Kolkata Court January 1942 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.
Province of Bangal Vs. Ram Chandra Bhotika and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1942
Reported in: AIR1944Cal247
Edgley, J.1. This Rule is directed against the Order of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal, dated 20th September 1940, in which he directed that compensation to the extent of Rs. 8650 should be paid by the Province of Bengal in respect of some trees which stood on a plot of land which was the subject-matter of certain acquisition proceedings.2. On 13th July 1987, the opposite party filed a claim pursuant to a notice under section 9, Land Acquisition Act. Therein no compensation was specifically claimed on account of trees or crops. On 28th July he filed another application in which he stated that the compensation payable in respect of the trees and crops on the acquired land would amount to Rs. 2800. The award of the Collector is dated 19th November 1937 and, according to this award, the sum of Rs. 400 was given to the claimant in respect of the trees standing on the land. We are not concerned with that part of the award, which related to compensation for land and build...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. H.C. Patel
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal351
Lodge, J.1. This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs to the Government of Bengal, under the provisions of Section 417, Criminal P.C. One H.C. Patel was placed on his trial before a Presidency Magistrate on three charges under Section 420 read with Section 109, Penal Code, on the allegations that he abetted three offences of cheating the Customs Department of the Government of India, and was acquitted of all three charges. Against that acquittal the present appeal has been filed. The case for the prosecution is as follows : There is a firm of merchants named Curmally Janmahomed in Bombay with a Branch in Calcutta and another branch in Osaka, Japan. The Calcutta Branch and the Osaka Branch are both styled Curmally & Co. The firm imports Japanese goods into India for sale in the Indian Market. The respondent H.C. Patel is the manager of the Calcutta Branch. The Osaka Branch is kept in funds by the Head Office in Bombay and by the Branch in Calcutta, and pu...
Keshrimull and ors. Vs. Meghraj Basdeo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal542
ORDERGentle, J.1. The matters in dispute in this suit were by agreement referred to arbitration. The present application by the defendants is that the award of the arbitrator which was filed in this Court shall be taken off the file on the ground that filing took place after the period of limitation provided in the Arbitration Act of 1940. The following facts require reference. The suit was filed in August 1940, the claim by the plaintiffs being for a sum of about Rs. 2800. On 23rd April 1941 it was referred to the arbitration, of one Johormull Nopani, who made his award in favour of the plaintiffs for the sum of Rs. 2173 and costs on 16th July 1941, on which date he notified the parties that he had duly made his award. The following day the plaintiffs requested the arbitrator to file the award in Court, and he sent it for this purpose to the Court, together with Rs. 3 in cash for the filing charges. On 19th July by a document (inadvertently dated 11th July) the parties were informed b...
Fazal Ahmed Choudhury S/O Nazir Ahmed Choudhury Vs. Etim Ali Choudhury ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal337
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This rule arises out of a decree passed by the second Court of the Munsif of Patiya in the exercise of his jurisdiction as a Court of Small Causes dated 19th August 1941 allowing a claim on a handnote for Rs. 70. The rule has been obtained on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit. The case of the defendant in the suit was that he had filed a case No. 119 of 1940 in the Kashiash Debt Settlement Board showing all his debts including that of the present handnote.. In the award finally made by the Board this debt is shown and it is clear therein that no amount is due on the pronote. This decision is binding on the parties by virtue of the provisions of Sections 25(3) and 18(1), Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1936, and therefore no decree should be passed in respect of the claim. It was the defendant's case that the debt had been, paid off by enjoyment of the usufruct of the land, by, the plaintiff creditor for a period of years and ,it, was fu...
Lilabati Debi Vs. Ayesha Khatun W/O Mobarak Ali and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal466
Edgley, J.1. This rule is directed against the order of Mr. H.K. Mukherjee, Small Cause Court Judge at Sealdah, dated 22nd August 1941 in which he held that the Sealdah Small Cause Court was not a civil Court within the meaning of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act and that consequently Section 34 of that Act had no application to any suit or proceeding pending in that Court. It appears that the petitioner had been sued in the Sealdah Small Cause Court for the recovery of the sum of Rupees 400-6-0. Subsequently, she made an application to the Debt Settlement Board and a notice under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, was served on the learned Small Cause Court Judge.2. It is argued that the Sealdah Small Cause Court must be regarded as a civil Court within the meaning of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, having regard to the language of Section 2(6A) of that Act which is in the following terms : ''Civil Court' means a civil Court within the meaning of the Bengal, Agra and...
Mati Lal Nag Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal39
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This rule was issued against an order of the Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, dated 9th June 1941, convicting the accused of an offence under Section 386(1)(b) read with Section 488, Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 20 in default to undergo ten days' simple imprisonment. The accused is the landlord of certain premises No. 7 Romesh Mitter Road, and let them out to one Atul Mistry, who has for sometime been carrying on a business of building bodies for omnibuses. Atul Mistry has failed to obtain a license for the said business, and the Corporation of Calcutta are of opinion that this business is likely to create a nuisance. Though it is not strictly relevant to the present case, it may be stated that Atul Mistry has previously been convicted in respect of these premises but that in this case the Magistrate refused to pass an order under Section 388 of the Act directing that the premises should no longer be used for that purpose. It ...
Sarala Sundari Debi Chowdhurani W/O Jogesh Chandra Sanyal Chowdhury an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal52
1. This appeal is by defendants 2 and 3 and it arises out of a suit for foreclosure of a mortgage. The mortgage in question is one by way of conditional sale and the mortgaged property is a jote belonging to one Shaikh Hanif who died leaving behind him as his heirs defendant 1 Shaikh Kasamuddin and Kaymat's wife. Defendant 1 Shaikh Kasamuddin borrowed Bs. 100 by mortgaging the property in January 1925. In 1929, the landlords instituted rent suit No. 594 of that year against Kasamuddin and Kaymat's wife, who were admittedly the only heirs of Shaikh Hanif and obtained a decree. The jote was sold in execution of this decree as per Execution Case No. 199 of 1930 and was purchased by defendants 2 and 3. The sale certificate is Ex. C in this case. The sale was with power to annul all incumbrances. But the purchasers did not take any steps to annul the above mortgage of 1925. The present suit for foreclosure of the mortgage of 1925 was instituted on 28th September 1937 making the purchasers i...
Mohaluxmi Bank Ltd. Vs. Province of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal371
R.C. Mitter, J.1. In 1907 one Mobarak Ali applied to the Government for settlement of 174 drones 8 kanis lgandaand 2 cottas( = 1138-72acres) of Noabad land belonging to the Government. That area was then covered with jungle. In his application he stated that he was willing to take the settlement 'according to the practice of settlement of such lands.' That meant that he was prepared to take settlement according to usual terms and conditions on which Noabad lands are settled by the Government. That application was granted and a 114/1 was created. There was a jamabandi which fixed the rent at Rs. 175 a year (Ex. 5, II. 6) from 1314 Rule Section He was let into possession. Later on he was asked to execute the kabuliat but he evaded the request with the result that there is no written document which shows the terms and conditions of the settlement. In the jamabandi, Ex. 5, there is a column for entering the date and the terms 'as mentioned in the patta.' There being no patta or kabuliat in...
Binjraj Maheswria and ors. Vs. Ramniwasdas Jalan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal89
ORDERGentle, J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the plaintiff in a suit in this Court seeking one of two alternative orders (1) that a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Gorakhpur be stayed until disposal of this suit; (2) that the defendant in this suit, who is the plaintiff in the suit in the Gorakhpur Court, should be restrained by an injunction from continuing his suit until the disposal of this one.2. The plaintiffs in the suit in this Court are members of a joint Hindu family represented by the karta who is plaintiff 1; the defendants are also alleged to be a joint family of which defendant 1 is the karta. The plaint states that for many years the plaintiffs carried on business in Calcutta as commission agents, and as such acted for and on behalf of the defendants, principally in the sale of various commodities such as wheat and linseed and to some extent goods such as jute and other bags were purchased by the plaintiffs for and on behalf of the defendants. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›