Kolkata Court February 1940 Judgments
Sri Narayan and anr. Vs. Mohammad Abu Saleh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal351
Khundkar, J.1. Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1940. This is a rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta and the complainant opposite party to show cause why the convictions and sentences passed on the petitioners should not be. set aside. The petitioners have been convicted of an offence under Section 486, I.P.C. The case for the prosecution was that they were selling in the market packets of biris to which were attached two labels which are counterfeits of labels employed as a distinctive mark of biris of which the complainant was the manufacturer. In support of the rule, it has been argued by Mr. Carden Noad firstly, that the labels which are associated with the goods of the complain, ant are not trade marks. Now, the definition of a trade mark as contained in Section 478, I.P.C., is in the following terms:A mark used for denoting that goods are the manufacture or merchandise of a particular person is called a trade mark.2. Upon the evidence in the case and the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Mullick and anr. Vs. Haji Hafiz Alla Bux
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal122
McNair, J.1. The petitioner has obtained a succession certificate entitling him to recover the debt due to Mahammad Safi, deceased, who was surety in this Court in a sum of Rs. 500 for a judgment-debtor, Haji Hafiz Alla Bux. Both the surety and the judgment-debtor have since died. On 6th December 1935, a decree was passed against the judgment-debtor. On 2nd July 1936, the judgment-debtor was arrested in execution of the decree and brought before the Court. The judgment-debtor informed the Court that he would apply to be adjudicated insolvent and Mahammad Safi was accepted as his surety for the sum of Rs. 500. On 22nd July 1936, the judgment-debtor stated to the Court that Mahammad Safi who was present in Court would stand surety for him for Rs. 500 and it was ordered:That the hearing of this matter do stand over till Friday, 24th July 1936, the defendant undertaking to attend Court on that date, and it is further ordered that the Registrar of this Court be at liberty to accept the secu...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Jadu Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal274
Henderson, J.1. This is a rule obtained by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, calling upon the opposite party, Jadu Nath Roy, to show cause why the order of discharge made in his favour by the Additional District Magistrate of Tippera should not be set aside. Jadu Nath Roy is a Government officer serving under the Communication and. Works Department of the Government of Bengal. A commission was appointed under Act 37 of 1850 to investigate certain charges against an officer in the department. Jadu Nath Roy was summoned to give evidence. The commissioners were satisfied that he gave deliberately false evidence in various matters and made a complaint. The District Magistrate took cognizance of the case on the complaint and made it over to the Additional District Magistrate for disposal. The Additional District Magistrate discharged the accused on the ground that the sanction of the Local Government was necessary under Section 197, Criminal P.C. The Public Prose...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Bengal Dooars Railway Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal531
Henderson, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why an order of the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta acquitting them on a prosecution under Section 492, Calcutta Municipal Act, should not be set aside. The opposite party are the Bengal Dooars Railway Co. Ltd., and the real dispute between the parties is whether they are liable to take out a license under Section 175, Calcutta Municipal Act. License fees were paid for some time without dispute but it appears that the opposite party have now been legally advised that they are not liable to pay. We shall always be reluctant to interfere with an order of acquittal, specially when, as in the present case, the real dispute between the parties can be properly decided in a civil action.2. The Rule was pressed on the ground that the learned Magistrate in arriving at his decision committed two errors of law. Under Section 135, Railways Act, the opposite party could not be made liable in spite of the taxing statute wi...
Tag this Judgment!Amulya Charan Paul Vs. Chairman, Kanchrapara Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal336
Henderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the Chairman of the Kanchrapara Municipality to show cause why an order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Barrackpore under Section 330, Bengal Municipal Act, should not be set aside. The order of demolition in question relates to a privy which has been constructed. Two law points were taken in support of the rule. It was first contended that the privy is saved under the provisions of Section 2 of the Act. The petitioner obtained sanction under the old Act in the year 1928. Under the provisions of that Act it was necessary for the petitioner to start the work within one year of the granting of the sanction. In his application to the Magistrate, the Chairman of the Municipality asserted that the construction was started stealthily long after the sanction had expired. The Magistrate was not satisfied with the statement and asked the Chairman for evidence. The Chairman replied and relied upon a statement made by a lady to the effect that ...
Tag this Judgment!Abala Kanta Ghose and anr. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal577
Henderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta and the chief executive office of the Corporation of Calcutta to show cause why the conviction of the petitioners under Section 407 Calcutta Municipal Act, Should not be set aside. The prosecution is the most unreasonable one that I have ever seen. The petitioners have been convicted of selling ghee. What they actually sold was singara. It was then sent to an analyst. He purports as a result of his analysis to have obtained some ghee out of it. The prosecution case is that by selling singara the petitioners sold part of the ghee in which it had been fried. The evidence given by the analyst would obviously require very close scrutiny before it could be acted upon. It is not however necessary to consider that because we have no hesitation in holding that if the petitioners were selling singra they were not selling ghee. The rule is made absolute. The convictions and sentences are set aside and the fine, if p...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Mea and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal321
Henderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the Deputy Commissioner of Sylhet to show cause why the convictions of the petitioners under various Sections of the Penal Code should not be set aside. The point of law involved in the case is the legality of the arrest of petitioner 7. It is perhaps unfortunate that the Additional District Magistrate in his letter does not show any cause, nor has the Deputy Legal Remembrancer been asked to appear. The occurrence took place in connexion with an attempt made by three constables to arrest certain persons who were accused in a certain case of Ajmirganj Police Station. There were no warrants of arrest. The officer-in-charge handed over what are known as hukumnamas under the provisions of Section 56, Criminal P.C. Constable Rais Ali, P.W. 2, arrested petitioner Ayub Ali. A rescue party was organized by petitioner Raja Mia, who had obviously done his best to discourage the police party from making any arrest. Ayub Ali was successfully rescued. The...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Sridhar Jew Vs. Manindra K. Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal272
Ameer Ali, J.1. I shall consider my judgment: at any rate on one point, but I begin now, note with standing that my own notes are in a fragmentary state. The matter should have been made easier for me by the fact that was argued with much ability on the part of the plaintiff, who was able to have the services of Mr. Roy supported by counsel if less eminent no less efficient whom the remorseful relations, notwithstanding that they are supposed to be indigent, were able to brief. I was especially indebted to Mr. Hazra and Mr. Das for arguments on their behalf. But there is such a thing as embarrassment of abundance. This suit was filed on 6th March 1937. The significance of the date will hereafter appear. The suit is by a deity, who by his symbol Sridhar Jew, figures very largely in my list. The next friend of the deity in this case, whose name will be found at the bottom left-hand corner of the genealogical table included in the admitted brief, is Nirmal Krishna Mitter, whom I have seen...
Tag this Judgment!Manada Debi Vs. Bengal Bone Mill
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal285
ORDER1. In our opinion the expression men's Compensation Act, and the expression 'parent other than a widowed mother' in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) do not include a 'widowed step-mother.'...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Kiran Chandra Roy Bahadur and ors. Vs. Brajes Charan Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal306
1. These two appeals are in two suits Nos. 134 and 133 of 1933, brought under Section 14 of Regn. 8 of 1819 to set aside two patni sales held on 15th May 1933. In Appeal No. 132, there is a special plot, but the other points are common to both the appeals. In 1796 Dewan Krishna Kanta Sen purchased at a Sheriff's sale, Touzi No. 243 of the Jessore Collectorate known as Taraf Rasulpore. He was ultimately succeeded by his brother Krishna Gobinda Sen who died leaving his six sons as heirs. On 17th March 1823, five of his sons, Gurudas Sen and others, granted a patni of their five-sixth share in the said touzi to Ram Ratan Roy and Durga Das Roy (Ex. Z, B 14). Thereafter on 27th August 1823, Shib Prosad Sen, the remaining son of Krishna Gobinda, granted a patni of his one-sixth share to the same persons Ram Ratan and Durga Das Roy. (Ex. Z 1, B 18). It is admitted, and there cannot also be any doubt, that Exs. Z and Z-l created patni and not shikmi taluks in favour of the grantees. The appell...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »