Kolkata Court May 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.
Atul Chandra Bhandary Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal142a
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the Municipal Magistrate and the Chief Executive Officer of the Calcutta Corporation to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Section 386(1)(b)/488, Calcutta Municipal Act, should not be set aside on grounds Nos. 2 and 4 attached to the petition. The petitioner keeps a motor repairing workshop and the noise, which is said to be almost continuous day and night, is undoubtedly a nuisance to the neighbours. The essence of the offence charged is that he is using the premises without a license for a purpose, which is, in the opinion of the Corporation, dangerous to health or likely to create a nuisance. For the purpose of this provision the Corporation means the Chief Executive Officer. The first thing, therefore, the prosecution had to prove was that the Chief Executive Officer had formed this opinion. Now there was a complete muddle at the trial. Both sides apparently thought that it was the duty of the prosecution to convin...
Tapendra Chunder Goopta Vs. Jogendra Chunder Goopta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal76
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This is an application by a firm of attorneys, who carry on business under the name and style of H.N. Dutta & Co., and another attorney, Mr. D.C. Mitter. H.N. Dutta & Co. consist of three partners. When the warrant of attorney in this case was executed, Mr. D.C. Mitter was a member of the firm in addition to the three gentlemen who are now partners. Mr. Mitter has ceased to be a member of the firm with effect from 31st May 1940. I notice that both the firm and the former partner, and for that matter the attorney representing the defendant in this application, observe the now prevalent custom of misdescribing themselves as solicitors, a breach of the legal profession not recognized by the Charter or rules of the original side, except in so far as under chap. 2 of the rules solicitors of the Supreme Courts of Judicature in England and Northern Ireland are entitled to be admitted as attorneys of this Court. At the time when the notice of this application was served, ...
Emperor Vs. Md. Ebrahim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal219
Derbyshire, C.J.1. On 5th April 1941, the District Magistrate of Burdwan rendered -to this Court his monthly statement showing the state of the files in the Courts of the Magistrates of his district at the end of February 1941. In that statement case No. G.R. 1091 of 1940, Emperor v. Ebrahim and 83 others, under Sections 147, 333, 353 and 379, Penal Code, was shown as pending for over three months in the Court of Mr. P.L. Dhar, Deputy Magistrate, first class, Asansol. The explanation of the delay in disposing of the case concluded with the words:The pleader for the Crown filed a remand petition on 6th March 1941 praying for an adjournment sine die on the ground that the Government wished that the case should not be taken up until further instructions were received from Government. The case was therefore adjourned sine die.2. Upon that, the Registrar of the appellate side of this Court called for the record of that case from the District Magistrate of Burdwan. That record was received a...
Hemanta Kumari Debi and ors. Vs. Midnapore Zemindary Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal233
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possession with mesne profits of certain lands . . . or in the alternative for assessment and recovery of fair rent from the beginning of 1339 B.S. (1932-33 A.D.) to the Pous last of 1342. The disputed lands appertain to permanently settled mouza Sibnagar diar otherwise known as Araji Sibnagar. Plaintiffs are owners of 12 as 9 gds. 2 krs. and 2 krant share in zamindari and mourashi jote right. The remaining share of the mouza belongs to the defendant in putni right. The plaint lands have been surveyed by a Commissioner and have been shown in his map as part of plot C, the whole of plots D and E. At the time of the trial in the lower Court plaintiffs withdrew their claim in respect of plot E. Plaintiffs' claim for possession of plot D was not opposed before us by the defendant. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to get khas possession of that land to the extent of their share, viz., 12 as 9gds. 2krs. and 2 krants. The lands being a...
Hafizur Rahman Howladar Vs. Md. Amjad Ali Taluqdar of Tarikata
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal280
ORDERHenderson, J.1. The question raised in this rule is whether the petitioner is to deposit Rs. 430 or Rs. 1180 before he is entitled to pre-empt under Section 26F, Ben. Ten. Act. It depends upon the meaning to be attached to the words 'consideration money or value of the share transferred' in Sub-section (2).2. It appears that there is an incumbrance on the property. Under Sub-section (7), the petitioner will acquire the property subject to incumbrances. The opposite party is attempting to compel the petitioner to reimburse him for an incumbrance which he has failed to discharge. It is common ground that the petitioner must deposit the consideration money as stated in the notice. The question therefore, is what was the consideration money stated in the notice which was served upon the petitioner. It appears from the kobala that the parties valued the property at Rs. 1180 free from incumbrances. The existence of an incumbrance was mentioned but no details were given with regard to it...
Pran Krishna Mukherjee Vs. Jnananda (Jnanananda) Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal47
Biswas, J.1. The question we are called upon to decide in this rule is whether the Court below was competent to stay the hearing of an appeal pending before it. The appeal arose out of a suit for ejectment of a non-agricultural tenant, and was preferred by the tenant defendant against whom a decree for ejectment had been made by the trial Court. While the appeal was pending, the Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1940, came into force, and thereupon the appellant himself applied for stay of the appeal, claiming that he was entitled to it as of right under the provisions of this Act. Agreeing with this contention, the lower appellate Court made the order for stay, and it is against this order that the plaintiff landlord has obtained this rule.2. The petitioner's main point is that the Act is ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature. This is a question involving the construction of certain sections of the Government of India Act, 1935, which requires careful con...
Amjad Talukdar Vs. Rohini Kanta Bhattacharjya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal68
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why an order of the Courts below allowing the application of opposite parties 1 and 2 for pre-emption should not be set aside. The question for determination is whether opposite parties 1 and 2 were cosharers of opposite parties 5 and 6, petitioner's vendors, within the meaning of Section 26 F, Ben. Ten. Act. Opposite parties 1 to 4 purchased 8 annas share in the tenancy. They are also the landlords. The contention made on behalf of the petitioner is that this deprives them of the right to pre-empt. The munsif held that inasmuch as there was no merger, the tenancy still exists. The petitioners have a share in it and consequently the right to pre-empt. In support of the rule Mr. Das relies on the definition of tenant in the Bengal Tenancy Act, which apparently excludes the idea of a man holding land under himself. The Subordinate Judge got over the difficulty by pointing out that each of the petitioners ...
Jogesh Chandra Ghose and ors. Vs. Sree Sree Dhakeswari Mata Bigraha an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal26
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of defendant 1 and it arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff as a shebait of idol Sri Sri Dhakeswari Mata, an ancient deity in the town of Dacca, for a declaration that the palas or turns of worship held by the shebaits of the idol are not alienable in law, and that the transfer of such palas by defendants 2 to 7, who were some of the shebaits, in favour of defendant 1 was void and inoperative and did not create any rights in the purchaser. There were prayers also for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 7 from entering into the temple premises, and for removal of defendants 2 to 7 as shebaits of the deity.2. The temple of Dhakeswari Mata is one of the oldest temples in the town of Dacca, the origin of which is lost in obscurity. There is no deed of dedication in respect of the endowment, and there is no evidence as to who founded it or who the original shebaits of the institution were. The shebaitship, according to t...
Dhajadhari Ghosh Vs. Union Board of Kendragoria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal151
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant in a suit instituted by the Union Board of Kendragoria in respect of a strip of land which it claimed as part of a public road vested in it. The plaintiff board is a local authority constituted under the Bengal Village Self. Government Act of 1919, and its case was that the defendant had encroached upon the disputed land by putting up certain sheds over it, and it accordingly asked for removal of the encroachment and also for a permanent injunction to restrain further encroachment by the defendant. The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit, and this decision was affirmed on appeal by the District Judge of Birbhum.2. The defendant had raised various defences to the suit, but the only one with which we are concerned in this appeal is that of limitation which was negatived by both the Courts below. They concurrently took the view that treating the suit as one for possession of immovable property, the 12 ...
Shekendarali Meah Vs. Abdul Gafur Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal306
Edgley, J. 1. One of the judgment-debtors is the appellant in this case and the appeal is directed against an order of Mr. Protap Chandra Sen Gupta, Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Backergunge, dated 31st March 1939, in which the learned Judge dismissed an objection raised by the judgment-debtors in the execution proceedings to the effect that the decree could no longer be executed having regard to the provisions of Section 48, Civil P.C.2. It appears that the decree-holders had obtained a decree for rent against the judgment-debtors as far back as 8th February 1924. This decree together with costs amounted to Rs. 6127-15-0. Thereafter, the usual steps were taken by the decree-holders to put this decree into execution and the record shows that the judgment-debtors placed every possible obstacle in the way of the decree-holders at various stages of the execution proceedings. The last execution case was instituted on 6th February 1936 by execution case No. 3 of 1936. By that time, the d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »