Kolkata Court June 1943 Judgments
Nandalal Ghose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal283
Lodge, J.1. This Rule was issued upon the District Magistrate of Noakhali to show cause why convictions and sentences passed under Sections 193 and 199, Penal Code, should not be set aside. The material facts are as follows: The petitioner was accused of an offence in a complaint made before the Raipur Union Bench. The Bench issued a summons for the appearance of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner moved the Sub-divisional Magistrate for a transfer of the case from the file of the Union Bench. A question arose before the Sub-divisional Officer whether the petitioner had or had not appeared before the Union Bench in answer to the summons. A report was received from the Union Bench that the petitioner had not appeared before the Bench either on 8th July or on 12th July 1942. The petitioner stated before the Sub-divisional Officer that he had appeared before the Union bench on those days. The Sub-divisional Officer thereupon directed the petitioner to file an affidavit to the effect...
Tag this Judgment!General Rana Parakram Jung Bahadur S/O Rana Gyan Jung Bahadur Vs. Pras ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal23
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule raises a point of jurisdiction. The petitioner has instituted the suit in order to recover possession of a four annas share in a certain tea garden together with mesne profits. The point in dispute is whether the suit should be tried in the Court of the Subordinate Judge or in the Court of the Deputy Collector in view of the provisions of Act 10 of 1859. The Subordinate Judge returned the plaint for presentation in the proper Court. An appeal by the petitioner was dismissed by the District Judge. Both the Courts below have held that the defendants are raiyats. The foundation of the plaintiff's claim is that the lease of the defendants has been terminated. The Subordinate Judge held that he was entitled to go behind the plaint and see what the claim really was. Having taken this view he held that the plaintiff's case that the lease has been terminated fails and that the suit is really one for rent and not for mesne profits. I must confess that I should fin...
Tag this Judgment!Sashi Kumar Baishnab and ors. Vs. Ramani Mohan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal228
Rau, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit brought by them for a declaration that a certain revenue sale held under Bengal Act 7 of 1868 read with Act 11 of 1859 was without jurisdiction and for confirmation of possession. The land in suit is an Osat Nimhowla in a Government Khas Mahal in the Sunderbans. It appears that one Sunu Howladar held a Howla or tenure directly tinder Government. Subsequently, in 1902 he created a Nimhowla or under-tenure by granting settlement of 175 bighas odd out of his lands to the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the plaintiffs sold the Nimhowla to one Ramjiban and took a sub-lease or Osat Nimhowla from him. In 1933, the Government sold the Howla for arrears of rent and purchased it themselves. Then in 1937 they similarly sold and bought the Nimhowla and finally on 23rd June 1938, the Osat Nimhowla was sold for its arrears to the principal defendant in the present suit. It is this last sale that is attacked in the suit and it is attacked on the ground ...
Tag this Judgment!Dula Mia Vs. Dacca Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal160
ORDERHenderson, J.1. The petitioners are two boatmen. They have been convicted for violating the provisions of Section 198, Bengal Municipal Act. The prosecution is at the instance of the Dacca. Municipality. Their complaint is due to the fact that the activities of the two petitioners and other persons seriously interfered with the profits of the two lessees of the Municipal Commissioners. The section prohibits the keeping of ferry boats within two miles of a municipal ferry without the sanction of the commissioners. It is not disputed that neither of the petitioners has obtained such sanction. The prosecution, therefore, had to establish, firstly that the boats of the petitioners are ferry boats, and secondly, that they were kept within two miles, of the municipal ferry.2. On the first point Mr.Dutta contended that there is no evidence that the boats in question are ferryboats. The term 'ferry, has not been defined in the Act. Mr.Dutta argued that it connotes (1) carrying persons fro...
Tag this Judgment!Jadu Mandalani W/O Laljan Mondal Vs. Sarajini Choudhurani W/O Harendra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal100
ORDER1. This rule has been issued against an order of the Munsif, First Court, Berhampur, vacating an order staying proceedings in mortgage suit No. 19 of 1941 in which a preliminary decree had been passed. The judgment-debtor in the suit is the present petitioner, and the plaintiff is the opposite party. The plaintiff had, before institution of the mortgage suit, filed an application before the Banneswar Debt Settlement Board; the application was dismissed under Section 13 (3), Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, for non-appearance of the petitioner, the debtor before the board. It is the case of the petitioner that in fact this was a collusive proceeding of which she had no knowledge. After the preliminary decree was passed in the mortgage suit, she made an application under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act before the Kusmore Debt Settlement Board, and on 7th August 1942, that board issued a notice under Section 34 of the Act, as a result of which the mortgage suit was stayed by an o...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chuni Lal De and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal448
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Dacca recommending that certain proceedings pending against the petitioner and another person under section 198, Penal Code, should be quashed. The other person referred to is the complainant in a certain case. The petitioner is his pleader. A certificate was produced given by a certain doctor to the effect that the injuries on the complainant were severe. This certificate appeared to be so absurd that the Sub-divisional Magistrate had the complainant examined by another doctor who stated that the injuries in question were slight. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate is apparently of opinion that the practice of granting certificates of this kind is growing far too common and therefore directed the prosecution of the complainant and his pleader under Section 198, Penal Code, although the chief culprit if there be a culprit, was the doctor.2. The severity of the injury is a matter of opinion. Apart from other difficulties pointe...
Tag this Judgment!Becharam Mukherji Vs. Emperor and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal224
Das, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by one Becharam Mukherjee who has been convicted by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta on 17th December 1942, under Section 380, Penal Code, and on three counts and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another six months, the fine if realised being directed to be paid over as compensation to one Sailaja, who is respondent 2 in this appeal. The prosecution which resulted in the aforesaid conviction and sentence against which the present appeal is directed was initiated by a petition of complaint (Ex. 4) filed by one Manikbala as complainant before the Chief Presidency Magistrate on 27th February 1942, charging the appellant under Sections. 403, 406 and 420, Penal Code. On that date the Chief Presidency Magistrate after examining the complainant referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Detective Department, with a direct...
Tag this Judgment!ijjatali Talukdar and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal539
Das, J.1. The two petitioners before us are husband and wife. They were tried before the Subdivisional Magistrate of Serajganj on a charge under Section 46(a), Bengal Excise Act, for being in possession of illicit distilled spirit in contravention of Section 18 of that Act and also on a further charge under Section 16(f) of the same Act for using, keeping and having in their possession certain materials and apparatus for the purpose of manufacturing spirit in contravention of Section 13 of that Act. One of the defences of the petitioners wag that the prosecution had been engineered at the instance and instigation of one Bazlur Rahaman (a nephew of the first petitioner) who had contrived to plant the offending materials and apparatus in the house of the petitioners out of old enmity towards them. It appears that on 12th May 1912 the petitioners applied to the Subdivisional Magistrate for issuing a summons on the Excise Commissioner, Bengal, for production of the petition alleged to have...
Tag this Judgment!Gobinda Chandra Ghosh Alias G. Ghosh and anr. Vs. Abdul Majid Ostagar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal163
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of defendants 2 and 3 in a suit commenced by the plaintiffs under Section 92, Civil P.C. The suit relates to certain immovable properties situated at Rai Sahib Bazar in the town of Dacca, with regard to which he alleged one Khidir Buksh Khansama to have made a wakf for the upkeep of a mosque built. The plaintiffs are the members of the Mahomedan public who are interested in the mosque, two of them being the brother's grandsons of Khidir Buksh, and the suit was commenced with the sanction of the Collector of Dacca as contemplated by Section 98, Civil P.C. According to the plaintiffs the wakf was created by a towliatnama executed by Khidir Buksh on 9th May 1851, by which the properties specified in sch. A of the plaint were dedicated to the mosque which is itself described as property No. 1 of Sch. B. Another person named Miran who lived in the same locality is said to have dedicated a plot of land to the services of the same mosque by a deed...
Tag this Judgment!Pran Krishna Naskar Vs. Bhagawan Chandra Middey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal66
Henderson, J.1. The main question raised in this appeal is whether a sale held in execution of a decree obtained by the appellant or an order of transfer made by the appellate officer under the provisions of Section 39, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act is a nullity. The following facts require to be noted in order to under, stand the point in dispute. They are set out in chronological order. The execution case was stayed on receipt of a notice under Section 34 of the Act on 5th February 1940. The judgment-debtor applied for a transfer to the appellate officer on 17th December 1940. The board dismissed the case on 19th December 1940. On receipt of information from the board to this effect, the Munsif vacated his stay order on 17th January 1941 and directed that execution will proceed. The property was attached on 35th January 1941. The appellate officer made an ex parte order of transfer to the Ramchandrapur Board on 13th February 1941. The sale was held on 7th March 1941. Before dealing...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »