Kolkata Court April 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.
In Re: Kedarnath Sen; Ex Parts, Harsookdas Balkissendas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal112
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. In this case a creditor's petition for adjudication of the insolvent was presented on 9th August 1938. On 14th March 1939 Lort-Williams J., who was then insolvency Judge, made a consent order which provided that the debtor should be adjudicated an insolvent, but that the order should not be completed, and should stand vacated if the debtor liquidated the petitioning creditor's claims in certain instalments. The order concluded : 'In default of payment of any one instalment within the time allowed, the order will be completed and filed.' The debtor failed to make payments as provided by the order and on 13th June 1939 the order was drawn up on the application of the creditor.2. It appears that certain judgment-creditors of the insolvent had taken execution proceedings in the Court of the second Munsif of Hooghly and in the course of those proceedings they had attached certain immovable property in which the insolvent had a share. This property was brought to sale o...
A.K. Sen Vs. Madhu Mongal Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal583
ORDEREdgley, J.1. The first point urged by the learned advocate for the petitioner in this case is that the petitioner was wrongly tried in Calcutta in respect of the offences with which he was charged. There can be no doubt in my mind that, as regards the cheating charges and the charge under Section 7, Merchandise Marks Act, the trial was properly held in Calcutta. As regards the charge under Section 6 of the latter Act, the offence of applying the false trade description, from the nature and circumstances of the case, must have been committed at Serampore and therefore the trial in respect of this charge should have been held at Serampore. On this point the learned advocate for the Crown contends that the defect is curable under Section 531, Criminal P.C. If this had been the only defect in procedure, I would have been prepared to accept this contention but I also find that there was a misjoinder of charges. In this connexion the three cheating charges might have been properly joine...
S.A. Basil Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal207
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is a suit by receivers in whom is vested the premises formerly 23, Free School Street, now No. 6, Free School Street, and they complain of a nuisance created by the defendants in the user of what has been referred to generally as a refuse depot. The defendants in a manner which has not been investigated are the owners of the Sir Stuart Hogg Market, a very well known institution in this city, and as such they have to provide for the removal of the refuse from that market. They have done so principally by the refuse depot in question although there is another depot in the northern side. This depot is on the western outskirts of the market.2. The Free School Street depot consists of two portions which I shall refer to separately, as a lorry or trailer shed, and the refuse yard. In the lorry shed is an inclined ramp, the purpose of which is to provide means for the municipal sweepers to empty their handcarts or wheelbarrows into the trailer. The plan annexed to the pla...
Sohonlal Daga Vs. Sreechand Daga and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal247
Ameer Ali, J.1. This suit can be dealt with upon the pleading, and Mr. Khaitan was quite justified in asking ma to deal with the issues of law, including those by way of demurrer. There are, in my opinion, two points where the plaint breaks down. In para. 2 the only publication alleged is to the plaintiff. That, according to the law, is not publication. I accept the position as set out in Bullen and Leake that it is an essential part of a cause of action for libel, to allege publication which means to a third party, or of course, such circumstances as will lead the Court to presume publication to a third party. This pleading in terms excludes publication to a third party. From this it follows that there is no cause of action, and secondly, no cause of action arose in Calcutta, the two points overlapping.2. The other point on which the plaint fails is in the same paragraph, so far as defendant 1 is concerned. It is alleged that defendant 2 purported to act on behalf of defendant 1 throu...
BepIn Chandra Ghosh Vs. Mahim Chandra Roy, S/O Raj Chandra Roy and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal345
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule was obtained on an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., and is directed against an order of the Munsif, Second Court, Kishoregunj, dated 30fch August 1938, passed in a proceeding under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act. The facts lie within a very short compass and are for the most part undisputed. The petitioner before us was a purchaser of two occupancy holdings by a kabala dated 17th December 1937. Notice of this sale was served upon the landlord on 11th February 1938, and on 11th April following the landlord started a proceeding for pre-emption under Section 26-F, Bengal Tenancy Act, with regard to one of the holdings. It is not disputed that the necessary deposits were made and all the conditions laid down in that Section fulfilled and the learned Munsif allowed the application of the landlord by his order dated 30th August 1938.2. The propriety of this order has been challenged by Mr. Pakrashi who appears before us for the purchaser petitioner, on t...
In Re: Genuine Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal529
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110 of the new Insurance Act, Act 4 of 1938, as amended by Act 11 of 1939. The appellants are a share-holder in the Genuine Insurance Co. Ltd., as also the Company itself: the Company in General Meeting having decided, as appears from the report which has been placed before me in other proceedings and which the parties to this appeal do not challenge, to adopt this appeal. The Company was incorporated in 1931. It commenced or confined its business to life insurance in 1934. Before the commencement of the new Act, i.e., 1st July 1939, the Company had deposited with the then proper authorities, the Reserve Bank, Government securities of the face value of Rs. 1,22,100. The market value of these securities in August 1939 was Rupees 1,08,305. I mention this date because it is then that the Company applied for registration under the new Act and obtained its certificate under Section 3. There was correspondence between the authorities created by...
Sibendra Sekhar Roy Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal113
ORDEREdgley, J.1. This rule is directed against the order dated 20th December 1939 under which Mr. K. C. Gupta, Sessions Judge of Malda, affirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Section 32, Police Act (Act V of 1861). The case for the prosecution was to the effect that, on 6th September 1939, the petitioner was granted a license by the Superintendent of Police of Malda under Section 30 (3), Police Act, to form a procession. One of the conditions of the license was to the effect that no weapons were to be carried by any persons in the procession. The procession was actually held on 7th September 1989 and according to the prosecution about five thousand people took part therein, of whom about one hundred people carried lathis. The petitioner was thereafter prosecuted under Section 32, Police Act, on the allegation that he had violated one of the conditions of the license. He was placed on his trial before Mr. R. Barua, the Magistrate of Malda, who convicted him under Section 32, P...
Abu HusaIn Shaikh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal358
ORDEREdgley, J.1. This rule is directed against the order, dated 1st December 1939, made by the learned Sessions Judge of Khulna, by which he affirmed the convictions of the petitioners under Section 188, I.P.C. The case for the prosecution was to the effect that the petitioners had disobeyed an order promulgated by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Khulna prohibiting the holding of a hat at Domraon which had been established as a rival hat to another hat which is known as the Gazirhat. It was alleged that the prohibitory order was issued by the Sub-divisional Magistrate on 8th May 1939 and that thereby certain specially named persons and the public generally had bean forbidden to hold the rival hat at Domraon on Fridays and Mondays and had also been ordered to abstain from certain other acts set forth in the order. It was alleged that this order has been duly promulgated in the locality on 12th May 1939, but that in spite of its promulgation the petitioners (who are members of the gene...
Mohunt Ratan Narayan Giri Vs. Ashutosh Nundy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal383
Henderson, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned District Judge of Howrah rejecting an application made by the appellant under the provisions of Order 22, Rule 10, Civil P.C., and a consequential order made on the following day. The suit has been brought by the plaintiffs under the provisions of Section 92, Civil P.C., in connexion with a well known math known as the Bhote Bagan Math in the District of Howrah. After the institution of the suit, the defendant abdicated and the appellant was installed on the Gadi with certain ceremonies. He filed the present application on a case that he has been legally installed and is now the mahant. The learned Judge rejected this claim and further expressed the opinion that, even if the claim were established, the application ought not to be allowed. We have heard interesting arguments on the question whether the appellant is the valid mahant of the math but in the view which we take of the case we expressly refrain from expressing ...
Babu Sailendra Nath Ghose and anr. Vs. Trustee to Estate of Late Babu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal484
Henderson, J.1. The question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether a certain decree obtained by the respondents was a rent decree or a money decree. The Courts below have differed upon the point. The appellants are mortgagees in possession of the patni under the provisions of Section 171(1)(c), Ben. Ten. Aot. The pro forma respondents are the patnidars judgment-debtors and the respondents are the plaintiff zamindars. The patni lease contained a term which is frequently found in such leases to the effect that the patnidars were to pay revenue and cesses into the Collectorate on behalf of the zamindars. The balance payable to the zamindars themselves was described as munafa. The patnidars not only failed to pay the munafa but also failed to deposit the revenue and cesses with the result that the zamindars had to pay these sums themselves. They accordingly took proceedings under the Patni Regulation and it is not disputed by the judgment, debtors that they were entitled to re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »