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is not satisfactory, and that the learned Judge has failed to approach the question from a proper standpoint. It is not disputed that the holding in suit comprises 21 O. S. dags covering an area of more than eight acres of land...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhoda Prasad Mazumdar Vs. Gaganendra Nath Tagore and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal242
Bartley, J. 1. These appeals arise from two suits brought by the patnidar tenure holders in respect of lands held by them under the zamindars from a date previous to the permanent settlement. The original patni tenure included two rivers which in the course of time either silted up or changed their courses so that culturable lands were formed in what had been the river beds at the time when the original patni lease was granted. Resumption proceedings took place with regard to the lands thus formed with the result that two diara mahals, Bachra 2391 and Tarabaria Enayatpur 2354, were created and assessed to revenue by Government. Bachra was assessed at Rs. 1791-15-0 and as the maliks refused settlement this amount is being paid to Government direct by the patnidars. Tarabaria was assessed at Rs. 131-11-0 and Enayatpur at Rs. 194-8-0. The zamindars took settlement of both these mahals. It may be noted that the entire patni rent at the time of these new settlements was Rs. 1955 odd. The pa...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Prosad Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal263
Henderson, J. 1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Birbhum to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Section 211, I. P. C, should not; be set aside. The rule was issued on grounds 1 and 5 attached to the petition. The petitioner is a constable. He was entrusted with the execution of two warrants which had been issued against two witnesses in a certain criminal case. He failed to execute the warrants. He appeared at the thana and gave an information to the effect that five persons had rescued one of these men and committed an offence under Section 225B, I. P.C. There was an investigation. No charge-sheet was submitted as the police came to the conclusion that the case was a doubtful one. The Magistrate did not pursue the matter any further and discharged the accused persons. One of those accused persons then instituted the present case under Section 211 against the petitioner. The first ground raises the question of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate ...
Tag this Judgment!Sashi Kumari Devi W/O Mohini Kishore Roy Vs. Dhirendra Kishore Roy and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal248
Lodge, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by a worshipper of a Hindu family deity in which the plaintiff prayed for the removal of the shebait, for the framing of a scheme for the proper sheba of the goddess, for a declaration that certain immovable properties were debutter properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the sheba and puja of the deity and the collection of profits from the debutter properties. One Hara Kishore Roy was the owner of 1 anna, 13 gandas, 1 kara, 1 krant, share in hisya Krishna Ballav Roy which was one of the separate shares of a revenue paying estate known as taluk Daul Jagat Ballav Roy. In the year 1848, Hara Kishore Roy executed a document by which he created a permanent dartaluk in favour of the family deity. Sri Sri Baradeswari Hara Kishore was the first shebait and was succeeded by his adopted son Barada Kishore Roy. Barada Kishore died leaving three sons, the eldest of whom was Mohini. ...
Tag this Judgment!Amulyadhan Sinha Vs. Kanak Chandra Mustafi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal368
Lodge, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant purchased touzi No. 97 known as Kharija Taluk Pabgati in the year 1923, at a sale for arrears of revenue. He took possession through the Collector but when he sought to possess the lands of the tauzi he was resisted by some of the defendants. Thereupon he sued for a declaration of his title to the property and for khas possession by evicting the defendants therefrom. A vast number of defendants were impleaded, but most of them were subsequently given up and their names struck out of the plaint. The suit proceeded against defendants 1 to 19, 22 to 26,114, 363, 518 to 518g, 519 to 522, 525 and 526 only. Of these, defendant 363 filed one petition of compromise, defendants 518 to 518g and 519 to 522 filed another petition of compromise, and defendants 525 and 526 have filed still another. Defendants 5 to 7 filed a written statement disclaiming title or possession in the land; and defendants 17 to 19 filed another written statement to the same effect. Def...
Tag this Judgment!Province of Bengal Vs. Mahes Missir and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal625
Khundkar, J.1. These are two rules obtained by the Province of Bengal against orders of the Calcutta Improvement Trust Tribunal passed upon references under Section 49 (1), Land Acquisition Act, made by the First Land Acquisition Collector, 24-Parganas. Rule 567 of 1940 is not pressed and is accordingly discharged. Rule 566 of 1940 relates to premises No. 40, Lake Road, measuring about 6 bighas, 5 cottas, and 6 chittaks which was notified for acquisition by Government by a declaration No. 12578 L. A. dated 19th June 1937 published in the Calcutta Gazette of 24th June 1937. Under Section 24, Calcutta Improvement Act, the present landlord, opposite party 10, subsequently entered into an agreement with the Calcutta Improvement Trust whereby the trust was to acquire a portion of the land measuring about 58 cottas and 12 chittaks, and the remaining portion of the land measuring about 66 cottas and 10 chittaks was to be exempted from acquisition on a payment of Rs. 48,900 to be made by the l...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »