Kolkata Court July 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.
Sudhanya Mohan Basak and ors. Vs. Monorama Gupta W/O Joy Sankar Sen an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal570
1. The plaintiffs-appellants instituted a suit against the original defendant Monorama Gupta to recover moneys due to them on two mortgages. In this appeal we are concerned with one of the said mortgages, namely Ex. 4 dated 19th April 1916. The claim of the plaintiffs on this mortgage as laid in the plaint is Rupees 3995 for principal and Rs. 2505 for interest up to date of the suit, after relinquishment of their claim to interest to the extent of about Rs. 1500, total Rs. 6500. On 19th June 1903 the defendant borrowed Rs. 2000 from Sarat Chandra Basak, the father of the plaintiffs, and to secure the said loan executed a mortgage Ex. 1 on that date. Interest stipulated was simple interest at the rate of Rs. 9-12-0 per cent, per annum. Some interest due under it was paid. On 19th April 1916 there was an adjustment of accounts and a sum of Rs. 1995 was found due on account of interest. On that date the mortgage bond in suit, Ex. 4, was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff...
Sir Bijoy Chand Mahatab Vs. Official Trustee of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal337
1. The appellant Maharaja Bahadur of Burdwan is the proprietor of a zemindary bearing touzi No. 1 of the Burdwan Collectorate. Appertaining to the said zemindary there is patni taluk known as Lot Kalachhara which belonged to the Mitters. The said patnidars did not pay the patni rent due to the Maharaja Bahadur for the year 1339 B.S., with the result that the latter started proceedings under Regn. VIII of 1819 on 1st Bysack 1340 for the purpose of realizing the said arrears. On 1st Jaistha 1340 corresponding to 15th May 1933, the said patni taluk was put up to sale by the Collector and was purchased by Haridas Roy for Rs. 17,500. Thereafter, Haridas took possession and an to make collections from the tenants holding under the patni taluk. The evidence indicates (re-examination of Bejoy Krishna Boy, naib of Haridas) that Haridas was successful in making collections but there is no evidence on the record indicating the amount he actually collected during the period he was in possession. T...
Gopal Krishna Naba Krishna Raj Krishna Saha Vs. Chintaharan Mazumdar a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal254
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. I do not consider I should be justified in granting this application except on the terms that the sum claimed should be paid into Court or to the plaintiffs' attorney, which condition the defendant says he is unable to comply with. The suit was decreed on 5th May 1939, and on 5th June, an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was taken out. Eventually the ex parte decree was set aside on 12th January 1940, and I naturally have to consider this application on the basis that the defendant showed good cause for having the ex parte decree set aside. At the time of setting aside the decree the learned Judge who dealt with the application directed the defendant to file his written statement within three weeks. This he did not do, and on 12th February, the plaintiffs' attorney wrote to the Registrar asking him to transfer the suit to the undefended list, and at the same time he forwarded a copy of his letter to the Registrar to the attorney who was then actin...
Bhupati Banerjee Vs. Bon Behary Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal436
Panckridge, J.1. This suit has raised a number of interesting points which have been argued before me with great clearness by learned Counsel on behalf of their respective clients. The plaintiff on 5th November 1938 advanced a sum of Rs. 8000 to defendants 1 and 2. These defendants are the two out of four brothers, who are jointly entitled to the premises known as 82/1/2, Cornwallis Street, and 4, Nalini Sircar Street. Defendants 5 and 6 are the remaining two brothers who have not yet attained majority and were made additional parties on 11th January 1940, when in the course of an application for a receiver the plaintiff ascertained that defendants 1 and 2 proposed to rely on certain proceedings in a family partition suit between the four brothers. The loan of 5th November 1938 was secured on the undivided half part or share of the two properties I have mentioned belonging to defendants 1 and 2 by a mortgage in the English form. On 6th December 1938 a deed of rectification was executed...
Hari Rakshak Dutt Vs. Chairman, District Board
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal150
ORDEREdgley, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted under Section 6 (1) read with Section 21, Bengal Food Adulteration Act (Bengal Act 6 of 1919). It appears that, on 17th October 1938, the petitioner took delivery of some tins of mustard oil at the Bolpur railway station. On the same day, a sample was taken from these tins by the Sanitary Inspector and it was found that the mustard oil contained therein was adulterated. The petitioner and certain other persons were subsequently prosecuted and the petitioner was convicted. It is said that the prosecution did not discharge the onus which lay on the Crown to show that the adulterated goods had actually been stored for sale within the meaning of Section 6 (1) of the Act and it is also contended that any presumption which may have arisen under Section 6 (4) of the Act was rebutted by reason of the fact that the goods were actually on the railway premises at the time when the sample was taken by the Sanitary Inspector. The find...
Uday Chandra Paul and ors. Vs. B.H. Parmar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal153
Khundkar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs who are the appellants here prayed for a declaration that a decree based upon a solenama was illegal, fraudulent, inoperative and void, and for an order that the said decree be set aside. The material facts are as follows : The plaintiffs-appellants who are four in number are the darputnidars of a mouza known as mouza Bendi. In 1894 their predecessors granted a mining lease of this mouza to one Mr. White who subsequently transferred his rights to defendant 2. On 2nd August 1935 the plaintiffs by a registered deed of conveyance transferred to defendant 1 their right to receive royalty for the years 1930 to 1946. Later, defendant 1 executed a deed of agreement by which she undertook to pay to the plaintiffs a certain proportion of the royalty for the years 1930 to 1946. In 1937, a suit for the recovery of royalty was instituted against defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiffs in that suit were the four plaintiffs-appellant...
Hafizar Rahman Vs. Aminal Hoque
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal185
ORDEREdgley, J.1. References Nos. 60 and 61 of 1940 have been made to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge of Chittagong with his letter, dated 14th March 1940. They arise with reference to two accused persons who were convicted respectively in two separate cases under Sections 427 and 447, Penal Code. In the first of these cases Nurul Huq was convicted by Rai Saheb Aparna Charan Ray, Honorary Magistrate of Chittagong on 5th February 1940 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40 and in the second case Aminal Haque was convicted by the same Honorary Magistrate on the same date and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25. These two references have been heard together with a rule issued in Criminal Revision Case No. 437 of 1940 as the main points for consideration in the two references and the rule are similar.2. In the first of these cases a man named Hafizar Rahman had filed a complaint on 19th February 1939 against certain persons in respect of alleged offences under Sections 427, 447 and 3...
Abdul Rahaman Mia and ors. Vs. Balaipado Sett and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal347
Sen, J.1. Pralhad Mea executed a mortgage in favour of Mahadeb Shah on 24th March 1923. The due date of payment was 24th March 1925. Mahadeb died leaving a widow. In the year 1927 Mahadeb'a widow brought a suit upon the mortgage against Pralhad. While the suit was pending the plaintiff who is a creditor of Mahadeb brought a suit against Mahadeb's widow for the realisation of a sum. due to him and attached the mortgagee's interest before judgment. On 8th September 1927, Mahadeb's widow died; her legal representatives were not substituted in her suit. On 27th March 1928, the plaintiff in his suit against Mahadeb's widow obtained a decree against the heirs of Mahadeb and on 26th April 1936, in execution of that decree purchased their interest in the mortgage. The plaintiff now brings a fresh suit upon the mortgage. Defendants 1 to 3 are the heirs of the mortgagor Pralhad and the pro forma defendants 4 and 5 are the reversionary heirs of Mahadeb. Defendants 1 to 3 resisted the suit on vari...
Nalini Kanta Roy Vs. Suresh Chandra Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal329
Henderson, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the sale of the plaintiffs' interest in a certain property, held in execution of a certificate, was a nullity. The certificate was issued for arrears of cess against three persons, Brajendra Ray Chaudhury, Brajendra Chakraverty and Brindaban Chakraverty, the father of the plaintiffs. Brindaban died before the issue of the certificate. On receipt of the peon's report the plaintiffs were substituted by the certificate officer. They did not pay the demand. An objection under Section 9 of the Act was unsuccessful. The property was eventually brought to sale and purchased by the appellant. After all attempts to get the sale set aside by the revenue authorities had failed the present suit was brought. Before dealing with the point now at issue Mr. Das pointed out that the form of the decree is incorrect. The Munsif made a declaration that the certificate and the sale were nullities. It is not disputed by the respondents that the c...
Loke Nath Mukerjee and ors. Vs. Abani Nath Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal68
Nasim Ali, J.1. Babu Joy Kissen Mukherjee, a wealthy zamindar of Uttarpara, in the district of Hooghly, started at his own expense a public library for the use and benefit of the public of Uttarpara. There is a plot of land measuring about 3 bighas 2 cottas in Uttarpara. The river Ganges is on the east of this plot and the Grand Trunk Road is on its west. There are compound walls on the north, south and west with two gates on the Grand Trunk Road. There is a small strip of vacant land measuring about four chittaks between the northern portion of the western compound wall and the Grand Trunk Road. On the east there is a parapet on the buttress. There is a pucca ghat on the river bank inside the compound. Within this plot there is a big building. It consists of a basement and two storeys. There is a lawn (formerly a flower garden) to the east of this building. There are out-houses on the north and south within the compound. The library is now located in certain rooms in the first storey ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »