Kolkata Court March 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.
Jitendra Nath Bera and ors. Vs. Makham Lal Bera
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal452
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule has been obtained by the judgment-debtors and is directed against an order of the Munsif rejecting an application for review under Section 36(6), Bengal Money-lenders Act. The decree was passed on 17th August 1933. It is conceded that it infringes the provisions of the Bengal Moneylenders Act. In the course of Execution Case No. 702 of 1934 a certain property was put up to sale and purchased by the opposite party for Rs. 210 on 6th July 1934. Possession of the property was delivered in August 1935. It may be noted that the judgment-debtors are the sons of the executant of the hand-note upon which the suit was based and the decree is to be executed against such property of their father as may be within their hands. Their mother filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., which was pending on 1st January 1939. The question now at issue between the parties is whether in view of that application it can be said that either that application or Exe...
Harendra Kumar Roy Vs. ImamuddIn Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal56
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of defendant 1 and is directed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Dinajpur, reversing that of the Munsif of Balurghat, by which he gave the plaintiffs a decree declaring their title to the disputed lands and confirming their possession thereof. The facts were as follows : Defendant 2 first executed a simple mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of 20 bighas of land. Thereafter, he executed a usufructuary mortgage in their favour in respect of another 12 bighas for the period 1923 to 1934. Nine years later, on 24th February 1932, defendant 2 executed another usufructuary mortgage in favour of defendant 1. This mortgage comprised the lands which were the subject-matter of the two prior mortgages in favour of the plaintiffs and some additional lands, making a total of 62 bighas in all. The period for which this mortgage was granted was from 1932 to 1946. Some time thereafter the plaintiffs sued to enforce the first mortgage ...
Emperor Vs. Mohammad Sheik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal74
Edgley, J.1. In this case the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Birbhum has made a reference to this Court under the provisions of Section 307, Criminal P.C., in respect of thirteen accused persons who were placed on their trial before him under Sections 304, 323 and 147, Penal Code. The case was tried with the aid of a jury who gave the prisoners the benefit of the doubt. The learned Judge has disagreed with the verdict of the jury and he has stated that, in his opinion, one of the prisoners should have been found guilty under Section 325, six under Section 323 and all of them under Section 147, Penal Code. In the opinion of the learned Judge, the verdict of the jury was perverse and against the weight of the evidence and his letter of reference discusses the testimony of the prosecution witnesses at some considerable length. Ordinarily, we should have found it necessary to examine the evidence in some detail, but we find on a reference to the charge of the learned Judge that he has...
Bank of Baroda Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal562
Derbyshire, C.J.1. The appellants appeal from a decree made against them on 28th June 1940 See : AIR1941Cal372 by Panckridge J. in favour of the respondents for Rs. 2,75,000 with interest at 6 per cent, per annum. The facts are shortly as follows: One Ghose was a customer of the Baroda Bank and one Mitter purported to guarantee his account there. One Amin was the manager or agent of the Baroda Bank in Calcutta. Mr. Bhagwandas was the manager of the Calcutta branch of the Punjab Bank where Mitter had an account which in June 1339 was overdrawn. On 13th June 1939 Mitter took to the Punjab Bank two cheques drawn by Ghose on the Baroda Bank both in favour of Mitter and both dated 13th June 1939; both cheques were marked on the face of them 'good for payment upto 20th June 1939' and signed by Amin on behalf of the Bank of Baroda, Limited. One was for Rs. 1,40,000 and the other for Rs. 1,35,000.2. Mitter asked Mr. Bhagwandas if he could allow him to draw Rs. 2,40,000 against them. Mr. Bhagwa...
H.V. Low and Co. Ltd. Vs. Raja Pramatha Nath Malia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal100
ORDERSen, J.1. This is an application for the execution of a decree passed against a person whose property is under the management of the Court of Wards. The Court of Wards assumed charge of the property on 1st June 1937, and this application for execution was made on 18th February 1942. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the Court of Wards that by reason of the provisions of Section 10C, Court of Wards Act, this application is not maintainable. Section 10C runs as follows:Where any property is in charge of the Court of Wards no civil Court shall execute any decree or order against the person or property of the ward within four years from the date of the commencement of the Bengal Court of Wards (Amendment) Act, 1935, or from the date of the assumption of charge of the property by the Court of Wards, whichever is later, and for seven years thereafter if the interest due under such decree or order be paid in full every year during the said seven years.2. On behalf of the Cour...
Kalidas Rakshit Vs. Saraswati Dasi W/O Babu Harinath Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal1
R.C. Mitter, J.1. Touzi No. 162 of the Khulna Collectorate comprises among other villages, Mouza Ghona Madardanga and Mouza Rangpore. Plaintiffs 1 to 23, the Mozumdars, hold the said two Mouzas as patnidars and darpatnidars under the proprietors of the said estate. In this appeal we are concerned only with Mouza Ghona Madardanga. The Syedpore Trust estate represented by the Collector of Khulna is the proprietor of Touzi No. 188 of the Khulna Collectorate. Defendant 85, Sarat Chandra Rakshit, whose legal representative is the appellant before us in Appeal No. 27, is the Gantidar of the adjoining Mouza, Mouza Bilpabla, under, the proprietors of the said Touzi No. 188 of the Khulna Collectorate, and Jadu Nath Kaviraj defendant 67 the appellant in Appeal No. 117, is the Dargantidar of a portion of the said Mouza. In 1917 the Mozumdars granted to Saraswati Dassi, the principal respondent in both the appeals, a permanent lease of the larids of Mouza Ghona Madardanga. On 16th April 1919 the M...
Barada Charan Nandi Vs. Eastern Union Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal389
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule was obtained on behalf of the judgment-debtor, and it is directed against an order made by the Subordinate; Judge, First Court, Chittagong, rejecting an application of the petitioner for re-opening of the decree under Section 36, Bengal Money-lenders Act. The facts are very simple. The opposite party No. 1 advanced a sum Rs. 5000 to the petitioner on a hundi or bill of exchange drawn by the latter and accepted by opposite party No. 2 and the predecessor of opposite party No. 3. Some payments were made by one of the acceptors, but there being default in payment of the rest, the opposite party No. 1 instituted a suit upon the bill of exchange and obtained a decree on 13th February 1932. The decree was executed several times and the last execution case is still pending. The Court below has rejected the application of the borrower on the ground that the money being advanced on the basis of a hundi which was a negotiable instrument other than a promissory note...
Nabi Rasool and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal32
Lodge, J.1. This is an appeal against convictions and sentences under Section 395, I.P.C. The four appellants were placed on their trial before the Sessions Judge of Hughly on a charge of dacoity, the allegation being that at about midnight on 3rd April 1941 they committed dacoity in the house of one Upendra Nath Das in village Morepookoor within the jurisdiction of the Serampore Police Station. They found no property of value in this house and took away only a small tin box containing boys school books. Immediately after committing this dacoity, they proceeded to the house of one Sheikh Aroon which is not far distant from the house of Upendra Nath Das and committed dacoity in that house also. They assaulted the householder Sk. Aroon and stole Rs. 170 in cash and a hurricane lantern and other articles. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in respect of the four appellants finding them guilty of dacoity. The learned Judge accepted the unanimous verdict of the jury, convicted the appell...
Hemendra Nath Sanyal Vs. Sashi Bhusan Talukdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal101
ORDER1. This rule in our opinion must be made absolute. It appears from the facts found by the learned Subordinate Judge that the decree was made in a suit to which the Act applies and that the decree did allow interest in excess of what is permitted under Section 30, Bengal Money-Lenders Act. Therefore sufficient ground has been made out for reopening of the decree. As to whether it is worthwhile for the judgment-debtor to have a new decree at this stage, when considerable time has elapsed since the date of that decree, is absolutely immaterial. At any rate, he is entitled to have instalments. The result therefore is that the rule is made absolute and the case is sent back in order that the decree may be re-opened and a new decree passed in accordance with the provisions of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. We make no order as to costs....
Arun Kumar Basu (Minor Represented by Mother Sm. Bijan Rani Basu) and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal143
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs and is directed against a decision of the First Additional District Judge of Dacca reversing that of the Fifth Munsif of Munshiganj. The trial Court gave the plaintiffs a decree in part, allowing their claim in respect of three of the disputed plots, items 1, 8 and 11 of the schedule to the plaint, and dismissing the claim as regards the rest. On appeal the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit in toto. Hence the present appeal. The plaintiffs are the rleirs of one Radhakishore Bose, and their case is that Radhakishore and his two brothers, Nabakishore and Nandakishore, were members of an undivided Hindu family. Of these, Nandakishore went away from his home on business, and an arrangement was come to at the time among the brothers by which it was agreed that during the absence of Nandakishore his share of the income of the joint properties should be enjoyed by Radhakishore and Nabakishore equally. The arrangement was to hol...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »