Kolkata Court April 1942 Judgments
National Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. and ors. Vs. Electric Inspector
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal29
ORDER1. This rule must be made absolute. The petitioners before us were prosecuted under Rule 49(1) and (3) and Rule 54 read with Rule 124 of the Electricity Rules 1937 on the complaint of the Electric Inspector of Bengal. After several adjournments, the case was taken up on 2nd April 1941. The accused was examined under Section 242 and one prosecution witness was examined in part. The case was then adjourned to 25th April 1941 for further hearing. On 25th April 1941 the following order was recorded:Prosecution absent. All accused acquitted under Section 247, Criminal P.C. Enter Rules 49(1) and (3) and 54 of the Electricity Rules 1937. P.Ws. discharged.2. That same day at 6-7 P.M. an application was filed by the complainant, for revival of the case. The Magistrate issued notice on the accused persons to show cause why the case should not be revived and fixed 15th May 1941 for hearing of the ease. Thereafter, the trial Magistrate went on leave and the case came up before the Sub-Divisio...
Tag this Judgment!In the Gooods of Nanibala Debi Deceased Ordhendra Commar Gangoly Vs. H ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1944Cal198
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This appeal has occupied a great deal of time and we are indebted to learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Chatterjee and also to learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Meyer who has appeared and represented the interests of the respondent as amicus curiae.2. After considering the matter very carefully, we are of the opinion that subject to one addition the Order of the learned Judge must be upheld. That addition arises out of the decision of the learned Judge that there was an agreement between the client and the at torney that the attorney should not charge the client for in-pocket costs. The matter was dealt with summarily by the learned Judge and except as regards the determination of the right to in-pocket costs the procedure was the proper one. As regards in-pocket costs the client alleged that there was an agreement between himself and the attorney that the attorney should not charge the in-pocket costs and the learned Judge has accepted that allegation as b...
Tag this Judgment!Haramohan Deb Nath Vs. Jaha Baksha Patwari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal25
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This reference raises a question of the interpretation of Section 75, Penal Code. I accordingly gave notice to the Crown to appear and I am glad to say that Mr. Ahmed appearing on behalf of the Crown is unable to support the reference. The prosecution was in connexion with the theft of a cow and a calf belonging to the complainant. One Jaha Buxa Patwari was convicted under Section 414, Penal Code, and in connexion with that matter he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. It appears that this man had previously been convicted of theft and directed to execute a bond under Section 562, Criminal P.C. The learned Sessions Judge now refers the matter to this Court because in his opinion it was incumbent upon the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment. There has frequently been a great deal of misunderstanding as to the meaning of Section 75, Penal Code. It is really quite simple. It provides that persons previously convicted of certain offences will be liable to ...
Tag this Judgment!Bansori Lal Sarkar, Receiver to the Estate of Gostabehari Majumdar and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal131
1. This appeal is on behalf of the decree-holder and it is directed against an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Nadia on 18th March 1940 dismissing the appellant's application for execution of a mortgage decree on the ground of limitation. One Gostha Behari Mazumdar, whose representative the appellant is, obtained a mortgage decree against the respondent in T.S. No. 19 of 1932 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia on 23rd October 1933. The present application for execution was presented on 19th September 1939, and the decree-holder sought to get round the bar of limitation by alleging that a previous application for execution was filed on 13th October 1936 which after several adjournments was struck off on 12th February 1937. The contention of the respondent was that no such application was filed, and even if it was filed it was not in accordance with law which could give an extension of time under Article 182(5), Limitation Act. The trial Judge held on evidence that the...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Chandra Chakravarti and ors. Vs. Upendra Narayan Mukhopadhyaya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal478
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtors and it is directed against an order made by the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Midnapore, dated 7th March 1941, rejecting an application of the appellants under Section 168A, Clause (2), Ben. Ten. Act. The material facts are not disputed and may be shortly stated as follows : The respondent decree-holder obtained a rent decree against the appellants for a sum of Rs. 12,626 odd annas on 4th January 1932. It was put into execution in Execution Case No. 5 of 1932 and the tenure in arrears was put up to sale and purchased by the decree-Holder on 23rd August 1932. The sale of the tenure wiped off only a portion of the decretal amount and the decree-holder had to take out successive executions after that for realisation of the balance. In Execution Case No. 16 of 1937, several other immovable properties belonging to the judgment-debtors were attached and sold and as that even did not satisfy the entire decree the present application fo...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Chandi Charan Chatterjee Bahadur Vs. Tara Nath Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal452a
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit was dismissed by both the Courts below. The plaintiff is the admitted landlord of the holding in dispute, and he brought this suit to enforce a certain covenant in the kabuliyat by which the tenancy had been created. The kabuliyat is Ex. 1 in the case and had been executed on 5th May 1921, by one Radha Raman Chandra. The clause in question is contained in para. 11 of the dooument and is as follows:If I or my successors make a gift of, or sell or otherwise transfer the lands of this kabuliyat, then myself and the vendee or transferee of this land will be bound to pay you as chouth one-fourth of the proper price of this land down to heirs and successors; otherwise, the purchase or transfer will not be valid. If the one-fourth amount be not paid as chouth in this manner, then you will be entitled to take khas possession of the lands of this kabuliyat and the title under this kabuliyat will be extinguished.2. The plaintiff's case i...
