Kolkata Court August 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.
Raj Kumari Prafulla Nalini Dassi and anr. Vs. Nrishingha Kumari Dasi a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal255
1. This appeal is on behalf of the decree-holder, and it is directed against an appellate order made by the District Judge of Nadia affirming an order of the Munsif, First Court of that place, dismissing the appellants' application for execution of a decree on the ground that it is barred under Section 48 Civil P.C. The appellants decree-holders-obtained a rent decree against respondents 1-4, and the predecessor-in-interest of respondent 5 for a sum of Rs. 1829 as. odd on 23rd March 1919. The judgment-debtors had, amongst other properties, a patni tenure which they held under Satyabala Dasi and others, and this patni was sold at the instance of the latter, for default in payment of patni rent, under Regulation 8 of 1819 on 17th November 1919, just six days before the appellants obtained their decree. The patni was purchased at the regulation sale, by one Rakhal Das Tarafdar for Rs. 13,000 and after meeting the patni rent due to the zemindar, a large sum of money still remained with the...
Kedar Nath Sen Vs. Amulya Ratan Sanyal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal79
Pal, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, as also upon the complainant opposite party to show cause why the proceedings under Section 200, Penal Code, against the present petitioner pending in the Court of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, should not be quashed on the ground thaton the prosecution story itself, the offence alleged having been committed in relation to a proceeding in a Court, a formal complaint in writing of such Court was necessary, as contemplated under Sections 195 and 476, Criminal P.C.2. The complainant in this case is one 'Amulya Ratan Sanyal' as assistant in the employ of and on behalf of the Co-operative Hindusthan Bank Ltd. (in liquidation). The ease of the complainant is that the petitioner, who is a debtor of the Co-operative Hindusthan Bank Ltd., and who was adjudged insolvent by an order made by this High Court on 13th June 1939, submitted, in or about the month of August a scheme of composition to the Offici...
Satya Narayan Banerjee and anr. Vs. Radha Nath Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal69
1. On 12th July 1933 Ram Narayan Bannerjee, plaintiff 2, borrowed Rs. 6000 from Harihar Dass on the security of a mortgage which comprised immovable properties, some situate within the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court and others situate in the district of 24-Parganas. The mortgagee instituted with the leave of this Court a suit No. 1507 of 1937, in the original side of this Court. The preliminary decree was passed on 21st February 1938 and the final decree sometime thereafter. On 23rd February 1934, Satya Narayan Bannerjee, plaintiff 1, borrowed a sum of Rs. 6000 also from Harihar Dass on a mortgage which also comprised properties some of which were within the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court and the remaining properties were within the jurisdiction of the Alipore Court. The mortgagee instituted Suit No. 1508 of 1937 in the original side of this Court. The preliminary decree was passed on 21st February 1938 and the final decree some time thereafter. On 3lst July...
Haji Mahammad Nabi Shirazi and ors. Vs. Province of Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal343
Khundkar, J.1. This is an appeal from an-order of the learned Subordinate Judge of the First Court at Hooghly, dated 24th April 1939, by which, he dismissed the appellant's suit on preliminary grounds. The suit was instituted by certain persona purporting to represent the Shia community of Moslems, for a declaration that a certain endowment at Hooghly, sometimes called the Mohsiniya wakf, was intended for the upkeep of animambara, for the celebration of religious ceremonies therein, ' and for the benefit of the Shia community and not for any secular use?. A mandatory injunction was prayed for against defendant 1, the Seoretary of State for India in Council, directing him to act in future in accordance with the declaration sought.-The other persons impleaded as defendants were the members of the Committee of Management of the Imambara, defendants 1 to 6(a), and the Commissioner of Wakfs, Bengal, defendant 7. The case made in the plaint was to the following effect : In, the year 1806, Ha...
Foolcomari Dasi Vs. Debendra Nath Seal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal474
Ameer Ali, J.1. This suit turns upon a point of law. The facts may be very shortly stated. Kundanlal Seal (F)=Baj Lakhi (W), four sons, Jadu (S), second son Jyoti (S) died 1923=Ful Kumari (S.W.), third son Deben (S) fourth son Noren (S), Kundanlal died on 1st April 1939, leaving a will dated 1st December 1929. Under this will there is a provision for W (the widow), there is no provision for S.W. (son's widow) and the property goes, according to Hindu law, to the sons (S.S.S.), the heirs. The family is governed by the Bengal School of Hindu law, and the estate of Kundanlal was self-acquired.2. The question of law is whether S.W. is entitled to claim maintenance by S.S.S., when S.S.S. take under a will and not by inheritance. There is no conflict of law where heirs take by inheritance. The leading case in Calcutta is Siddesury v. Janardan ('01) 5 C.W.N. 549, affirmed in Siddesury v. Janardan ('02) 29 Cal. 557. The theory of the matter has been expounded in detail in the judgment of Mahmo...
Nazar Mohammad Khan and anr. Vs. J.O. Browne
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal292
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the decree holders. The question for determination is whether certain money belonging to the respondent is liable to attachment. The following facts are not disputed. The respondent is a retired railway servant. After his retirement he filled in the necessary form asking for payment of the money due to him on his account in the Provident Fund. The railway authorities requested the Reserve Bank to send a cheque to Messrs. Thomas Cook & Sons, Calcutta. The appellants, who have apparently a spy somewhere in the railway office, obtained an order from the Munsif, Chandpur, on Messrs. Thomas Cook & Sons attaching the money. Messrs. Thomas Cook & Sons in the meantime had returned the cheque to the railway authorities alleging that the respondent had no account with them and was unknown to them. The money is now held by the railway authorities in a suspense account. The appellants have applied in execution for its attachment. The respondent filed an objection ...
Natabar Sasmal and ors. Vs. Krishna Chandra Bera and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal261
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants, and arises out of a representative suit commenced under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C., on behalf of the inhabitants of a group of four contiguous villages which may be collectively referred to as Bandipur. These villages lie on the eastern side of a khal, flowing north to south, and the object of the suit is to restrain the discharge of surplus rain water from the defendants' mouza, Bamunkhana on the other side of the khal on and to the plaintiffs' lands in these villages which are admittedly at a lower level. It is not known when, by whom and in what circumstances the khal was excavated, but it is not disputed that this served as a channel for draining off the surplus rain water from the defendants' mouza. On their side of the khal, the plaintiffs had constructed a bund or embankment to protect their lands from over-flooding. The khal finally discharged itself into a river called Jhumjhumi towards the south th...
Taran Roy BaIn and ors. Vs. Shyam Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal226
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the decree-holders and is directed against an order made by the Subordinate Judge, Khulna, dated 30th November 1935, dismissing the appellants' application for execution of a decree on the ground of limitation. The decree was an instalment mortgage decree passed on the basis of a compromise on 30th July 1929. Under the compr6mise the total amount declared to be due to the appellants was Rs. 3800. Out of this a sum of Rs. 500 had to be paid by the judgment-debtors within 14th April 1930 and the balance was payable in twenty-two annual instalments of Rs. 150 each. There was a provision in the compromise decree that in default of payment of any one of the instalments the entire sum would be recoverable at once. The present application for execution of the decree was presented on 26th March 1935. It was the case of the decree-holders that a sum of Rs. 500 was paid by the judgment-debtors in accordance with the com-promise decree on 11th Apri...
Surendra Nath Sarkar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal225
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule raises aa interesting point with regard to a prosecution under Section 32, Companies Act. It is said that the petitioner was the managing director. At any rate, he has been convicted and fined under Section 76 of the Act on an allegation that he was wilfully a party to a default by which no general meeting was held during the year which commenced on 14th February 1937. He was then further prosecuted under Section 32. I cannot help saying that this second prosecution seems rather pointless after the first. I can understand that if the defence of the petitioner had been that a general meeting was held and if it was found to be true, then there would be some point in prosecuting him under Section 32. But, in view of his conviction on the former charge, the latter might very well have been dropped. Now, the first ground upon which the rule was pressed was that the failure to hold a public meeting made it impossible to comply with this section. This section re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›