Kolkata Court June 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.
Kali Sundar Roy and ors. Vs. Khum Chandra Bothra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal473
Edgley, J.1. The judgment-debtors are the appellants in this case and it appears' that they applied for a settlement of their debts to the Debt Settlement Board at Kooganchi on 28th June 1939. The Board recorded an order to the effect that the particulars which had been given relating to the property of the judgment-debtors could not be believed and it was held that the appellants were not agriculturists. The Board, therefore, dismissed their application. On a later date, it appears that they filed a further application for the settlement of the same debts before the Debt Settlement Board at Patul, which issued a notice to the learned Munsif under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. It has been held by both the Courts below that the issue of this notice was illegal and it is against the decision of the learned District Judge of Rajshahi with regard to this matter that this appeal is directed. The main contention urged by the learned advocate for the appellants in this case is ...
Gobinda Das Nath Vs. Shyama Charan Nath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal478
Sen, J.1. The plaintiffs who are two in number brought this suit on tha following allegations. One Kirti Chandra Dutta the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and the defendants, dedicated certain property to a deity, Sri Sri Iswar Brindaban Behari Deb. He appointed himself the she bait and made provision for the succession to the shebaitship. The two plaintiffs and defendant 1 who is the principal defendant each possessed 5/12 share of the shebaiti right and the pro forma defendants possessed the remaining shares. From time immemorial each shebait used to perform the worship of the deity according to his pala or turn; each shebait also used to collect the rent of the debutter property in proportion to his share in the shebaiti interest and used to pay thereout such portion of the Government revenue as corresponded to his share in the shebaiti. Defendant 1 continually defaulted in making arrangements to pay the share of the Government revenue which was payable by him. The plainti...
Sm. Umasashi Debi Vs. Sm. Radha Binodini Devi W/O Panchanon Hazra Chou ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal513
ORDERSen, J.1. These two rules raise a common question for determination. They have been heard together and this order will govern both the rules. I shall take up for consideration Rule 1603 of 1939. The petitioner is a cosharer in an occupancy holding. Her coaharers sold their share to the opposite party No. 1 who is a stranger by two kobalas dated 14th June 1938. On 31st August 1938 the kobalas were presented for registration and registered. On 23rd January 1939 the petitioner applied under Section 26F, Bengal Tenancy Act, that the share sold to the opposite party No. 1 be transferred to her. The learned Munsif refused the application. The petitioner appealed to the District Judge who upheld the decision of the Munsif. Hence this application in revision. The ground on which the application of the petitioner was refused is this. On the date of the execution of the kobalas the present Section 26F, Bengal Tenancy Act, was not in force. Under the old Section a cosharer tenant had no righ...
Jatindra Mohan Banerjee Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal13
Panckridge, J.1. The plaintiff in this case claims Its. 5100 as damages for malicious prosecution. The circumstances are as follows : The plaintiff is a pleader of 19 years standing. He originally practised in the District of Jessore, but since 1928 he has been practising in Calcutta. To obtain his annual license under the Legal Practitioners' Act he has to apply to one of the Courts that grant such licenses, and in fact he is in the habit of obtaining this license from the Calcutta Small Cause Court, and he is shown on that Court's roll of practitioners. He does not however practise in the Small Cause Court. His evidence is that he practises exclusively before the income-tax authorities who, until the pujahs of 1937, had their offices in Hare Street, but now have their offices in Government place. In addition to his professional license he has to obtain a municipal license under Section 175, Calcutta Municipal Act of 1928. The license is an annual one, and as a pleader the plaintiff i...
Kala Mia Vs. Kshetra Mohan Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal269
Edgley, J.1. Defendant 1, Kala Mia, is the appellant in this ease and in the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiffs sued for recovery of khas possession of certain land on a declaration of their title, The main admitted facts relating to this case have been set forth at considerable length in the judgments of the Courts below and it is unnecessary to repeat them at the present stage. It appears that, as far as the plaintiffs are concerned, they based their title primarily on a mortgage which was executed in their favour on 10th July 1910 by a man named Yakub Ali. In due course they instituted a suit on this mortgage. They obtained a decree in 1912 and they purchased the property in suit at the mortgage sale on 11th December 1912. It appears that only the minor mortgagees were able to take possession of the mortgaged property in respect of an 11 anna 4 ganda share. They therefore instituted a partition suit in order to obtain an allotment in respect of their share and they ...
