Kolkata Court May 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.
Nur Ahmed and ors. Vs. Rasik Chandra Mohajan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal497
Narsing Rau, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of arrears of rent of an Etmam or under-tenure at Rs. 12-12-0 per year for the years 1341 and 1342 B.S. together with enhancement of rent under Section 52, Bengal Tenancy Act, with effect from the commencement of the period in suit. The trial Court decreed the suit at the unenhanced rate of Rs. 12-12-0 per year and dismissed the claim for enhancement. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge allowed the claim for enhancement and decreed the suit in full. This appeal is only against the enhancement allowed by the Subordinate Judge.2. The main grounds taken in appeal are two: (1) that on the findings of the Court below, it cannot be said that the land held by the appellants is in excess of the area for which rent has been previously paid by them and (2) that in view of the Bengal Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1939, the claim for enhancement under Section 52, Bengal Tenancy Act, cannot be decr...
Golam Mortuza Moulik Vs. Munshi ManiruddIn Ahamad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal115
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by defendant 1. The question at issue between the parties is whether defendant 1 or the plaintiff has been elected as president of a certain union board in the District of Dacca. There are altogether nine members of the board. They were all present at the election. As required by the rules, the circle officer presided over the meeting. The plaintiff obtained six votes, defendant 1, the remaining three. Both the plaintiff and defendant 1 voted for themselves. After the votes had been recorded, the circle officer on most flimsy grounds ignored three of the votes given in favour of the plaintiff, pretended that each candidate had an equal number of votes and proceeded to give his casting vote in favour of defendant l. The finding of the Munsif that he was acting in collusion with defendant 1 is fully justified. The plaintiff then instituted the present suit and obtained a decree. Defendant 1 appealed without success to the District Court and now appeals to t...
In Re: Light of Asia Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal30
Lort-Williams, J.1. Under s.203, Companies Act, a company may be wound up voluntarily if the company resolves by special resolution that the company be wound up voluntarily. Section 207 provides that where it is proposed to wind up a company voluntarily and a declaration has been made and delivered in accordance with the section it is referred to in this Act as a members voluntary winding up' but where no such declaration has been made it is referred to as a 'creditors' voluntary winding up.' Section 209 and Sections 209A to H make provision for the procedure to be followed in a 'creditors' voluntary winding up.' Section 209A provides that the company shall call a meeting of the creditors of the company for the day or the day next following the day on which there is to be held the meeting at which the resolution for voluntary winding up is to be proposed, and shall cause the notices of such meeting of creditors to be sent by post to the creditors simultaneously with the sending of the ...
Upendra Narayan Bose Vs. Shib Chandra Dhang and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal116
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The appellant before us is one of the three judgment-debtors against whom a joint mortgage decree was obtained by the respondents. The decree-holders put that decree into execution in title Execution Case No. 15 of 1938 and thereupon the judgment-debtors, other than the appellant, approached the debt settlement board and got a notice issued by the latter under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, staying the execution proceedings. The decree-holders thereafter abandoned that execution case and started another which is the present Execution Case No. 38 of 1939, and which is directed against the appellant only who was not an applicant before the board. To this the appellant objected and his contention in substance was that no proceeding in respect of the debt could continue after this notice was issued and it was immaterial as to whether or not one of the joint judgment-debtors was an agriculturist. The subordinate Judge negatived this contention and directed...
Geron Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal129
1. The appellant has been convicted of murder and sentenced to transportation for life by the Sessions Judge of Tippera. The case against him is as follows: One Khoaz Ali was known to be a Pir or holy man in the village of the appellant. He had a mistress Tayeba who used to be known as Pirani. The appellant was a disciple of the Pir and called him father and the Pirani mother. The Pir had become unpopular in the village because of the irregular relationship between him and Tayeba. The appellant was however loyal to them and on 14th October 1939 complained to them about the attitude of the villagers. The Pir . said to him 'Take the head of those who dissuade you and come to your doors.' The Pir also gave him a dao. In the evening the Pir gave the appellant some substance to swallow which the latter did. At this time the Pirani said to the appellant that he would go to heaven if he offered a human head in sacrifice. She also told him that the day was auspicious as it was the first day of...
