Kolkata Court March 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.
Chairman, District Board Vs. Sreenibash Purohit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal491
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This reference must be accepted on the second ground upon which it was made; the accused has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 6, Bengal Food Adulteration Act, in connexion with two tins of ghee which were seized at the Bolpur Railway Station. The only thing proved against the accused is that he is a partner in the firm to which the ghee was consigned. He has been convicted for storing the ghee for sale. It is quite obvious that it could not possibly be said that he was storing it for sale at the railway station. Apart from any other difficulties pointed out by the learned Judge this particular prosecution is entirely misconceived. The reference is accepted. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the fine, if paid, will be refunded....
Promode Kumar Roy and anr. Vs. Benoy Krishna Chakravarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal425
Derbyshire C.J.1. This matter was re-ported to me by Sen J. under Rule 3 of chap. V of the Rules of the Original Side of this Court on the ground that it involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1935. Under the rule just mentioned, I appointed this Bench to hear the matter. Put shortly the question is are certain provisions of the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940, an Act of the Bengal Provincial Legislature which received the assent of the Governor-General in July 1940 and came into force on 1st September 1940, by order of the Governor of Bengal beyond the law-making powers of the Bengal Legislature under the Government of India Act, 1935?2. The facts of the case are as follows : On 8th March 1933, Rai Bahadur Tarit Bhusan Roy, the father of the two plaintiffs, lent Rs. 50,000 to the defendant, Benoy Krishna Chakravarty. The loan was secured by an equitable mortgage of five properties in Calcutta the title deeds of which were deposit...
Rai Anath Nath Bose Vs. Maharaja Sris Chandra Nandy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal529
Derbyshire, C.J.1. The plaintiff decree-holder has asked for execution of the remainder of his decretal amount, a sum of Rs. 1,60,050, by attachment and sale of certain properties belonging to the defendant which are now in possession of the Cossimbazar Raj Wards Estate. The contention of the judgment-debtor is that these properties are protected from execution under the decree by reason of the provisions of Section 10C, Bengal Court of Wards Act of 1879. Section 10C of the Act was introduced into it by Section 5 of Act 6 of 1936 passed by the Bengal Provincial Legislature. That section reads as follows:(1) Where any property is in charge of the Court of Wards no civil Court shall execute any decree or order against the person or property of the ward within four years from the date of the commencement of the Bengal Court of Wards (Amendment) Act, 1935, or from the date of the assumption of charge of the property by the Court of Wards, whichever is later, and for seven years thereafter ...
Firm Sarada Prosad De Vs. Bhut Nath Mallik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal291
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why a decree of the Small Cause Court Judge at Sealdah should not be set aside. The relevant facts are as follows : The petitioners contracted through a broker Kali Nath Chakravarti, on 4th December 1939, to purchase 14 bags of coriander seeds at the rate of Rs. 13-8-0, per maund. In . pursuance of this contract, the bags were delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants on 6th December. On 5th December, there was a notification by the Government of Bengal, fixing the maximum retail price for the sale of coriander seeds at 4 annas a seer. The suit has been decreed in the Court below. The two grounds, upon which the rule was issued, raise the question of the effect of this notification on the contract. Three arguments have been put forward by Mr. Ghose in support of his contention that the suit has been wrongly decreed. In the first place, it was argued that the plaintiff is debarred from recovering a higher pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›