Baroda Prosad Pal and anr. Vs. Asutosh Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal289
Sen, J.1. This appeal is by defendants 1 and 2 and it arises out of a suit for a declaration of a right of way and of a right of passing drainage and rain water from the land of the plaintiffs over the land of the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed this right on three grounds, namely (1) by virtue of a grant, (2) as an easement of necessity and (3) as having been acquired by prescription. The defence taken consisted of a denial of any such right. It was alleged further by the defendants that if there were any such right it had become extinguished by the plaintiffs' acquisition of a share in the servient tenement, which was possessed by the defendants. Both Courts have held that the plaintiffs have got a right of way, and that they have acquired it by prescription. They have found that the plaintiffs' case of acquisition by the other two means has not been made out. They have also found that the plaintiffs have not got a right of passing their drain water and rain water over the land of...
Maulvi A.R.M. Abdul Wahed and ors. Vs. Nagendra Chandra Lahiri and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal524
Khundkar, J.1. This appeal in which the plaintiffs are the appellants arises out of a suit for a declaration that khatian No. 1319 of Mouzah Gobindapur is a mukarari holding and for correction accordingly of the finally published Eecord of Eights. The holding in question was recorded as a jama of Rs. 3-3-9. The plaintiffs-appellants were the tenants and there were three sets of landlords defendants, namely defendants 1 to 3 who were cosharers in the superior interest to the extent of 12 annas; defendants 4 to 7 who were cosharers in that interest to the extent of 2 annas, and defendants 8 to 11, represented in the suit by the Court of Wards, who were cosharers in the proprietary right to the extent of 2 annas. At the hearing of the suit the third set of defendants did not appear to contest the plaintiffs' claim. The defence, however, was that rent was enhancible and that the entry in the Record of Rights was correct. The defendants relied upon the presumption of the correctness of the ...
Romesh Chandra Das Vs. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal536
Khundkar, J.1. The facts which gave rise to this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff-appellant was the agent at Bakarganj for the sale of cigarettes of the defendant-respondent who are a company having their offices in Calcutta. The defendant-respondent instituted a suit in the Calcutta Court of Small Causes for recovery of certain moneys due from the plaintiff-appellant and obtained an ex parte decree. Thereafter, the plaintiff instituted a suit in the Munsif's Court at Bakarganj to set aside this decree and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant respondents from executing it. Both the Courts below have found in favour of the defendant-respondents. In this appeal the following points have been taken by Mr. Guha on behalf of the appellant 1. The contract of agency was entered at Bakarganj where the defendant resides and has his place of business; the entire cause of action arose at Bakargunj, and the Calcutta Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to entertain the sui...
In Re: Sm. Lakshmimoni Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal391
Ameer Ali, J.1. The Corporation of Calcutta like municipalities and public bodies in other parts of the world have important functions in respect of buildings; functions perhaps more important in this climate where a city comprising some millions of souls is in itself a menace. Generally speaking, these functions are provided for in Chapter 21 of the Act itself, and in Schedule 17, which contains what are called the building rules, i. e., the bye-laws. It is common ground that the matter of passing plans of proposed buildings is dealt with in the first instance departmentally, that is, by permanent officials, and in the last resort by way of what has been called an appeal to the Corporation itself. This appellate or quasi appellate jurisdiction has been delegated to the buildings committee. Presumably, this appellate or quasi-appellate jurisdiction has been provided for the protection of the citizens against a possible unsympathetic attitude on the part of the officials. It may be supp...
D. Moody, Managing Director, Victor Oil Co. Ltd. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal579
Henderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the Crown to show cause why certain proceedings pending against the petitioner should not be quashed. The petitioner is the managing director of a firm called the Victor Oil Co. Ltd. He has been put on his trial for certain alleged offences under the Motor Spirit (Duties) Act of 1917. I do not propose to set out all the facts at length. Briefly the contention of the Crown is that the petitioner mixed some kerosine oil with diesel oil, and in so doing brought himself within the provisions of the Act read in connexion with the Finance Act of 1922. The petitioner denies the allegation. But the prosecution have certainly now some circumstantial evidence from which a Court of fact might be asked to infer that the petitioner did actually mix these two oils. The complaint was made as long ago as 25th April 1939. The accused petitioner appeared on 15th May. The trial was then conducted in a most dilatory manner by the Crown and was still going on as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »