Kolkata Court November 1941 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.
Province of Bengal Vs. Ramlal Oswal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal308
Roxburgh, J.1. This appeal arises out of an appellate decree setting aside a sale held under the Land Revenue Sales Act of 1859 on the ground that there had been material irregularity in the publication of notices under Section 6 of that Act which irregularity had caused substantial injury to the plaintiff. The trial Court had refused to set aside the sale. The irregularity complained of lies in the fact that the copy of the notice under Section 6 of the Act required to be served in the Court of the District Judge of Jalpaiguri was, in fact, served in the Court of the Munsif. It was so served at a time when the District Judge himself was not in Jalpaiguri but was in one of the other stations, Dinajpur or Jalpaiguri, of his judgeship. The Munsif of Jalpaiguri is, by notification published in 1934, Judge's Registrar and papers required to be filed with the Judge should, during his absence, be filed with the Registrar. No evidence was given to show that notices required to be published in...
Sachindra Nath Chatterjee Vs. Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal444
Khundkar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by an advocate for his fees. The learned advocate was engaged by the defendant company to watch their interests in connection with the prosecution of a criminal case which was first instituted in the Court at Cuttack. This criminal prosecution arose out of an accident which took place at a level-crossing of defendant's railway, and in which a railway-train and a motor bus were involved. The Crown decided to prosecute the driver of the motor bus. The accident in question occurred on 9th November 1924. Although the prosecution was conducted on behalf of the Crown, the defendant Railway Company were anxious that their interests should be watched by their own lawyers during the continuance of the case. For this purpose they accordingly engaged the services of the Public Prosecutor and the Government Pleader of Howrah, Although the case was instituted at Cuttack, it was transferred to a Court at Balasore before any evidence had been...
Emperor Vs. Ramjanam Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal307
Bartley, J.1. In our opinion this reference must be rejected. The learned Judge recommends that an order made by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Ranaghat summoning a certain person under Section 182, Penal Code, should be set aside by this Court.2. Under Section 195, Clause (5), Criminal P.C., where a complaint is made, as in this case, under Sub-section (1), Clause (a), that complaint may be withdrawn by any authority to which the public servant who has made it, is subordinate. It seems clear therefore that the complaint which forms the subject-matter of this reference can be set aside by an authority other than this Court, and in the circumstances we see no reason to exercise a jurisdiction which should more properly be exercised by another authority. The reference is accordingly rejected.Lodge, J.3. I agree....
Sm. Sukumari Devi Vs. Rajdhari Pandey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal49
Derbyshire, C.J.1. Sm. Sukumari Debi is the owner of a plot of land in the 24-Perganas which was let some time before October 1939, to Rajdhari Pandey who used the land in connexion with his business of hiring out carts. The tenancy was described as a monthly tenancy at will and in 1939 the landlord gave the tenant notice to quit. The tenant did not quit and has not quitted. On 7th October 1939, the landlord obtained a decree against the tenant for possession of the premises. On 14th December 1989 the owner made an application for execution. That application was not dealt with immediately. On 30th May 1940, the Bengal Non-agricultural Tenancy (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1940, was passed by the Bengal Legislature and received the assent of the Governor on 30th May 1940. The Act did not receive the assent of the Governor-General. On 10th June 1940, the Munsif in the execution proceedings granted a stay of execution under the provisions of the Act just mentioned. On 20th July 1940, the ...
Rashid Allidina Vs. Jiwandas Khemji and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1943Cal35
Pal, J.1. This rule was issued by this Court calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta as also upon the opposite parties to show cause why the order complained of in the petition should not be set aside on grounds 1, 2 and 8 of the petition. The opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared and showed cause. The petitioner is the owner of the premises No. 17 Ezra Street, Calcutta. On the east of these premises lie the premises No. 16, Ezra Street which along with several other plots were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the Calcutta Improvement Trust, as per Notification No. 16268 L.A., dated 28th November 1936 published in the Calcutta Gazette on 3rd December 1936. On 18th August 1941, the present petitioner made a petition to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, naming the opposite party 1 Jiwandas Khemji alone as opposite party and alleging, (1) that on the eastern wall of the petitioner's premises there were six windows on each storey (altogether 18 in number) w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›