Emperor Vs. Mujjaffar Sheikh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal106
Sen, J. 1. Panchkari Sheikh and his two sons Mujjaffar Sheikh and Saifer Sheikh were tried for the murder of one Abdul Rashid by the Sessions Judge of Birbhum and a special jury. By a unanimous verdict the jury found Panchkari not guilty and by a majority of five to four, they found Mujjaffar Sheikh and Saifer Sheikh guilty of committing murder. The learned Judge accepting the verdict of the jury, acquitted Panchkari and sentenced Mujaffar and Saifer to death; he has referred the case to us for confirmation of the sentence. Mujjaffar and Saifer have appealed. The case for the prosecution, briefly is as follows: Panchkari and his two sons Mujjaffar and Saifer were on bad terms with the deceased Abdul Rashid who is the son of Panchkari's sister. About six months before the murder, the three accused were sent up on a charge of theft and Abdul Eashid helped the police against them. This led to further ill-feeling between the parties. On 2nd November 1939, Rashid lodged an information at th...
Gobardhan Bar Vs. Gunadhar Bar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal78
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an appellate judgment of the subordinate Judge, second Court, Midnapur, dated 30th May 1939, reversing an order of the Munsif, first Court, Tamluk, made in a proceeding under Section 26F, Bengal Tenancy Amendment Act of 1938. There is no dispute about the material facts which lie within a narrow compass. There was an occupancy holding recorded in interest No. 79 of the finally published Record of Rights of mouza Nilkanthea, which belonged jointly to Indra Mull and Barada Dei. One of the plots comprised in the said holding which is C. S. plot No. 1050 was sold by these tenants to two persons, namely Gobordhan Bar, the petitioner, and Nakul Bar his brother. On 9th August 1938, a kobala was executed by Nakul Bar in respect of his half share of plot No. 1050 in favour of the opposite party and the document was registered on 24th August following. On 18th August 1938, the Bengal Tenancy Amendment Act of 1938 came into force and the petition...
PulIn Behari Das and anr. Vs. Syed Reasat Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal156
Edgley, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Judge of Sylhet, dated 10th March 1939, under which he dismissed an appeal against the decision of the trial Court, in which the learned Munsif directed that certain proceedings taken in Execution Case No. 362 of 1938 should proceed.2. The main points urged on behalf of the appellants in this case are (1) that the application for execution was barred by limitation and (2) that the Courts below should have suspended all proceedings in execution on account of the fact that the appellants had approached the Debt Conciliation Board at Sylhet for the settlement of their debts, including the debt covered by the decree which was the subject-matter of the above-mentioned execution proceedings. The admitted facts of the case are briefly as follows : On 7th February 1934, the decree-holders obtained a decree against the appellants for the sum of Rs. 666. Thereafter, on 8th February 1937, the decree-holders put this de...
Surendra Mohan Sardar Vs. Nagendra Chandra Lahiri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal480
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant and it arises out of a proceeding commenced by the plaintiffs under Sections 105 and 105A, Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendant was a tenure-holder and not a raiyat in respect of the lands in dispute and that he was incorrectly described as a settled raiyat in the C. S. records. The plaintiffs wanted this entry to be corrected and they further prayed for an enhancement of rent under Section 7, Bengal Tenancy Act. The suit was resisted by the defendant substantially on a two-fold ground. It was urged in the first place that the record of rights was correct and that the defendant was a raiyat and not a tenure-holder. The second ground taken was that the kabuliyat which created the tenancy fixed the rent in perpetuity and consequently the rent could not be enhanced.2. The Assistant Settlement Officer was of opinion that the status of the defendant was that of a tenure-holder and not that of a raiy...
Firm Ramnarayan-jagannath Vs. Radhagovinda Debnath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal557
Edgley, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Judge of Bakergunj, dated 28th February 1939, in which he held that a certain application for execution was time-barred. The decree-holder is the appellant in this case and he was seeking to execute a decree which he had obtained in the Presidency Small Cause Court on 23rd July 1926. It appears that an application for the execution of this decree, which the decree-holder had filed on 16th July 1929 was dismissed for default on 30th September 1929. Thereafter, the record shows that the decree was sent on three occasions to the Court of th6 Munsif of Bhola for execution, viz., on 13th December 1929, 5th December 1932 and 4th December 1935, but on each occasion the decree appears to have been returned unexecuted. The application for execution with which we are now concerned was filed on 23rd July 1938, and it is contended on behalf of the judgment-debtor that this application must be treated as time-barred as i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »