Kolkata Court June 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.
Reliance Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Dukhi Shah S/O Dhandraj Shah and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal550
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The facts giving rise to these analogous cases may be shortly stated as follows: The Reliance Jute Mills, Ltd., which is the petitioner in both these rules brought two suits in the Court of the Second Munsif, Barasat, being Title Suits Nos. 31 and 32 of 1939, for recovery of khas possession of certain lands on the allegation that the defendants who are in occupation of the same were thika tenants whose tenancies had been determined on proper service of demand notices. There were claims also for arrears of rent and mesne profits in both these suits. The suits were decreed by the trial Court and the plaintiffs were declared entitled to recover possession of the lands by evicting the defendants and also to recover rents and mesne profits as claimed by them. There were two appeals taken against these two decrees by the tenants defendants but the appeals were dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 26th April 1940. The plaintiff-decree-holder then put these decrees in...
Bengal Jute Mills Vs. Jewraj Heeralal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal13
ORDERGentle, J.1. This is an application to set aside an award made by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce in an arbitration upon the question referred to the arbitrators. The present applicants were the sellers and the present respondents were the buyers in two sale of goods contracts in respect of a total of 257 bales of jute known as T.S.G. Mark. Disputes arose, the buyers contending that the goods were not of the contract quality and they claimed an allowance in respect of the defective jute. The disputes under the two contracts were stated by the buyers in their letters of 10th and 18th February 1942. On 12th March following the arbitrators, through the Registrar of the Chambers Tribunal of Arbitration, published their award. I will deal later with the merits and substance of the application itself.2. Learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents took a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the present application upon the following grounds. The applicants are a firm comp...
Bhupendra Nath Mukherjee Vs. Commissioner of Utterpara Municipality, R ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal254
1. In this case the plaintiff sued for a declaration that he was the owner of holding No. 84, being an upper floor of the building in which is situated the Uttarpara Library and that for the purpose of the Municipal Act, 1932, he would be entitled to have his name substituted in the place of the abovementioned Abani Nath Mukherjee, who is a pro forma defendant in the suit. He also prays for refund of taxes paid by him under the provisions of the proviso to Section 156 of the Municipal Act and further for damages for trespass. He holds the property on a lease from a relative of his by name Abani Nath Mukherjee, granted on special terms to the effect that there would be a nominal selami of Rs. 25,000, which was not to be paid, that the lessee would spend money on repairs of the building in lieu of the payment of the rent and that the lease would be for a term of 15 years. The matter appears to be one of a family squabble to some extent, the present Chairman of the Municipality being also...
Kalidas Saha Vs. Rai Kiran Chandra Roy Bahadur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal521
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the decree-holder. It raises a point in connexion with the effect of Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act. The appellant obtained a decree for rent against the respondents. There was some money lying in another Court in connexion with the execution of a decree obtained by the respondents against a third person. The appellant applied for attachment of this money and an order in terms of the prayer was made on 8th January 1941. The order reached the Court in question that same afternoon. The new Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act, came into force on 9th January 1941. Briefly, the point of law argued in this appeal is whether it has retrospective effect. In resisting the appeal, Mr. Sen raised a further point whether the order of attachment was effective. He relied on the judgment of the Privy Council in Muthiah Chetty v. Palaniappa Chetti ('28) 15 A.I.R. 1928P.C. 139. The relevant passage is in these words:Their Lordships need not repeat in another form these propositio...
Rai Harendra Nath Chaudhury Vs. Rai Sourindra Nath Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal559
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The plaintiffs are the sons and heirs of Rai Satindra Nath Choudhury of Nakipore. Rai Harendra Nath Chowdhury, the defendant-appellant and his cousin Rai Dhirendra Nath Chowdhury of Taki jointly held under Rai Satindra a number of ganti tenures. Later on some of those tenures were split up and Rai Harendra Nath became the sole tenant under Rai Satindra in respect of the four tenures which are the subject-matter of the suit in which this appeal arises. The plaintiffs have sued him for arrears of rent and cesses together with damages for the years 1341 to 1344 B.S. The claim as laid in the plaint is for Rs. 9271-13-1. The suit was filed on 19th April 1938.2. The plaintiffs in their turn hold five tenures under Rai Harendra and others. The total rent annually payable for them is Rs. 8715 odd. In his written statement filed on 5th August 1938 Rai Harendra states that in respect of the said five tenures the sum of Rs. 8106-6-1 is due to him from the plaintiffs for the year...
Keshabdeo Kedia Vs. P. Banerjee, Sanitary Inspector, Howrah Municipali ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal31
Lodge, J.1. This was a rule on the District Magistrate of Howrah to show cause why an order passed under Section 535, Calcutta Municipal Act, by the Police Magistrate of Howrah should not be set aside. The material facts are that a complaint was made by P. Banerji, Sanitary Inspector of Howrah Municipality, against the present petitioner and three others praying for action under Section 535, Calcutta Municipal Act. After a number of adjournments the case was taken up for hearing on 19th March 1942. P. Banerji was examined as a witness and an order was passed directing the Commissioners of the Howrah Municipality to take measures and close down the khatal (cattle-shed) and thereby remedy the nuisance. The petitioner has asked us to set aside this order. Section 535, Calcutta Municipal Act, provides that the Corporation or any person who resides or owns property in Calcutta may complain to a Magistrate of the existence of any nuisance. Section 535(2) specifies the action which the Magist...
Manindra Kumar Majumdar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal236
Lodge, J.1. This rule was issued upon the District Magistrate of Bogra to show cause why an order passed under Section 514, Criminal P.C., and confirmed on appeal should not be set aside. The material facts are as follows : One Emarulla Sonar was committed to the Court of Session by a Magistrate of the first class of Bogra to take his trial under Section 307, Penal Code. The accused Emarulla Sonar applied to the Sessions Judge for bail pending the sessions trial. The learned Judge directed that he should be released on bail to the satisfaction of the committing Magistrate pending hearing of the formal application for bail. Accordingly a bond was executed by Emarulla Sonar with one surety to appear in the Court of the Deputy Magistrate when called upon. Subsequently, on 9th August 1941 the learned Sessions Judge of Pabna and Bogra heard the formal application for bail and rejected the same and he directed the Magistrate to take the necessary action for the appearance of the accused, Ema...
Province of Bengal Vs. Heirs of Late Sachindra Kumar Roy and Sm. Purna ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal125
Nasim Ali, J.1. On 18th November 1930, the respondents instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Noakhali against the appellants for recovery of possession of some char lands and for mesne profits. On 6th July 1935, they obtained a decree for possession of a portion of the lands in suit with mesne profits against the appellants. By this decree the appellants were permanently restrained from settling the decretal lands with any one permanently or temporarily or from inducting anyone on these lands. There was a direction in this decree that the amount of mesne profits would be ascertained on the application of the respondents under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil P.C. In March 1937, the respondents obtained possession of the decretal lands. On 20th May 1937, the respondents filed an application under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil P.C., for ascertainment of mesne profits in respect of the decretal lands for nine years four months, i.e., from three years before the date of the institu...
Annada Charan Chakravarti and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal251
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the Magistrate forfeiting certain bond* under Section 514, Criminal P.C. After reading the judgment, it was impossible for me to understand what exactly had taken place and I am very much obliged to Mr. Roy Choudhury, who has appeared for the Crown, for the trouble which he has taken to elucidate it. I accept his suggestion that the proper course is to set aside this order and send the case back to the Magistrate to take further proceedings, should he think it necessary to do so.2. Proceedings were drawn up under Section 107, Criminal P.C., against the first six petitioners on 14th March 1940. They were bound over by Mr. Dutt on 26th April 1940. They executed bonds on 26th June 1940. The police submitted a report to the effect that they had acted in breach of their undertaking on 19th December 1940. At the same time the complainant Submitted a report with a prayer that the bonds might be cancelled. I suppose he was labourin...
Haripada Dutta Vs. Ramsristi Kundu S/O Kedar Nath Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal250
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule is directed against an order made by the learned District Judge of Bankura under Section 40A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The point at issue between the parties is really very simple. Under Section 18 of the Act the Board settled the interest at Rs. 100. The appellate officer increased it to Rs. 220. The opposite party then moved the District Judge under Section 40A. Under that section, he is forbidden to hear the parties or any body 1 appearing on their behalf. He may, if he is satisfied that there has been a substantial failure of justice, modify or reverse the order. With all due respect to the learned Judge, I find it difficult to understand his order. He stated that he did not know which of the calculations was correct. As I am not forbidden to hear the parties, I have had the advantage of hearing the arguments on both sides and it is not disputed that there is no error in calculation. The Board awarded interest at 6 per cent, per annum, while t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›