Kolkata Court December 1940 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.
Ram Renu Chattoraj Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal288
ORDER1. This rule must be discharged. The petitioner informed the police that he had been assaulted and robbed by certain persons unknown. Before the conclusion of the police investigation which was started the petitioner filed a naraji petition before the Magistrate. This complaint was enquired into and a number of witnesses examined after which the complaint was dismissed under Section 203, Criminal P. C; meantime the police reported the case to be false and a complaint was lodged against the petitioner under Section 182, Penal Code. On that complaint the Magistrate directed summons to issue. It is against this order that the present rule is directed. Now it is clear that the offence, if any, constituted by a false complaint against unknown persons is not one under S.211, Penal Code, but one under S.182 of the Code. It was therefore within the competence of the police authorities concerned to complain of that offence and within the competence of the Magistrate, on receiving that comp...
Haridas Saha Vs. Dulal Chandra Sadukhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal305
1. One Butto Krishna Sadhu-khan (defendant 2) was the owner of premises No. 182, Upper Chitpur Road, Calcutta, of a garden at Baranagore comprising an area of 1 bigha 18 cottahs being holding No. 83 in division 1, sub-division 6 of khas mahal estate No. 1068 and of other immovable properties. A yearly revenue of Rs. 6-4-6 was payable to the Collector of 24 Perganas for the aforesaid holding No. 83. He borrowed Rs. 18,000 from the plaintiff, Haridas Saha, and for securing the said loan mortgaged to the latter premises No. 182, Upper Chitpore Road and the Baranagore garden. This was on 23rd August 1926. Thereafter he borrowed Rs. 26,000 from Mr. Moore on 8th October 1927 on the security of the aforesaid two properties and some other immovable property. In 1928 Mr. Moore brought a suit in the original side of this Court to enforce his mortgage. He impleaded Butto Krishna and Haridas as defendants. Mr. O. Ahmed (defendant 3), then a practising barrister, was appointed receiver of the mortg...
Dana Mia Vs. Mamtazal Karim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal271
Bartley, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Noakhali under the provisions of S.438, Criminal P. C, in which he recommends that the order of the Magistrate committing four persons to the Court of Session for trial under Sections 379,325,323 and 147,I. P. C, should be quashed or such other orders made as the Court thinks fit. The reference arises from a case of rioting in connexion with a certain plot of land which was claimed by two different parties. A quarrel ensued between them, in the course of which one member of the party now committed to the Court of Session was killed and another injured. Two counter cases were instituted, one of which was committed to the Court of Session and tried out. The present case against the party who figured as the complainant's party in the first case has also been committed to the Court of Session, and the learned Judge recommends that that order should be quashed.2. The grounds on which the learned Judge makes this recomme...
R.E. Marriott Vs. Municipality of Howrah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal319
ORDEREdgley, J.1. This rule arises with reference to the conviction of the General Manager of the Bast Indian Railway tinder Section 14, Licensed Warehouse and Fire Brigade Act of 1893. A complaint on behalf of the Howrah Municipality was originally filed on 31st March 1939 against the Superintendent, Way and Works, Bast Indian Railway. It appears however that, in a similar case in respect of the year 1937-38, it had been pointed out by the trial Court that the proper person against whom proceedings should be taken was the General Manager of the East Indian Railway. The latter case was decided on 22nd August 1939 and it was on account of that decision that, on 10th April 1940, the General Manager of the East Indian Railway was substituted in the present case for the Superintendent, Way and Works. In the judgment of the learned Magistrate which is dated 28th June 1940, the General Manager was found guilty under Section 14 Licensed Warehouse and Fire Brigade Act of 1893 and was ordered t...
inland Revenue Commissioners Vs. Payne.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1940
Reported in: [1942]10ITR59(Cal)
GREENE, M. R. - (His Lordship stated the facts and continued :) The word in the definition clause of 'settlement' which is relevant to that question is the word 'arrangement'. The word 'arrangement' is not a word of art : It is used, in my opinion, in this context in what may be described as a business sense, and the question is : Can we find here an 'arrangement' as so construed? It is said that the only element in this transaction which falls within the definition of 'settlement' is the deed of covenant itself. I am unable to accept that argument. It appears to me that the whole of what was done must be looked at, and where that is done, the true view, in a certain relationship to the company as part of one definite scheme, the essential heads of which could have been put down in numbered paragraphs on half a sheet of note-paper. Those were the things which it was essential that Mr. Payne should do if he wished to bring about the result desired. He did it by a combination of obtainin...
Sm. Mukimannessa Chowdhurani and ors. Vs. Rameswar Shukul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal264
ORDER1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the competency of this rule that the order against which it is directed is an appealable order and that consequently no revision lies. We are of opinion that this objection should prevail. The facts are shortly these: The decree-holder opposite party obtained a rent decree against the petitioner and in execution of that decree, brought the holding to sale. The auction-purchaser thereafter deposited in Court the whole of the purchase money. The judgment-debtor then applied for setting aside the sale under Section 174, Ben. Ten. Act. This was in November 1939. On 12th February 1940 the judgment-debtor made an application before a Debt Settlement Board for the settlement of his debts in which he included the debt due under the rent decree referred to above. Upon that, a notice was issued by the Board under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors' Act, to the Court in which the execution: case was proceeding. The execution Court held, on th...
Fazlar Rahim Vs. Khorsed Alam and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal333
Sen, J.1. This appeal is by defendant 1. A Noabad jote was sold on 7 th March 1935 for arrears of rent. The sale was held under the Public Demands Recovery Act for the realization of an amount due under a certificate issued against defendants 3 to 7. The Secretary of State for India in Council who is defendant 2 purchased the jote for 3 pies and settled it on 28th February 1936 with defendant 1, Fazlur Rahim. The jote belonged originally to five persons who died some eleven years ago; the five defendants 3 to 7 are the eldest sons of these five persons. The plaintiffs, it is now admitted, are also the heirs of these five persons and inherited an 11 annas 7 2/11 pies share in the jote. The plaintiffs sue for a declaration of their title to an 11 annas 7 2/11 pies share in the jote and for confirmation of their possession therein on the ground that their share has not been affected by the sale. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal the decision of the trial Court was set aside an...
Narendra Chandra De and ors. Vs. Rajendra Chandra Chanda and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal506
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants and it arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff for recovery of khas possession of the lands in suit on the allegation that the defendants held the same in service tenure on condition of rendering certain menial services to the plaintiff and as there was a refusal on the part of the defendants to render such services since Chaitra 1342 B.S., the plaintiff was entitled to resume the lands. The defence was that one Kailas Chandra De, the predecessor of the defendants, served as a tahsildar of the plaintiff's estate when the plaintiff was a minor and as a reward for his services, the plaintiff's mother on behalf of the plaintiff made a gift of the suit lands to him to be held in raiyati right without payment of any rent. The defendants denied categorically that they or their predecessors rendered any services, menial or otherwise, to the plaintiff. Both the Courts below believed the plaintiff's story and made a decr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›