Kolkata Court January 1943 Judgments
Leo Zepantis on Behalf of The Detenu Nicholas Schinas Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal76
Derbyshire, C.J.1. On 26th January 1943, an application was made by Mr. Surita on behalf of his client, Leo Zepantis of Stephen House, Dalhousie Square, Calcutta, under Section 491, Criminal P.C. in respect of one Nicholas Schinas who was described as a Greek national formerly residing at 3A Ripon Street, Calcutta, who it was alleged had been arrested by officers of the Calcutta Police Force at that address at about 1 P. M. on 24th January 1943 and removed therefrom by the police officers. There was an allegation that Schinas was a sailor and that he might have been put on board a ship. Accordingly the same day we issued a Rule calling upon the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, to produce Nicholas Schinas in Court on 28th January 1943 and to show cause why an Order should not be made under Section 491, Criminal P.C. in respect of Nicholas Schinas and why Nicholas Schinas should not be set at liberty.2. The proceedings under Section 491, Criminal P.C. are analogous to those known as hab...
Tag this Judgment!Chowdhury Mohammad Manjural Haque and ors. Vs. Sebait of Sri Sri Iswar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal361
Rau, J.1. This appeal is by the defendants in a suit for a declaration that a certain order made by the Board of Revenue, Bengal, on 13th September 1937 was ultra vires and void. The facts are briefly these : The revenue paying estate bearing touzi No. 655 of the Birbhum Collectorate comprises four separate accounts, viz., Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the 'ejmali' or residuary account. We are concerned in this case mainly with separate account No. 2 comprising six annas odd of the estate. The annual revenue payable in respect of this separate account is Rs. 1491-9-4 in four kists or instalments, namely, Rs. 21-12-2 in respect of the quarter 29th March-28th June, for which the latest date of payment is 28th June (1st or June kist); Rs. 89-13-3 in respect of the quarter 29th June-28th September, for which the latest date of payment is 28th September (2nd or September kist); Es.624-6-7 in respect of the quarter 29th September. 12th January, for which the latest date of payment is 12th January (3rd...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Tepi Bala Ash and ors. Vs. Smt. Asima Sundari Ash and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal57
ORDERDas, J.1. This is an application on the part of Messrs P. C. Ghose & Co., the recorded, attorneys of the plaintiffs for equitable interference of the Court to enforce their lien for unpaid costs. It is well settled that the rules of English Common Law relating to solicitors' lien are applicable to solicitors in India. At Common Law a solicitor has two rights which are termed liens; the first is a right to, retain property already in his possession until he is paid the costs due to him as solicitor and the second is a right to ask the Court to direct that personal property recovered under a judgment obtained by his exertions stand as security for his costs of such recovery. In India no distinction is made between real and personal property and therefore in India the last mentioned lien which is called 'particular lien' is operative against personal as well as real property recovered 'under a judgment. This particular lien may be actively enforced over a fund or the proceeds of a ju...
Tag this Judgment!Woomesh Chandra Datta Chowdhury Vs. Jabed Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal42
Pal, J.1. These appeals are by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent of two under-tenures. Admittedly these two under-tenures were held by the defendants under a tenure owned by one Durga Charan Guha Thakurta. Durga Charan died in October 1920, leaving a will and two sons, Haran and Rajendra. By his will he appointed his son Haran and one Nibaran Chandra Ghosh as joint executors. The executors applied for the probate of the will and on 26th February 1921, the application was allowed. The executors however did not obtain the grant of the probate till 20th January 1925.2.The landlords of Durga Charan's tenure had instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent of the tenure against Durga Charan during his lifetime and obtained a decree in that suit before his death. They took out execution of this decree after his death making his two sons parties to the execution proceeding as his legal representative, and in this execution case put the tenure to sale under ch. 14, B...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal224
Derbyshire, C.J.1. On 2nd November 1942, Santosh Kumar Bhattacharjee was observed by policemen distributing certain leaflets in Calcutta. He was arrested and, according to the Magistrate who dealt with the matter, two kinds of leaflets were found on him one of which was not regarded as objectionable and the other was said to be a prejudicial report within the meaning of Rule 34, Defence of India Rules. The matter was reported to the police who placed it before Mr. J. Ahmad, Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta. Mr. Ahmad had been designated by the Government of Bengal as a Special Magistrate to exercise powers conferred on Special Magistrates by ordinance No. 2 of 1942. A chalan was issued under Sections 38(5), 38(1)(c), 39(6) and 39(1)(6), Defence of India Rules, and 5th December 1942 was fixed for the hearing of the charge, the accused being granted bail in the meantime. On 5th December 1942, the Magistrate made a note in his file that he took the case up as a Special M...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kishori Khanra (Khara) S/O Khetra Khanra (Khara)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal515
Khundkar, J.1. This is a reference under Section 374, Criminal P.C., for confirmation of a sentence of death passed on one Kishori Khanra, who was found guilty of murder by the unanimous verdict of a jury. Along with the reference there is an appeal by the condemned man. On behalf of the accused several points have been taken before us, but in the view I take, it is necessary to consider only the first of these. It is that the jury was not properly constituted, inasmuch as only seven persons were empanelled to serve on the jury, in violation of the proviso to Section 274(2), Criminal P.C. That proviso is in these terms:Provided that, when any accused person is charged with an offence punishable with death, the jury shall consist of not less than seven persons, and, if practicable, of nine persons.2. In the present case 18 persons were summoned as jurors for this particular trial, nine attended, and seven were empanelled. It is contended that, though it was practicable for the Judge to ...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Rameswar Nathany (Dudwali) Bahadur Vs. Subodh Gopal Basu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal262
Edgley, J.1. The appellant in this case is defendant 2 Rameswar Nathany, and the appeal arises with reference to a suit brought by the plaintiff for the recovery of khas possession and a declaration of his title in respect of certain land. His case was to the effect that he had purchased some property appertaining to touzis Nos. 6 and 6/1 at a revenue sale which was held in 1936. After his purchase he sought to annul all encumbrances under these touzis under the provisions of Section 37 of the Revenue Sale Law and the only dispute which arises in connexion with the present appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to annul as an encumbrance the tenure of the contesting defendant (defendant 2) in respect of three plots of land numbered 76/211, 76/212 and 77/214.2. The first point argued by the learned advocate for the appellant is that the lower appellate Court was wrong in holding that certain entries contained in the record of rights as published in 1931 should be preferred to some ...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanna Dev Raikat Vs. Bisseswar Dass Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal46
Akram, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for enhancement of rent of a tenure under Section 7, Ben. Ten. Act. The h trial Court decreed the suit in part allowing enhancement from 1345 B.S. Section The defendants therefore preferred an appeal. The lower appellate Court upon a construction put upon 8. 75A, Ben. Ton. Act, dismissed the suit, against that decision the plaintiff filed the present appeal. It has been urged before us by the learned advocate for the appellant that the interpretation put upon Section 75A, by the Court below was erroneous and that the suit had been dismissed upon a wrong view of the Section; that the decision in K. C. Mukherjee v. Mt, Ram Katan Kuer , referred to by the learned District Judge had no application to the present case. In our opinion the above contention seems to be correct. Section 75A (i) suspends all provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, relating to enhancement of rent for a period of ten years from 27th August 1937, that Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Bhabani Prosanna Lahiri Vs. Sarojini Debya W/O Jatindra Mohan Lahiri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal106
Tiff No. 106 and 107 not Availablethe Government to agree to pay Rs. 10,000 for the past profits in respect of three of the hats and to make future payments according to the profits of these hats.7. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant also received payment of this sum of Rs. 10,000 from the Government for and on behalf of all the cosharers on a written authority given him in this respect by them, that by the terms of the written authority the defendant was required to make payments to the several cosharers in proportion to their respective shares, that the defendant was thus liable to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 3218-12-0, that out of this he paid only Rs. 800 and did not pay the balance of Rs. 2918-12-0 in spite of repeated demands. The plaintiff claimed damages at 25 per cent, on this balance and laid her claim in this suit at us. 3648-7-0.8. The defendant received payment of Rs. 10,000 on 23rd February 1934 and the present suit was instituted on 22nd February 1940. The written a...
Tag this Judgment!Peoples Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Benoy Bhusan Bhowmik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal199
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an appellate order of J. De, Esq., District Judge, Dacca, dated 2lst August 1942, made in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 158 of 1942 by which an order of the Subordinate Judge, Fourth Court, of that place returning a plaint under Order 7, Rule 10, Civil P.C., was reversed. The facts material for our present purposes may be shortly stated as follows: The defendant petitioner is an insurance company having its registered office at 1, Mission Road, Lahore. It has also a branch office at Bangla Bazar in the town of Dacca. One Bidhu Bhusan Bhowmik, who had his native village at Harina in the district of Dacca insured his life with the defendant company for a sum of Rs. 2000 and the company granted a policy bearing No. 10950 dated 2nd February 1937. After paying a certain number of premia Bidhu Bhusan Bhowmik died at his native village on 16th September 1938, and thereafter a suit was instituted by the plaintiffs opposite party, who are the heirs ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »