Kolkata Court March 1941 Judgments
Meghraj Golab Chand, Firm Vs. Chandra Kamal Bhuiyan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal493
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the decree-holder. His difficulties are due to the fact that he did not appeal against a wrong order made by the Subordinate Judge of Jorhat. The decree was made by the Subordinate Judge of Dibrugarh, on 7th March 1934. North Lakhimpore (the area within which the cause of action arose) was transferred to Sibsagar with effect from 1st August 1934. Starting with an application by the decree-holder on 11th February 1937, there were altogether four execution cases disposed of by the Subordinate Judge at Jorhat which is the headquarters of the Sibsagar District. The last was dismissed on 31st March 1939, on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The present execution case was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dibrugarh, where the decree was originally made. An objection was filed by the judgment-debtor on the ground that the application was barred by limitation. This objection was overruled by the Deputy Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Accowrie Mukherjee Vs. Sailendra Mohan Dey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal495
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by a debtor against the order of Sen J. dated 5th September 1940 in a proceeding under the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940. The facts which are not in dispute in this appeal are these : (1) On 28th June 1935, respondent 1 lent to the appellant a sum of Rs. 10,000 at an interest of 6 per cent. per annum with six monthly rests on a mortgage of premises No. 150/1A, Amherst Street, Calcutta. The date of repayment of the said mortgage debt was 28th June 1941. (2) In the said mortgage deed it was provided inter alia that if there should be any default in the payment of twelve monthly instalments of interest it should be optional for the mortgagee to institute a suit though the due date of repayment had not elapsed. (3) The appellant could not pay the interest regularly with the result that the mortgagee instituted a suit on 10th May 1939, for a mortgage decree for Rs. 11,920-11-9 in form No. 5A of Appendix D, Civil P.C. (4) The suit was not contested by the a...
Tag this Judgment!Jahur Mia and ors. Vs. Abdul Gaffur Mia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal452
Biswas, J.1. The question in this rule is whether the Court below was justified in staying the hearing of an appeal pending before it. The appeal arose out of a suit for ejectment, and the order for stay purported to be made under Section 3, Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1940. This is a recent enactment of the Bengal Legislature which came into force on 30th May 1940, and is designed to give temporary relief to non-agricultural tenants by staying all suits and proceedings against them for ejectment for the period of the Act, namely, a period of two years from the date of its commencement. The material portion of Section 3 is as follows:Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force every suit and proceeding in any Court for ejectment of a non-agricultural tenant other than a suit or proceeding for ejectment on account of the non-payment of rent by such tenant, shall be stayed for the period during which this Act continues i...
Tag this Judgment!Manik Gazi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal36
Bartley, J.1. The appellant in this case was placed upon his trial upon a charge of murder before a jury consisting of seven persons in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Khulna. The jury by a verdict of 4 to 3 found him guilty and the learned Judge who records that though he does not agree with the verdict of the jury, he accepts it, convicted him under Section 302, Penal Code, and sentences him to transportation for life. The case for the prosecution was briefly that on the night of 10th June 1940 one Madar Gazi was returning home when he was suddenly attacked in a jute field by the appellant who stabbed him in the abdomen with a dagger. At the time of the occurrence he was accompanied by a man called Jasim Gazi who was examined in the case as a prosecution witness. This man was in front of him at the time of the actual assault. In the Court of Session his evidence was that he heard Madar saying that Manik had stabbed him but he did not see anybody there. His origi...
Tag this Judgment!Kissinlal Kankaria Vs. Purshottamdas Halwasiya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal143
ORDEREdgley, J.1. In this case the petitioner, Sm. Madan Mohini Debi, who is a defendant in Suit No. 1739 of 1940 has asked that she may be examined on commission in view of the fact that she is a pardanashin lady. The petitioner bases her application on Section 132 (1), Civil P.C, which is in the following terms:Women who, according to the customs and manners of the country, ought not to be compelled to appear in public shall be exempt from personal appearance in Court. 2. She also relies on Ordder 26, Rule 1 of the Code which is to this effect:Any Court may in any suit issue, a commission for the examination on interrogatories or otherwise of any person resident within the local limits of its jurisdiction who is exempted under this Code from attending the Court or who is from sickness or infirmity unable to attend it. 3. On behalf of the opposite party it is urged that Order 26, Rule 1 of the Code merely confers a discretion on the Court as regards the issue of a commission in a case...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Vakta and anr. Vs. Gopal Munshi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal432
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff took settlement of the disputed land and two other plots in the course of dearah proceedings. It has subsequently been ascertained that the disputed land was a reformation in situ of a holding of the appellants. At the time of diluvion, they accepted an abatement of rent. On these facts, the Munsif dismissed the suit. On appeal, the District Judge reversed this decision holding that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed in view of the provisions of Section 86A, Ben. Ten. Act. The question for decision in this appeal therefore is whether that section is of any use to the plaintiff in the present case. In this case it is to be noted that the diluvion and the abatement of rent took place before this section was enacted. It has accordingly been contended that the section has no retrospective effect, and that the learned Judge was wrong in confining his attention merely to the date of the reformation in situ.2. The first poi...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Mia Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal479
ORDER1. This Rule must be made absolute. The petitioner was convicted under Section 380, Penal Code, on the allegation that he stole a trunk in the house of the complainant. The only evidence in the case was that when the trunk was recovered by the investigating officer some time after the theft, finger-prints were found on it which were identified by an expert as those of the petitioner. The only other item of evidence in the case came from the complainant who deposed that the petitioner had handled the trunk 2 or 3 days before the occurrence in the complainant's own house. This story was supported by a defence witness. But the Courts below held that the complainant had turned hostile and that the defence witness could not be believed. The learned Judge further held that as the finger prints were those of the petitioner appellant who had handled the trunk within a few hours of the theft there was a presumption against him under Section 114, Evidence Act, which presumption had not been...
Tag this Judgment!Syedali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal608
Mohamad Akram, J.1. The three appellants in this appeal were put upon trial on charges under Sections 363, 363/34, 366 and 366/34, I. P.C., before the Court of Sessions at Barisal in the district of Bakarganj. The case for the prosecution was that with the object of getting hold of some landed property, the appellant 2 Mafijuddi proposed to the complainant Kuni Bibi, a widow, that she should marry him and give her small daughter Ayaton in marriage to one of his sons; that as the complainant refused, the appellants along with some others came to the house of the complainant on 2nd March 1940, when she was practically alone and appellant 1 forcibly took away the little girl Ayaton while appellants 2 and 3 carried away the complainant out of the house but seeing that some of the neighbours were approaching dropped her and made off with rest of the party. The defence was a total denial of the occurrence and an allegation that it was a false case started against the accused out of enmity. T...
Tag this Judgment!Manik Chandra Sadhu Khan and ors. Vs. Gour Krishna Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal536
Henderson, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether a certain compromise petition which formed part of a decree requires registration. The appellants, who are the defendants, cannot pretend that they are not attempting to evade the compromise which they made with the plaintiff. The relevant part of the petition is contained in paras. 2 and 3. The former provides that the rent will be Rs. 3-4-0. The latter provides that the defendants will not be able to construct pucca roofs without the plaintiff's permission. The defendants are bound' to fail unless it can be said that this compromise had the legal effect of creating a new lease. If the case comes within Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, the document clearly does not require registration. In the first place, it cannot be said that the new rights created were of the value of Rs. 100 or upwards. The lease is one under the Transfer of Property Act. The rent could not be altered anyhow and the provision in Clause 2 is ...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Chandra Poddar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal456
Bartley, J.1. There are thirteen appellants in this case who were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Faridpore with the aid of a jury on charges framed under Sections 302, 302/109 and 201, Penal Code. The jury by a majority of 5/4 found the appellant Jogendra Nath Biswas guilty under Section 304(1), the appellants Rajendra Poddar and Sonaton Poddar under Section 304(1)/l09 and the remaining ten appellants all under Section 201, Penal Code. The learned Judge in accordance with this verdict sentenced Jogendra, Sonaton and Rajendra to seven years' rigorous imprisonment each and the remaining appellants to two years' rigorous imprisonment each. The material facts alleged by the prosecution were as follows : On the day of occurrence there was a quarrel between certain Karikars and Namasudras. A mob of Namasudras approached the local hat where the Karikars were. On their way to the hat they met two brothers Abdul Barek and Momen who were entirely unconnected with any of the pr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »