Kolkata Court January 1942 Judgments
Tirtha Pada Dey and anr. Vs. Sk. KabiruddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal142
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a decree made by the Small Cause Court Judge of Serampore under the provisions of Section 36, Bengal Money-Lenders Act, should not be set aside. The rule was issued upon ground No. 1 which is to the effect that the new decree was passed without jurisdiction. In order to understand the point certain facts have to be stated. The petitioner obtained a decree in the Small Cause Court for Rs. 230 and Rs. 40 for costs on 16th November 1937. He took out execution proceedings on 24th January 1940. The opposite parties applied to a Debt Settlement Board on 17th February 1940. In the meantime, the execution proceedings went on and the petitioner purchased certain property for Rs. 299 on 24th May 1940. The opposite parties made an application under Section 36, Bengal Money-Lenders Act, on 22nd March 1941. The Small Cause Court Judge reopened the decree and passed a new decree on 15th September 1941.2. The cont...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Karim Master Vs. Raj Chandra Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal378
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of defendant 1 in a suit which was instituted by the plaintiff for his ejectment on declaration of plaintiff's title. The plaintiff claimed to be the purchaser of a Noabad taluk at a revenue sale held on 8th January 1937, and his case was that as such he was entitled to annul the.interest of defendant 1 under Section 12 of Act 7 of 1868 (B.C). The defence was that defendant 1 was protected under Section 14 of the Act inasmuch as he was a raiyat having a right of occupancy at a fixed rate, and in support of this plea, he relied upon the entry in the last revisional survey of Chittagong held in 1930 wherein he was recorded as a jotedar. Both the Courts below negatived this defence and decreed the plaintiff's suit. Hence the present appeal. The first point taken on behalf of the appellant is directed against the finding that the entry in the revisional khatian was wrong. It appears that in the previous cadastral survey which took place in 1898, def...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Keamatali Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal426a
Roxburgh, J.1. In this case the accused Keamatali Sheikh has been convicted on the unanimous verdict of the jury under Section 302, Penal Code, and has been sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge of Mymensingh who has referred his case for confirmation to this Court under Section 374, Criminal P.C. The accused has also appealed. Three other accused, Isof Ali, Sabed Ali and Samar Ali were tried along with Keamatali Sheikh on a charge under Section 302/109, Penal Code, and have been convicted on the unanimous verdict of the jury under Section 324/109 of the Code and have been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment each. These have also appealed. Keamatali Sheikh was also charged and tried under Section 324, Penal Code, but no verdict was taken from the jury on this charge. The prosecution case was that on 24th August 1941 two cattle of the accused Keamatali Sheikh damaged the crops of one Keamat Akanda who was taking them to the pound when the four accused together ...
Tag this Judgment!Nrisingha Chandra Pal Chaudhury and ors. Vs. Sm. Kanaklata Dasi W/O An ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal369a
ORDER1. This is an application for revising the order of the District Judge of Nadia, dated 19th September 1941, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioners' application for re-opening a decree under Section 36, Bengal Money-lenders Act. The only ground on which the learned Judge has dismissed the application is that the application was not filed within the period of limitation prescribed by Section 36, Clause (1), proviso (i). It appears from the judgment of the learned Judge that the learned Judge has interpreted the words 'the date of the suit' in proviso (i) to mean 'the date of the application' under the Bengal Money-lenders Act.2. We are unable to accept this interpretation of the learned Judge. Section 36, Clause (1) contemplates a suit to which the Bengal Money-lenders Act applied as well as a suit which may be brought by a borrower for relief under that section. The words 'the date of the suit' in proviso (i) must, therefore, mean the date when the suit contemplate...
Tag this Judgment!Rajshahi Banking and Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs. Surendra Nath Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal434
Derbyshire, C.J.1. The Rajshahi Banking and Trading Corporation, Limited, who are the petitioners before us, obtained a decree against Surendra Nath Mitra, a pleader of 6, Kabir Road, Tollygunge, for money lent to him which had not been repaid in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rajshahi. The decree was transferred to Alipore where the judgment-debtor lived; a money execution case was started in the Court of the Fourth Subordinate Judge at Alipore and a warrant of attachment of moveable property in Form No. P. 24 was issued and signed by the Subordinate Judge. It was directed to the bailiff of the Court and after stating the amount of the decree it directed the bailiff to attach the moveable property of the debtor 'which shall be pointed out to you by the plaintiff sufficient to cover the amount of this warrant.'2. The secretary of the plaintiffs and two peons to whom the warrant of attachment had been handed by the Nazir of the Court went to the defendant's residence and, accordi...
Tag this Judgment!Makhan Lal Hazra Vs. Sashi Bhusan Hazra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal435
Bartley, J.1. This rule was issued upon the District Magistrate of the 24-Parganas and upon the opposite parties to show cause why an order of acquittal made by the learned Magistrate of Diamond Harbour should not be set aside. The facts of the case are briefly as follows : A certain plot of land was being ploughed by a number of labourers who claimed that they had taken settlement of it from the accused Sashi Bhusan Hazra who is a brother of the complainant Makhan Lal Hazra. Makhan attempted to put a stop to this and actually unyoked the ploughs or caused them to be unyoked. Thereupon his brother Sashi sent for his gun which was brought by accused 2, Kajani Kanta Haldar, loaded it and fired a shot with the result that Makhan was struck by several pellets and one or two other people who were with him also sustained injuries from gun shot wounds. On this case Sashi and Rajani were sent up on charges framed under Sections 324 and 324/109, Penal Code. The learned Magistrate acquitted both...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Chandra Banerji Vs. Abdur Rahman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1942
Reported in: 1955CriLJ161
Derbyshire C.J.(1) This matter was referred for the decision of the Full Bench by a Division Bench consisting of Bartley J., and Lodge J., in these terms: 'This rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Faridpur and the opposite party to show cause why an order made Under Section 147 (2), Criminal P. C, should not be set aside. The facts are that a path leading from the house of Abdur Rahman Mulla, the opposite party, to the public road passed over the lands of the petitioner, Hem Chandra Banerji. The opposite party claimed a right of public user over this path; petitioner objected, and finally closed the path by erecting a stable on it. Proceedings were taken Under Section 147, Criminal P. C. with the result that the Magistrate made the following order:Thus I order that Abdur Rahman and his family may use the path, and Hem Ch. Banerji is prohibited to make any interferenca with the exercise of a right of way of Abdur Rahman and his family. He is further ordered to remove the stabl...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Chandra Banerji Vs. Abdur Rahaman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal244
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This matter was referred for the decision of the Full Bench by a Division Bench consisting of Bartley, J., and Lodge, J. in these terms:This rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Faridpur and the opposite party to show cause why an order made under Section 147(2), Criminal P.C., should not be set aside. The facts are that a path leading from the house of Abdur Rahaman Mulla, the opposite party, to the public road passed over the lands of the petitioner, Hem Oh. Banerji. The opposite party claimed a right of public user over this path; petitioner objected, and finally closed the path by erecting a stable on it. Proceedings were taken under Section 147, Criminal P.C., with the result that the Magistrate made the following order:Thus I order that Abdur Rahaman and his family may use the path, and Hem Ch. Banerji is prohibited to make any interference with the exercise of a right of way of Abdur Rahaman and his family. He is further ordered to remove the stable f...
Tag this Judgment!Sazawar Khan and anr. Vs. Satyendra Lal Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal406
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the defendants and is directed against a decree for ejectment. The position is as follows: The plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 804/92 of 1935 to eject the defendants from the disputed land on the ground that they were trespassers. The defence was amongst other things that the defendants had extinguished the title of the plaintiffs by adverse possession. In the course of the trial this defence was abandoned. The defendants, however, contended that they had obtained a limited right to hold the lands as tenants by adverse possession. The Munaif accepted this defence. He accordingly gave the plaintiffs a declaration of their title and right to get rent from the defendants but dismissed the claim for khas possession. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Court without success and the matter terminated there. The plaintiffs then instituted a suit for the assessment of fair rent. They obtained a decree and it is not disputed by the defendants that they...
Tag this Judgment!Rishi Haldar and ors. Vs. Monoranjan Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal73
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. In this case the accused Rishi Haldar alias Ganga has been convicted under Section 379, Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Es. 25 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three weeks. He and the other four accused have also been convicted under Section 143 of the Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three weeks. The prosecution case was that the complainant purchased some fish from one Gopal Parui in Meherpur Bazar, that the accused Ganga snatched the fish away from his hand at the same time taking all the fishes of Gopal Parui and that when the complainant protested Ganga together with others surrounded him and threatened to assault him.2. First as regards the charge of theft it is contended that the trial Court has dealt with the matter inadequately and has not considered whether the accused had really acted dishonestly or not. The defence was that the accused had purchased the fish in questi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »