Kolkata Court May 1943 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.
Chairman, Municipality Kishoregunj Vs. Radhika Mohan Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal377
Edgley, J.1. In this case the learned Ad-ditional District Magistrate of Mymensingh recommends that the acquittal of the opposite party be set aside and that the case in which he was acquitted be ordered for retrial. It appears that the opposite party, Radhika Mohan Ghose, was placed on his trial before an Honorary Magistrate of Kishoregunj in respect of an alleged offence under Section 501, Bengal Municipal Act. The case against him was to the effect that he had erected a building within the municipal area without having obtained the requisite permission under Section 318 of the Act. The learned Magistrate acquitted the opposite party mainly on two grounds (1) that there was no evidence to the effect that Schedule VI, Bengal Municipal Act, together with Sections 315, 317 and 329 had been applied by notification to the Kishoregunj Municipality and (2) that, in any case, the prosecution of the opposite party had been sanctioned not by the Commissioners at a meeting as contemplated by Se...
Bibhuti Bhusan Banerjee Vs. Dwarikanath Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal574
Sen, J.1. The petitioner and the accused c were rival candidates for election as com-missioner of ward 8 of the Bhatpara Municipality. The nomination paper of the accused was rejected by the chairman on the ground that there was no seconder. It was held that the name of the seconder, Jung Bahadur, was forged. Against this decision, there was an appeal to the District Magistrate who is the appellate authority under rules framed under the Bengal Municipal Act. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner then filed a complaint before the Subdivisional Officer, Barrackpore, charging the accused with having committed an offence punishable under Section 471, Penal Code. The accused was summoned but discharged on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation as Section 34(b), Bengal Municipal Act, prescribed a period of limitation for the prosecution of an offence of this nature and that period was seven days from the date of the commission of the offence. Against this decision, the com...
Baldeodas Bajoria and anr. Vs. Governor of United Provinces
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal44
ORDERDas, J.1. This is an application on the part of the plaintiffs for an order that a mandatory injunction be granted by this Court enjoining the defendant his servants and agents to restore the status quo by handing back or causing to be handed back to the plaintiffs the areas taken away from them by the requisitioning order of the defendant dated 30th September 1942, together with all moveable property thereon belonging to the plaintiffs. The present application came to be made in the following circumstances: On 28th September 1937, a contract was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant which granted the plaintiffs the right to extract bhabar grass for 15 years in six forest areas in the Western circle in the United Provinces, namely, the Saharanpur, Lansdowne, Kalagarh, Ramnagar, Haldwani and Dehra Dun Division. The contract a copy of which is annexure 'A' to the plaint was expressed to be made between the Governor of the United Provinces of the one part and Baldeoda...
Rani Harshamukhi Dasi, Executrix to Estate of Raja Manindra Chandra Si ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal453
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This rule has been issued in respect of an order passed by the Munsif, First Court, Hooghly, in exercise of his Small Cause Court jurisdiction decreeing the plaintiffs' claim for rent. The plaintiffs claimed to have 7 annas odd share of a superior interest as shebaits - the remaining share being held by opposite party 5, who was made a pro forma defendant in the suit. They sued for their share of rent accordingly. The principal defence taken was that the lands in suit, which are included in the Municipality, Chinsurah, appertained to the defendant's touzi No. 194 and not to the plaintiffs' touzi No. 17. The record of rights shows the lands as being included in the plaintiffs' touzi No. 17. The plaintiffs have not produced any evidence to support this entry in the record of rights nor have they shown that rent has been collected by them in respect of the disputed lands. The defendant produced some papers to show that she had been collecting rent from the tenants trea...
inchan Alias Insan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal647
Edgley, J.1. There are seven appellants in this case who have been found guilty under Section 147, Penal Code, and have been, sentenced to a period of rigorous imprisonment for two years each. They were originally placed on their trial together with a man named Ijat who was charged with committing an offence under Section 302, Penal Code. The jury found Ijat not guilty under Section 302 but guilty under Section 147, Penal Code. Ijat has not appealed to this Court against his conviction under Section 147, Penal Code. The case for the prosecution was to the effect that Jabid Ali had incurred the enmity of his CO-villagers on account of his association with a woman named Kamaljan Bibi whom he had taken to live with him as his wife. It seems that Jabid Ali had actually instituted proceedings against some of his co-villagers under Section 107, Criminal P.C. and that it was alleged on 14th April, the day preceding the occurrence with which we are now concerned, he had been attacked while he ...
Sm. Probhabati Mitra Vs. Anil Kumar Das and anr., Represented by Guard ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal629
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is directed against the appellate decision of Mr. S.K. Haldar, District Judge of Khulna, affirming an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of that place, made on an application presented by the respondents under Sections 34 and 86, Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940. The appellant, Prabhabati Mitra, had advanced a sum of 1500 to the respondents who were and are still minors on a mortgage of their ancestral dwelling house, and the mortgage bond was executed on their behalf by their mother Benodini Dasi. The mortgagee commenced a suit to enforce the mortgage bond some time in 1936. This litigation had a chequered career, and eventually a money decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff against the respondents for a sum of Rs. 2025 together with costs amounting to about Rs. 713 odd. This decree was put into execution, and the only property of the minors which was their residential house in the town of Khulna was attached and sold for a sum of Rs. 2000 o...
Asharam Thikadar Vs. Dan Chand Chapra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal61
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1 Having heard Mr. Bagchi for the appellant and Mr. Khaitan for the respondents, we are of opinion that the Court below approached the case from a wrong standpoint and failed to advert to the specific provisions of Section 85, Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940. In the first place, the learned Subordinate Judge was not right in saying that Section 35, Bengal Money-Lenders Act, is not applicable to mortgage decree. There is nothing in the section which excludes mortgage decrees from its operation. In the second place, we think that in carrying out the directions of that section it is incumbent upon the Court not only to specify so much of the property of the judgment-debtor which it considers saleable at a price sufficient to satisfy the decree, it must also specify the price of the property below which it cannot be sold. In our opinion, in cases coming under Section 35, Bengal Money-Lenders Act, the Court has got to determine the price of the property which is to be put u...
Surendra NaraIn Sarbadhikari Vs. Bholanath Roy Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal613
1. Bhabesh Chandra Roy Chowdhury, the proprietor of the Barla estate Chota Taraf, died on 9th April 1926. He died childless, survived by his widow, Hembarani. On 20th February 1926, shortly before his death, he executed a will (Ex. AB). He appointed eight persons, Surendra Narayan Sarbadhikari, Tarak Nath Singha, Bhabesh Chandra Sinha, Sushil Chandra Mondal, Harish Chandra Sen, Gopeswara Chakrabarty, Nobin Chandra Chattapadhyay and his wife as executors. In the will he expressed the desire of installing a deity, Sree Sree Iswar Baneswara Shib Thakur, and of dedieating to it specified properties yielding an annual income of about Rs. 6000. He provided that in case he died before installing the deity and dedicating those properties, his wife was to install the deity and to dedicate those properties to the idol by executing an Arpannama. She was to be the first shebait, to be succeeded by his natural son, if he had one or by his adopted son. He also expressed a desire to take a son in ado...
Ahmed Mia and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal243
Sen, J.1. Six persons, namely, Ahmed Mia, Abul Kashem, Nurus Safa alias Ahmed Sofa, Syedar Rahaman, Ali Mullah and Khalilur Rahaman were sent up for trial charged under various sections of the Penal Code. They were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Chittagong and a jury and they were all convicted under various sections of the Penal Code. Five of the appellants have appealed. They are the first five named above. The case against the appellants may, briefly, be stated thus: Amir Hossain and certain other persons claimed to have a right of way over a certain path leading to a tank. They alleged that the accused obstructed that pathway by erecting a bamboo fencing. When they went to remove that fencing, the accused and others assaulted them as a result of which one Ahmed Mia was killed. The defence taken broadly may be stated thus: Amir Hossain and his party were attempting to carve out a pathway over land belonging to the appellants. They trespassed into the homestead portion of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›