Tag this Judgment!Sk. Abdul and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal121
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of 24-Pergannas to show cause why the conviction of the petitioners under Section 3, Bengal Act, 2 of 1867, should not be set aside. It is extremely regrettable to find that, although the case has been tried three times, apparently neither the learned Magistrate nor the officer responsible for the prosecution took pains to see that what it was that the prosecution had to establish. There is a clear finding of fact that some game of chance was being played for money in the premises concerned. There is a further finding that petitioner 3 was the lessee of the premises and that the other two petitioners were in charge of the gaming. Upon those findings the petitioners have been convicted. But the learned Magistrate omitted to notice that he must first find that the premises in question were being used as a common gaming house within the meaning of the definition in Section 1. In order to establish this point, the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Hemanta Kumar S/O Satish Chandra Mukherjee Vs. Basanta Kumar S/O Satis ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal26
Gentle, J.1. The opposite party 1 is the judgment-debtor in a mortgage decree upon whose application the first Subordinate Judge at Alipore ordered the decree to be re-opened under the provisions of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940, (hereinafter called 'the Act'). This rule was obtained by the petitioner, who is the decree-holder, against the decision of the lower Court. The relevant facts are follows : On 10th July 1925 opposite party 1 granted a mortgage upon his immovable property in favour of opposite party 2, as mortgagee, in consideration of a loan of Rs. 7500 carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum with quarterly rests. In 1927 the mortgagee assigned the mortgage to the petitioner who paid Rs. 9500 for the assignment, which amount represented the principal sum and interest up to date. The petitioner thus became the assignee of the loan, the interest thereon up to the date of the assignment, and of the mortgage security. In 1929 the sum of Rs. 1700 was paid towa...
Tag this Judgment!Prafulla Kumar Das Gupta Vs. Kamini Kumar Chakravarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal476
ORDER1. This rule is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Comilla, dated 5th November 1941, made on an application presented by the defendant opposite party under Section 36, Bengal Money-Lenders Act. The opposite party borrowed a sum of Rs. 5437 from the Brahmanbaria Loan Co., on a promissory note dated 25th October 1930, agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum. The petitioner before us was a depositor in the aforesaid loan company and had a deposit of Bs. 7000 to his credit with the latter. When this deposit matured, the loan company endorsed over to the petitioner the promissory note executed by the opposite party, in part payment of the deposit. The petitioner as assignee of the promissory note thereupon instituted a suit against the defendant opposite party and got a decree for a sum of Rs. 7390-9-0 together with costs on 10th May 1934. The decree was executed several times and a portion of the decretal dues was realised. The las...
Tag this Judgment!Khaleque Newaz Khan Choudhury and ors. Vs. Moulvi Choudhury LabibuddIn ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal67
R.C. Mitter, J.1. At the time of the Thak Survey of 1856-1857, a very large area of land in Pargana Talibabad was measured by the Thak Amins as common land of four permanently settled estates, Touzis Nos. 273, 274 275 and 276 of the Dacca Collectorate. The said area spread over a number of villages situate in the Districts of Dacca and Mymen-singh. The area covered forests, beels, jhils, watercourses, etc., and a good part was arable g land. In the said area the shares of the said four estates were as follows:Touzi No. 273 5 Annas 181/2 gandasTouzi No. 274 1 Anna 9 gandasTouzi No. 275 3 Annas 111/2 gandasTouzi No. 276 5 Annas 1 ganda ____________________________ Total. 16 annas.2. The plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest are called for brevity's sake the Baliadi zemindars. They are and were part proprietors of Touzis Nos. 274 and 276. Their share therein is 13 annas 141 gandas. The remaining 2 annas 5 gandas share in the said two estates belong to the defendants. They and thei...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »