Kolkata Court June 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.
Krishna K. Mukherjee Vs. Haripada Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal83
ORDERWilliams, J.1. In this case the plaintiff alleges that by an agreement in writing dated 14th December 1940, executed by the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant agreed to give the plaintiff the exclusive right to sell, wholesale or retail, certain toilet articles in the markets of Bengal, that the plaintiff agreed thereby to purchase from the defendant a minimum quantity of the goods, and that the defendant agreed to sell such goods on a sixty days credit basis, provided the bills of the defendant covering the delivery challans as accepted by the plaintiff were accepted and payments thereof on the due dates were guaranteed by the plaintiff's bankers who must be a scheduled bank of Bengal. The defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff a consolidated commission on goods sold, and the agreement was for a term of five years with an option to renew. Thereupon the plaintiff acted as sole distributor for a short period, and goods were supplied by the defendant, but on 3rd January 1941 ...
Sukdev Jee Sankar Jee Madhab Prosad Jee Vs. Ramkrishna Keshab Chandra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal537
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. In our opinion, this rule should be made absolute. The petitioner before us obtained a money decree against the opposite party in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge at Midnapore for a sum of about Rs. 2,646 odd annas on 7th July 1937. In execution of this decree certain properties belonging to the judgment-debtor were attached and sold in 1938. On 30th August 1940, the opposite party filed a suit in the Court of the same Subordinate Judge, purporting to be one under Section 36 (1), Bengal Money-lenders Act, praying inter alia that the decree might be re-opened and that a fresh decree might be made after taking accounts between the parties. This was registered as Money suit No. 8 of 1940 and after the defendant petitioner had filed his written statement, issues were framed by the Court on 18th February 1941. On that date there was an order passed by the Court directing both parties to file affidavits of documents under Order 11, Rules 12 and 13, Civil P.C., wi...
Sris Chandra Nandy of Kasimbazar Represented by Manager Vs. Joyramdang ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal40
ORDERNasim Ali, J.1. This is a reference by the taxing officer under Section 5, Court-fees Act, for determination of the amount of court-fees payable on the memorandum of an appeal filed by the plaintiff in a suit for khas possession of a colliery, arrears of royalty and mesne profits against the decree of the lower Court dismissing his claim for khas possession and mesne profits but decreeing his claim for arrears of royalty in part. Plaintiff valued in the plaint the claim for arrears of royalty at Rs. 3654-14-0, the claim for khas possession at Rs. 5310-6-0 and the claim for mesne profits at Rs. 4646-10-0. In the memorandum of appeal to this Court, his valuation of the claims for khas possession and mesne profits for purposes of court-fees is the same in the plaint. So far as the claim for arrears of royalty is concerned, he has valued it at the difference between the amount claimed in the plaint and the amount decreed in his favour by the trial Judge. The point for determination in...
Ram Charit Bhakat and ors. Vs. Tetari Kumari Kuor of Nithpur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal136
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why an order of the Subordinate Judge refusing to hear an appeal in view of Section 3, Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, should not be set aside. The rule was argued on grounds Nos. 2 and 3 attached to the petition. The former raises the question whether the Act applies to appeals and the latter whether the ease comes within Section 3 at all. I will deal with the former point first. This question will only arise in the case of appeals which were pending at the time when the Act came into force or filed subsequently; that is to say, in all such cases the actual decree must have been made in the first Court before the Act came into force. It will therefore only affect a comparatively small number of cases. The point has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Jahur Mia v. Abdul Gaffur : AIR1941Cal452 . Unfortunately, the learned Judges differed. Biswas J. discussed the point at lengt...
Saradindu Mukherjee Vs. Jahar Lall Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal153
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of defendant 3, and arises out of a suit which was commenced by the plaintiff to enforce two English mortgages which had been executed in his favour on 20th May and 29th September 1919. There were five defendants in the suit, and a preliminary decree for foreclosure was made against them all by the First Additional Subordinate Judge of 24-Parganas on 29th July 1935. The present appeal is directed against this decree. Since this appeal was presented, the final decree was passed on 23rd November 1938, whereby the defendants and all persons claiming through them were absolutely debarred of their right to redeem the mortgaged properties. No appeal has been preferred against this final decree, but a copy has been placed on the records of this appeal, and following the procedure Laid down by the Full Bench in Talebali v. Abdul Aziz : AIR1929Cal689 , it should be the duty of this Court in dealing with the present appeal to give necessary and consequent...
Tarit Bhusan Rai and anr. Vs. Sri Sri Iswar Sridhar Salagram Shila Tha ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal99; MANU/WB/0130/1941
Nasim Ali, J.1. The material facts which are not in dispute in these two appeals are these : (1) On 21st Aswin, 1287 B.S. = 6th October 1869, one Bhagaban Chandra Basu made a gift of 2 bighas of land (now 5 and 6 Karim Buksh Lane) to his sister, Nilmoni Dassi by a registered deed of gift, (Ex. 7). On the same day he and his cousin, Biswa-nath Basu executed an arpannama potro, (Ex. 5 -- deed of dedication). The material portion of this document is this:Now in order that the deity Sheba (services) and periodical festivals etc., of the idol Sri Sri Iswar Sridhar Salagram Shila Thakur, established by us which we have been carrying on all along may remain in tact in future, I, Bhagwan Chandra Basu, in view of my (advanced) age and state of health and having no wife and children, and being apprehensive of any hindrance being caused to the said services etc., to the deity (Deb Sheba) in future dedicate my interest in the above property for the services of the idol (Deb Sheba) and appoint Bisw...
Emperor Vs. Haridas Ukil
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal715
Bartley, J.1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal P.C., made by the learned Sessions Judge of Jessore. The facts are that a Census Enumerator appointed under the provisions of the Census Act reported that Haridas Ukil a resident of Bongaon, gave false information to him regarding the number of people actually resident in a particular house. The Sub-Divisional Officer of Bongaon took cognizance on this report, examined the Enumerator and issued process under Sections 193 and 417, Penal Code, against Haridas Ukil, the original inform-ant. The learned Judge has referred the matter to this Court recommending that the said order under which Haridas Ukil has been directed to be brought up for trial should be set aside on the ground that no such proceedings can be taken without the previous sanction of the Provincial Government. I am of opinion that the contention of the learned Judge is correct and that the present reference must be accepted. Section 10, Census Act, lays down:No ...
Kalipada Roy Vs. Satish Chandra Hui and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal66
ORDERHenderson, J.1. The difficulty in this case is due to the fact that the Sub-divisional Magistrate passed an entirely illegal order. The opposite party filed an application under Section 144, Criminal P.C., alleging that there was a dispute likely to lead to a breach of the peace about the possession of a certain plot of land. The opposite party apparently persuaded the Magistrate that there was likely to be a breach of the peace; but, instead of adopting the sensible procedure of drawing up proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C., he took the ill-advised course of passing an ex parte order on the petitioner. He then made an absolutely illegal order directing the police to reap the paddy. As was almost inevitable the petitioner appealed to the District Magistrate who promptly set aside the ill-advised order under Section 144, Criminal P.C., and directed the Sub-divisional Magistrate to take proceedings under Section 145 if there was likely to be a breach of the peace. Either t...
Altab Ali Bande Ali Vs. Abdul Majid and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal716
ORDERHenderson, J.1. The question raised in this rule is whether the petitioner is entitled to preemption. I regret to say that the case has already been before this Court on a previous occasion. The Munsif originally allowed the application, and the appeal was dismissed and the opposite parties obtained a rule from this Court. The petitioner was in the position of a purchaser before the Amending Act of 1928 was passed. My learned brother Edgley held See : AIR1940Cal548 that he was not entitled to pre emption unless he proved that his purchase had been recognized. He therefore-remanded the case. There is now a concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner has been recognized by one Radharani, who is one of the landlords. It is to be noted that she did not purport to settle the whole of the holding (in which case there would have been no difficulty) but merely recognized the transfer to the extent of her share. The Munsif held that this was sufficient and again allowed the application....
Sheikh Akbar Ali and ors. Vs. Sheikh MafijuddIn of Islampur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal55
ORDER1. This rule is directed against an order dated 18th May 1940 made by the Munsif of Dubrajpur in a proceeding commenced by the opposite party under Section 26G(5), Ben. Ten. Act. In July 1922 the opposite party executed a usufructuary mortgage bond in favour of the father of the petitioners to secure an advance of Rs. 100 only received from the latter. The terms of the mortgage bond were, that the mortgagee would enjoy the usufruct of the land in lieu of interest, and that the mortgagor would take back the property on payment of the principal sum in the month of Baisakh 1332 B S. or in the beginning of any other subsequent year; and the mortgagee would go on enjoying the mortgaged properties till the money was paid. There was a further stipulation in the mortgage bond which stood as follows:Be it further known, that if there arises any hindrance, or disturbance or you are dispossessed from the land described below, till the principal amount is fully realized; in such event I and m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »