Kolkata Court November 1943 Judgments
Abdur Rasheed Vs. Maharaja Srish Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal301
Henderson, J.1. These appeals are by the decreeholder. The judgment-debtor's estate is in the charge of the Court of Wards, and it is rather extraordinary to find them trying to dodge out of payment of rent. The question involved is the meaning of the word 'entire' in Section 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act. The facts are these. The decrees are for rent due on a certain patni. The interest of the respondent is eight annas, the remaining eight annas belonging to a third person. When the appellant attempted to execute the decrees the respondent successfully defeated him by Section 10C, Court of Wards Act. He accordingly proceeded against the other judgment-debtor alone and put his share of the patni up to sale. Section 10C no longer affords any help to the respondent and the appellant is attempting to sell his share in the patni. The objection depends upon putting stress upon the word 'entire' and the contention of the respondent was that the only way of realizing the amount is by putting up th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kauser Ali Sk. S/O Kasem Sheikh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal249
Khundkar, J.1. This is a reference under section 374, Criminal P.C. for confirmation of the sentences of death passed upon the two accused Kauser Ali Sk. and Asmat (Ali) Mallik, who were convicted under section 302/34, Penal Code. Along with the reference there is an appeal by the two condemned men. The verdict of the jury as against Kauser Ali Sk. was unanimous, but in the case of Asmat it was divided in the proportion of 5 to 2. Before saying anything about the merits of the case, a point of law raised on behalf of the appellants should be dealt with. Upon the order-sheet of the learned trial Judge the first entry under the date 9th August 1934 reads as follows:Owing to the paucity of Jurors, the trial commenced with seven Jurors. Out of eighteen Jurors called, only nine attended. Out of those nine one is too ill to sit and another gentleman, who is a Chemical Assistant in the Government Test House, Alipore, submits a letter from the Director, Government Test House, with the request ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Joyram Pathak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal121
Derbyshire, C.J.1. In the twelve oases of convictions under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules, namely, profiteering cases, this Court of its own motion issued Rules upon the res-pective persons convicted to show cause why their sentences should not be increased. We did so, as I have said, of our own motion because it seemed to us that inadequate sen. tenses were being inflicted, and that the pro-secution was not appealing against them. It is of course the duty of the Government to enforce the law. The High Court is only concerned with seeing that the laws are enforced according to their meaning and tenor; but we have power to call for the records of eases and examine them, and, if we think that they have not been dealt with correctly, to deal with them. But as I have said it is the duty of Government to enforce the law. A.s long as Ordinance 2 of 1942 was in operation, there were serious difficulties in the way of our calling for the records of a ease of profiteering, considering it ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›