Kolkata Court April 1943 Judgments
Md. Sulaiman Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal330
Khundkar, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of a charge containing three counts under Rule. 6, Non-Ferrous Metals Control Order, 1941, as amended by a Central Government Notification, dated 8th January 1942, read with Rule 81, Sub-rule (4), Defence of India Rules, which are statutory rules under the Defence of India Act, 1939. The appellant pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, and to pay a fine of one thousand rupees. The present appeal is directed against the sentence. Mr. Suhrawardy who appears for the appellant has urged us to set aside the sentence of imprisonment, but this prayer has been opposed by the learned Advocate-General, who appearing on behalf of the Crown, has contended that the offences committed by the appellant were so serious that a fine would not be a sufficient punishment, and that a sentence of imprisonment is called for. The material portions of Rule 81, Defence of India Rules, should be set out. Sub-...
Tag this Judgment!Benoari Lal Sarma and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal285
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This rule was issued upon the District Magistrate of Jessore to show cause why the conviction of the applicant and 14 other persons should not be set aside. The accused persons are all policemen and, according to the evidence, were directed to secure the person of a fellow policeman who was said to have become mentally deranged and instead of obeying orders they disobeyed them and behaved in a riotous manner. The District Magistrate, acting under powers conferred upon him by the Government of Bengal, directed a Special Magistrate, appointed under ordinance 2 of 1942, to try the case with the result that the Special Magistrate convicted the 15 applicants of offences under Sections 147, 149 and 832, Penal Code, and also under Rule 38(1)(a) and 5)/Rule 34 (6b)(c) of the Defence of India Rules, committing a prejudicial act. He passed no sentence in respect of the offences under the Penal Code, but as regards the offences under the Defence of India Rules he sentenced all ...
Tag this Judgment!Digendra Kumar Roy Choudhury and ors. Vs. Kuti Mian and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal132
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession on the disputed lands on evicting the defendants there from. The suit was decreed by the Munsif of Barisal, but dismissed on appeal by the learned District Judge. Hence the present appeal to this Court. The plaintiffs' claim to be 16 annas landlords and their case briefly is that they had let certain lands to one Abdul Aziz Munshi and that the latter in his turn sub-let a portion to the defendants. In 1937, the plaintiffs evicted their lessee, the said Abdul Aziz Munshi, from the holding, but the defendants refused to vacate the portion of which they were in occupation. The plaintiffs served on them a notice to quit on 5th May 1938, but without any result, and then commenced the present action on 22nd September, following.2. The defence in substance is a denial of the plaintiffs' title to the full 16 annas of the landlords' interest. It is admitted that plaintiff 1 holds 12 annas 6 pies shar...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Krishna Bhattacharya and Ors. Vs. Badri Narayan Chetlangia, the Wa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal531
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit which they instituted under Section 34, Public Demands Recovery Act, for cancellation or/and modification of a certificate for the recovery of certain alleged arrears of rent. The suit was dismissed by both the Courts below. The facts were briefly these : One Srikanta Mukherji was the owner of a 1 anna 10 gandas share in a taluk appertaining to tauzi No. 15 of the Nadai Collectorate. In the year 1274 B.S. (1808) he granted a patni in respect of his share in the touzi to one Tarini Prosad Ghose, and both the patta and the kabuliat by which this settlement was created are exhibits in the case, Ex. 1 being the patta and Ex. A the kabuliat. The zemindar's interest was subsequently acquired by one Badrinarayan, whose estate was taken charge of by the Court of Wards. The patnidar's interest was also transferred being purchased by a lady Sm. Santisudha Devi, since deceased. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 are her sons and plaintiffs 5 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mono Mohini Choudhurani W/O Nabendra Kishore Roy Vs. Nityananda S ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal609
Rau, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits, Appeal No. 974 out of suit No. 29 of 1938 and Appeal No. 975 out of Suit No. 33 of 1938. The appellant was the plaintiff in both. Suit No. 29 of 1938 was a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, and Suit No. 33 of 1938 was a suit for rent. The plaintiff's case was that she had a patni under a permanently settled estate, Char Balammara and that under the patni there was an under-tenure. On 29th November 1934 she obtained a decree for rent against the holders of the under-tenure, eight annas of the under-tenure belonged to a ward whose property had been taken charge of by the Court of Wards and the other eight annas to other persons. On 6th July 1936 she purchased the under-tenure in execution of the rent decree. On 7th July 1937, the sale was confirmed. She then annulled the under-tenure by notice under Section 167, Ben. Ten. Act, and brought the present suits, one to recover possession of the khas lands and the other to...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Binapani Devi W/O Babu Behari Lal Chakraburty Vs. Banku Behary Mo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal475
1. These are two appeals in two suits under Section 106, Ben. Ten. Act, which were heard together in the Courts below and disposed of by the same judgment. In one of the suits the plaintiff was Banku Behari Mondal who claimed that the disputed holding, which was dag 13 in Khatian 91 of Mouza Iswaripur, should be recorded in his name, while the other was by Sukeshi Bose, one of the putnidars of the mouza who supported his case. The contesting defendant in each case was defendant 1, Binapani Debi, the appellant before us, who had the entry in the record of rights made in her favour. Both the Assistant Settlement Officer and the Special Judge decreed the suits, if not on precisely the same grounds, and hence the appeals by Binapani. The material facts are now more or less admitted. The land in dispute was originally held by one Gobardhan Mondal as a raiyat under the patnidars at an annual rental of Rupees 16-4-3. In the year 1931 the putnidars obtained a rent decree against him, and in ex...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar Chandra Pal Vs. Pritilata Biswas W/O Ramesh Chandra Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal162
1. The short point, which arises in this case, is one of limitation. The question is whether the suit is barred by the special law of limitation under the Sylhet Tenancy Act (Assam Act 11 of 1936). The facts which it is necessary to state are shortly these: One Inatulla held an occupancy holding which, upon his death, devolved upon his heirs, namely, his widow, three sons and a daughter. Defendant 4, the appellant before us, was admittedly the sole landlord of the holding. In November 1931 he claims to have purchased the interest of all the heirs of Inatulla. The Courts below that Inatulla's daughter did not join in the conveyance and that her interest consequently did not pass have found it, however. It is further found that another heir Marfat, the son of Inatulla's third son, was a minor at the time and his interest also could not, therefore, be conveyed to the defendant. The position consequently was that although defendant 4 purported to purchase the entire holding, he acquired ti...
Tag this Judgment!K. Roy and Bros. Vs. Ramanath Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal37
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by McNair J. on 13th January 1943. The order was in terms of prayer (a) of the summons which was to this effect: That the Official Liquidator may be directed to pay to the applicant in pari passu with other debenture holders but in priority to other creditors whether secured or unsecured out of the sale proceeds in his hands as well as out of money realised for uncalled capital of the company and other realisations the sum of Rs. 99875-3-9 with further interest at 5 per cent, up to the date of payment being the sum due on the 151 debentures issued by the company in his favour.2. The legal question in the case is whether debentures issued by a company charged on the whole of its property which includes immovable property must be registered under the Registration Act or whether registration under the provisions relating to the registration of debentures of companies is sufficient. The facts which led up to this application are short...
Tag this Judgment!Prosad Chandra Banerjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal527
1. The appellant was tried by a Judge and jury and was convicted of an offence under Section 466, Penal Code, upon the allegation that he being a public servant had falsified a public register kept by himself, to wit, the order sheet of a Debt Settlement Board constituted under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act.2. The prosecution case was that the accused was the President of the Kaikala Debt Settlement Board of which there were three other members, and that this board considered an application by Benoy Krishna Chatterji, the complainant in the case, for a settlement of certain debts owing by his grandfather who was then in jail. On 26th October 1941, a settlement was arrived at under the terms of which a debt owing to the Narayanpur Jautha Bank was settled at a sum of Rs. 190 to be paid in certain instalments. This fact was entered in the order sheet of the proceeding on that date by the accused. The final award was read out by the accused on 28th December, that is to say, two month...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindra Nath Mazumdar Vs. Patiya Urban Co-operative Bank
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal388
Edgley, J.1. This Rule arises with reference to the case of a man named Rabindra Nath Mazumdar who was placed on his trial in respect of a charge under Section 408, Penal Code. He was duly convicted and sentenced to undergo a period of rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default further rigorous imprisonment for two weeks. The case against him was to the effect that, while he was employed as a tern-porary clerk of the Patiya Urban Co-operative Bank, he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of certain items of money which totalled Rs. 9-9-9. It may be mentioned that he was jointly tried with four other persons who were accused of abetting the criminal breach of trust which had been committed by the petitioner. In the first place, Mr. Talukdar has argued on behalf of the petitioner that the findings at which the learned Judge has arrived are not sufficient to warrant his conviction. With regard to this point we are of opinion that the findings ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »