Kolkata Court March 1942 Judgments
Chandu Lal Agarwalla, Karta of Joint Family and of Firm Named Hanutram ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal76
1. These two appeals arise out of the partition suit No. 19 of 1936 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jalpaiguri, instituted by one Khatemannessa Bibi, since deceased, for self and on behalf of her two minor sons claiming in all 0-8-7 7/10 pies share in the properties given in the schedule to the plaint as some of the heirs of late Safikuddin Ahammad. Admittedly the properties given in the schedule 'ka' to the plaint once belonged to Safikuddin Ahammad and he died on 11th March 1924. The present suit was instituted on 9th September 1936. The plaintiffs' case is that the said Safikuddin Ahammad married three wives, namely, Taibannessa who predeceased him, Bibi Tanjina Khatun (defendant 1 in this case), and Bibi Khatemannessa, plaintiff 1; and that he died leaving the following relations as his heirs:1. Two wives (a) Bibi Tanjina Khatun (defendant 1), (b) Bibi Khatemannessa (plaintiff 1).2. Five sons (a) Khalilur Rahaman (plaintiff 2), (b) Khatibar Rahaman (plaintiff 3), (c) Latifar...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Bandapadhya Vs. Bishnupada Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal470
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtor and it is directed against an order made by the Subordinate Judge, Fourth Court, Alipore, on 28th February 1941, rejecting certain objections preferred by the appellant under Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act. The material facts are, not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows : One Brajendra Kumar Banerjee owned an undivided eight annas share in zemindary Lot. No. 10, Sunder bans, appertaining to touzi No. 2368 of the 24-Farganas Collectorate. On 14th December 1920, Brajendra granted an ejara lease in respect of his eight annas share in the aforesaid touzi to Satish Chandra Banerjee, the appellant before us, for a period of 30 years at an annual rental of Rs. 2100. In addition to the rent reserved, the lessee undertook to pay all revenue, cess and embankment charges payable to Government in respect to the property. On 8th February 1930, Brajendra mortgaged his interest in the aforesaid touzi to Nagendra Nath Pal and others, t...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Golok Tikadar and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1944Cal234
Lodge, J.1. This appeal has been presented in accordance with the provisions of Section 417, Criminal P.C. by the Legal Remembrancer to the Government of Bengal. 58 persons were placed on trial before the Additional Sessions Judge of Khulna on charges of rioting, murder, grievous hurt and causing disappearance of evidence. The jury returned an unanimous verdict of not guilty in respect of some of the accused and a majority verdict (6 against 3) of not guilty in respect of the remaining accused. The learned Judge accepted the verdict of the jury and acquitted all the accused persons. It has been contended on behalf of the Crown that in his charge to the jury, the learned Judge made so many mistakes in placing the evidence before the jury, that a completely erroneous picture of the evidence on record was given; that the learned Judge misdirected the jury as to the law applicable to the facts of the case; and that the learned Judge consistently refrained from drawing the attention of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Abdul Rahim Alias S.A. Rahim Vs. Mohamed DIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal42
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of 24 Parganas in certain execution proceedings under Section 47, Civil P.C. The appellant is Sheikh Abdul Eahim, the decree-holder and the respondents are the judgment-debtors Mahammed Din and Hazi Monowar Din. In the proceedings in question the decree-holder sought to execute in the Alipore Court a decree which he had obtained against the defendants and others in the High Court in London. The' plaintiff decree.holder acted as agent in London for the defendants and others who were trading in co-partnership in Calcutta. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to recover certain sums of money by way of commission from the defendants and their partners. On 3rd February 1937, the plaintiff issued a writ against the defendants claiming a sum of 1313-13-11 as commission. Apparently, the writ was served out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in England and the defendants duly appeared to the writ on 27th Jul...
Tag this Judgment!Sital Chandra Dutta Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal495
Gentle, J.1. The accused was convicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Midnapore of offences under Sections 326 and 324, Penal Code, for causing grievous hurt with a deadly weapon to two persons--Sarat Dutta and Bhaskar Pal--and for causing hurt to a third man named Nibaran Adhya. Objection is taken to the convictions on a number of grounds, but in the light of the conolusion at which I have arrived it is necessary to consider one ground only, namely, misdirection of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the jury in regard to the evidence of Bhaskar Pal who gave evidence as prosecution witness 5 and who was one of the persons alleged to have been injured by the accused. It is not necessary to consider the whole of the evidence. Suffice it to say that the allegation was that the accused inflicted the injuries to the three persons mentioned above by means of a sword. In the course of the summing up to the jury' the learned Additional Sessions Judge referred to the evid...
Tag this Judgment!Johurimull Jugalkishore Vs. Kashiprosad Jhajharia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal566
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This application raises an interesting and a not unimportant point o(limitation. The petitioner was a party to arbitration proceedings before the Tribunal of Arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce. On 29th July 1941 an award was made, under which the petitioner was ordered to pay to the respondents a sum of Rs. 2531 together with a sum of Rs. 313 as costs of the arbitration. On 22nd August, the award was filed in this Court. The petitioner at one time alleged that the notice of the filing of the award was never effectively served upon him, but he now concedes that this application must proceed on the basis that he was effectively served with the notice on 21st November 1941, On 22nd December 1941, the respondents made an application under Section 17, Arbitration Act, 1940, for judgment upon the award. The matter was in the list, and, when it was called, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner to oppose. Accordingly judgment was pronounced in terms of Se...
Tag this Judgment!Khagendra Nath Banerjee and ors. Vs. Sm. Rani Harshamukhi Dassi and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal49
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the original plaintiff Rani Harsha Mukhi, now respondent l, for recovery of rents and cesses including drainage cesses due in respect of a tenure held by the defendants-appellants under the plaintiff and her cosharer. The only dispute was with regard to drainage cesses which were claimed by the plaintiff at the rate of Rupees 121-8-8 per annum for the years 1340 to 1342 less the amount paid and credited. The Administrator General, Bengal (now respondent 2) who as cosharer landlord was made a pro forma defendant, subsequently got himself transferred to the category of a co-plaintiff and laid claim to drainage cesses at the same rate for his share, for the years 1339-1342 B. Section Damages were also claimed by both the plaintiffs. The claim for recovery of drainage cesses was based upon Section 23, Bengal Sanitary Drainage Act (Bengal Act 8 of 189S). This Act has been repealed by the Bengal Agricultural and Sanitary Improv...
Tag this Judgment!Joykali Ganguly and ors. Vs. P. Banerjee, Sanitary Inspector, Howrah M ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal88
ORDERHenderson, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted of an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 407, Calcutta Municipal Act. So far as the latter is concerned, I need merely say that the Magistrate has not come to any finding nor is there any evidence upon which such a conviction could he found. The petitioners have a sweet-stall in the compound of the Howrah Court. Petitioner 3 who was in charge of the stall, was frying some luchis in ghee. The Sanitary Inspector took a sample of the ghee. The petitioners have been prosecuted with respect to the luchis. The only witness is the Sanitary Inspector. He gave evidence that he took the sample of the ghee from the tin from which petitioner 3 was using ghee to fry the luchis. This sample was sent to the public analyst. He said that it was grossly adulterated. Nobody knows what he meant by that expression, but he stated as a fact that it did not contain any butter fat. 'Adulterated' is denned in Section 3 of the Act. The Magistrate fo...
Tag this Judgment!Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal455
1. This appeal is by the Bengal Nagpur Railway Company, and it is directed against an order of the Small Cause Court Judge at Sealdah, dated 22nd February 1940 made in an appeal filed before him by the appellant company, under Section 141, Calcutta Municipal Act. The case relates to the assessment of premises No. 10 (B), Garden Reach Road which is owned by the appellant. It is a vacant piece of land, measuring 12 bighas 16 cottas and 31 sq. ft., and the appellant's story is that some members of railway officers' club occasionally use it for golf practice. The Calcutta Corporation have on their last revaluation assessed the land, on the basis of annual letting value of lands in the vicinity, at the rate of Rs. 1750 per bigha. The case of the assessee is that calculated on the basis of beneficial user the annual value could not exceed Rs. 1000. They, therefore, claimed reduction of a sum of Per. 21,485 in assessment, and of Rs. 4297 in tax per year. The appeal was resisted by the Corpora...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Waheb Howladar and anr. Vs. Sukumari Debi W/O Jonardan Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal568
Derbyshire, C.J.,1. The petitioners--the borrowers--executed a mortgage bond in favour of the lender--the opposite party on 26th February 1931 promising to pay interest at 12 per cent. per annum with annual rests. The borrowers paid a certain amount on account, but on 20th July 1936, a preliminary decree was passed in respect of this The final decree was passed on 13th January 1937 for Rs. 4138-12-3. It was put into execution and the mortgaged properties were sold and bought in by the decree-holder for Rs. 3150. The sale was made absolute on 12th August 1937 and possession delivered to the auction purchaser, that is the plaintiff, on 11th and 12th September 1938. On 15th July 1938, the plaintiff applied to the Court under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C., asking for the decretal balance, namely, Rs. 1000. Those proceedings were stayed under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, as the result of a petition by the present petitioners to the Debt Settlement Board. The result was that o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »