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.
S. Pakrashi and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal713
Derbyshire, C.J.1. These are two appeals by S. Pakrashi and Dr. S. K. Banerjee against convictions recorded against them by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta under Sections 409 and 409/114, I.P.C. Under those convictions each of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 300 in default three months' rigorous imprisonment. No separate sentence has been passed under Section 409/114, Penal Code. It was further ordered that out of the fine, if paid, Rs. 197-14-6 be paid to the complainant.2. Accused 1 is the managing director of the Ruby Bank Ltd., a concern which carried on business until about the middle of 1940 in Calcutta. Accused 2 is described as the manager of the Ruby Bank Ltd. The complainant is stated to be a ghee merchant who in April 1940 opened an account with the Ruby Bank Ltd., and deposited different sums of money with the bank amounting in all to Rs. 660. The account, it must be noted, was a current account, and the complai...
Priya Nath Roy Vs. Sridhar Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal60
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an order made by the District Judge at Alipore on 5th May 1941, returning a memorandum of appeal which was presented by the petitioner before him. The facts, so far as they are material for our present purpose, may be shortly stated as follows: The petitioner instituted a suit for partition in the Court of the third Subordinate Judge, 24-Parganas, claiming 4 annas share of certain Sundarban properties which were alleged to be joint properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. The suit was valued for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 2200 only. The defendants in their written statement challenged the valuation made by the plaintiff, and a specific issue was raised, namely issue 5 which was worded as follows: 'Has the suit been properly valued ?' The trial Court decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff and held that the suit was properly valued. There was a preliminary decree passed in that suit by the trial Judge, against which an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›