Kolkata Court July 1943 Judgments
Keshabdeo Bagat Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal93
Das, J.1. The two appellants in the two appeals, No. 407 of 1942 and 409 of 1942 which have been heard together, were tried at one trial before one of the Honorary Presidency Magistrates of Calcutta. There was one joint charge against both the appellants under Section 120B read with Sections 408 and 414 for having, between March 1940 and June 1940, conspired with one Lal Chand to commit offences under Sections 408 and 414, Penal Code. There were eight separate charges (a) to (h) under Section 408 read with Section 109, Penal Code, for having aided and abetted Lal Chand to commit criminal breach of trust as servant in respect of eight several cheques entrusted to Lal Chand by the complainant's firm of Sohon Lal Mohon Lal and yet another eight separate charges (i) to (p) under Section 414 read with Section 109, Penal Code, for having voluntarily assisted in the disposal of stolen property, to wit the same eight cheques belonging to the complainant knowing or having reason to believe the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ram Charan Sinha Vs. Gopi Nath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal302
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This Rule raises only one small point. It is directed against an Order of the Subordinate Judge refusing to hear an application under Section 38, Bengal Money-Lenders Act, on the ground that it was not maintainable. The petitioners were largely responsible because they introduced into their petition a mass of matters which could not arise on such an application and the major portion of the learned Judge's judgment is not germane to the real point. It is not necessary to set out many details for the decision of the present point. Suffice it to say that the opposite parties are in possession of certain properties as usufructuary mortgagees. A part of the usufruct is to be credited as interest and the balance to the reduction of the principal sum due. The actual lands are in possession of produce paying tenants. Under Section 38 the petitioners are entitled to apply to the Court to take an account and make a declaration how much, if any, is now due to the opposite par...
Tag this Judgment!Achiran Bibi W/O Abbas Ali Mallik and ors. Vs. Babur Ali Sapui Alias B ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal156
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the principal defendants 1 to 6. There was a reference to arbitration while Schedule 2, Civil P.C., was still in force. The Munsif made a decree in accordance with the award. The plaintiff appealed. The Subordinate Judge set aside the order of the Munsif on the ground that the reference to arbitration was without jurisdiction. The contention of the appellant is that the appeal in the lower appellate Court was incompetent. There has been a great divergence of judicial opinion on the question whether in such cases a second appeal lies. Until the matter is settled one way or the other by a Full Bench, parties will be compelled to file both an appeal and an application in revision in every case. That has been done in the present case. My own view is, as I have stated previously on many occasions that no appeal lies. I find it difficult to persuade myself that a second appeal can be created by something done in a District Court without jurisdiction of any k...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeb Mandal Vs. Ratan Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal186
Khundkar, J.1. This appeal in which the plaintiff is the appellant arises out of a suit for declaration of title in and recovery of khas possession of, one half of a certain holding, upon the allegation that the plaintiff purchased the entire holding in a rent execution sale under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The facts, in so far as they are admitted, are as follows. The lands comprised in the holding in dispute constituted an under raiyati jama of 3.42 acres with a right, of occupancy, held at a rental of Rs. 19-8-0(SIC) The landlords of this jama were Rama Nath, Sardar and others, and the jama was held by one Tarak Nath Biswas by virtue of a potta, granted to him. It would appear that at some time prior to the year 1903, the predecessors-in-interest of defendants 1 to 4 were given a subordinate tenancy under this jama In the year .1907, Tarak Nath brought a rent suit or suits against the predecessors of defendants 1 to 4, and from the records of that litigation, it appea...
Tag this Judgment!MahiuddIn Biswas Vs. Gopi Charan Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal82
ORDER1. This Rule raises a question, which so far as we are aware, has not yet been decided. The question is whether a suit for recovery of a loan would be taken to be a suit to which the Bengal Money-Lenders Act applies by reason of the fact that the decree-holder had filed a statement of claim after 1st January 1939, on the basis of his decree to a Debt Settlement Board (hereafter called the Board) established under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act in pursuance of a notice issued under the provision of Section 13 of that Act, the debtor having applied to settle his debts under Section 8. It would be unnecessary to decide the other questions raised before us, if this question be answered in the negative.2. The opposite party, Gopi Charan Moldal filed a suit in 1933, to enfores two mortgages executed in his favour by the petitioner, one on 21st January 1921 which secured a loan of Rs. 381, and the other on 11th July 1927, which secured another loan of Rs. 946. The Properties mortgag...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath Sahu Vs. Bidhu Bhusan Panja and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal64
Khundkar, J.1. This appeal which is at the instance of a defendant arises out of a suit for malicious prosecution. The facts shortly stated are as follows: One Nagendrabala instituted a suit against Sailajakanta, brother of the appellant Surendra, on a mortgage in which the defence taken was that the bond had been paid off and a receipt granted. The receipt was found to be a forgery, but at the appellate stage it was discovered that a document on which the plaintiff herself had relied had also been fabricated. This was a certified copy of a judgment in another suit in which two lines of type-writing had been introduced by way of addition to what the original judgment had contained. These additional lines were found to have been forged. Sailajakanta, the defendant in the mortgage suit, moved the appellate Court to make a criminal complaint against Nagendrabala and one Bidhu Panja who subsequently became the plaintiff in the suit for malicious prosecution, and who is respondent in the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Dutt Vs. Superintendent of Insurance and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal157
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is a very difficult matter for us to deal with. The original petition for winding up of this company was presented as far back as 1938 and the order for winding up was made in 1941 but suspended pending the formulation and approval of a scheme. That was the result of Panckridge J.'s order dated 24th November 1941. He therein said : The Official Liquidator does not advertise his appointment or take any further steps in the winding up for a period of two months from the data hereof within which time it will be open to the company or any other policy-holder to present any further application for the reduction of the policy contracts and that in the meantime no transfer of shares be allowed.2. Consequent upon that the present applicant Gopesh Chandra Pal formulated a scheme for dealing with the position of the company and its policy-holders. McNair J. has rejected that scheme and directed the winding up to go on. The position of the company is that it is certainly i...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Tokani Prosad Kamini Kumar Paul Vs. Shyamapada Banerjee (Surety) ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal193
Henderson, J.1. This appeal raises a question of procedure. The appellant is the decree-holder. He took proceedings to attach a motor car belonging to the judgment-debtor before judgment. One Nut Behary Das opposed the attachment on the ground that he was a mortgagee. The car was released on the respondents executing a security bond. The appellant has now filed an application in the suit asking for the sale of certain property mortgaged by the respondent in the security bond. The Munsif rejected the application and an appeal to the District Court was dismissed. 2. The first point for consideration is whether an appeal is at all competent. I may note that there is an alternative application in revision. As the point in dispute can be taken equally well in either, this is chiefly a matter of academic interest. Mr. Mitter has relied on a decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Ayyaswami Ayyar v. Sivakkiammal (33) 20 A.I.R. 1933 Mad. 780. The learned Judges do not state un...
Tag this Judgment!Nirodhini Alias Nirodi Sangma W/O Kandal Marak Vs. Nanda Sangma and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal213
Rau, J.1. The only question in this second appeal is as to the customary rule of inheritance amongst the Garos of Mymensingh. The facts are simple. The parties belong to the Sangma clan or sect of the plains Garos of the Mymensingh District as distinguished from the hill Garos. One Kanai acquired certain lands by his personal labour as well as with borrowed money. There is no dispute now that upon his death they passed to his widow, Indra Moni, who however died later the same day, leaving some sons, two sisters and a sister's daughter. Plaintiff 1 is one of the sisters and plaintiff 2 is the daughter of the other sister. They claim the estate alleging that they are entitled to it in preference to the sons of the deceased under Garo custom. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit. The finding of the lower appellate Court as to the oral evidence in the case is this: The evidence of the witnesses examined by both sides does not seem to be quite reliable on the question of the custom...
Tag this Judgment!Abinash Chandra Biswas Vs. Nakul Ruhidas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal192
Rau, J.1. This is a reference under Order 46, Rule 1, Civil P.C., by the Munsif of Bongaon. The question formulated by him is in the following terms: If a civil Court receives a notice under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, in a case pending before it, the subject-matter thereof being a liability incurred after 1st January 1940, is it bound to stay the proceedings in view of the fact that the aforesaid liability is not a debt within the meaning of the said Act? The words 'liability incurred after 1st January 1940' are ambiguous. Incurred in whose opinion? There are three possibilities: First, where the liability is, in the opinion of the Debt Settlement Board itself, incurred after 1st January 1940, there is no difficulty. A notice issued in respect of a debt which in the opinion of the Board itself was incurred after the aforesaid date is plainly without jurisdiction. In such a case, therefore, the civil Court is not bound to stay the proceedings. 2. Then there is a second...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »