Kolkata Court July 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.
Niharenddu Dutta Mazumdar and ors. Vs. A.E. Porter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal107
Derbyshire, C.J.1. These are two sets of proceedings in which rules have been issued by this Court upon the respective opposite parties to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt of Court. In the second matter, namely, that of Shibnath Banerjee, the rule also calls upon the opposite parties to show cause why Shibnath Banerjee should not be set at liberty. The two rules arise out of the same set of circumstances which are as follows: (1) Niharendu Dutta Mazumdar, (2) Shibnath Banerjee, (3) Bejoy Singh Nahar, (4) Debabrata Roy, (5) Narendra Nath Sen Gupta, (6) Birendra Ganguly, (7) Pratul Chandra Ganguly, (8) Nanigopal Mazumdar and (9) Sasanka Sekhar Sanyal who I will refer to hereafter as the detenus were held in detention under Rule 26, Defence of India Rules. On 22nd April 1943 the Federal Court declared Rule 26 to be invalid having regard to the wording of the section of the Defence of India Act under which the rule was made. A day or two after 22nd April 1943 the sa...
Maharaja Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Sukhomoy Ghose and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal49
Blank, J.1. The facts from which these rules arise are briefly the following: One Khalil Mohamed held an ordinary raiyati jote under the petitioner at a rental of Rs. 3-3-6. Opposite parties 1 to 4 got a money decree against opposite parties 5 to 10, the heirs of the said Khalil Mohamed, and put up the jote to auction in execution of the decree and purchased it on 11th July 1939. The sale was confirmed on 10th August 1939, and possession was delivered to the decree-holder auction-purchaser on 11th May 1940. On 29th May 1940, opposite party 5 filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C. On 31st August 1940, the case was disposed of in terms of a compromise between the parties. The terms of the compromise are not before us. On 5th May 1941, the petitioner got notice of the sale, apparently by receiving Re. 1 only as landlord's fee. On 23rd October 1941, the petitioner filed an application under Section 35, Sylhet Tenancy Act, against opposite parties 1 to 4 for a decree for ...
Jatindra Nath Pal Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal144
Gentle, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff claims (1) damages for wrongful dismissal (2) the amount due to him which he alleges was about Rs. 6500 on 1st October 1935 from the Corporation Provident Fund. An amendment of the plaint, which I have allowed, in regard to the relief claimed also raises a claim for salary from 1st October 1935 until 14th July 1941 or until 18th February 1942. The claim for salary was originally pleaded in para. 11 of the plaint as damages for wrongful dismissal and not as salary simpliciter. In their written statement, the defendants admit that the plaintiff was dismissed from their service and allege that such dismissal was justified by reason of the misconduct of the plaintiff in the course of his service with them. They state that a sum of Rs. 5727/13 is credited in the plaintiff's account of the Provident Fund of which Rs. 2869-5-0 represents the amount of his own contribution to the fund and which latter amount they were and are still willing to pay to him,...
Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. Victor Oil Company Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal84
Rau, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs, the Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co. Ltd., in a suit for ejectment and mesne profits brought against the respondents, the Victor Oil Co., Ltd. The facts are briefly these: There was a verbal agreement between the parties to the effect that the defendant company would take a lease of the disputed godown for a period of 3 years 'from 1st June 1936' on a monthly rent of Rs. 250. The defendant company went into possession on 1st June 1936 and has been in possession ever since. A written lease had been contemplated but none was actually executed. On 13th November 1940, the plaintiff company served a notice upon the defendants to give up possession of the premises 'on the expiry of 1st December 1940.' Both the Courts below have held that this 'was not a valid notice under Section 106, T. P. Act. Hence this second appeal. The sole question raised before us is as to the validity of the notice. The sections to be considered are Sections 106 and 110, ...
Sm. Swarnamonjuri Dassi, Excutrix to Estate of Babu Broja Lal Seal Vs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal203
Roxburgh, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the District Judge of Howrah allowing an appeal against an Order passed in proceedings under S.47, Civil P.C. by the Subordinate Judge of the First Court, Howrah, dismissing the objection of judgment-debtors 3 and 4 before him made under the provisions of S.168A, Ben. Ten. Act, to the effect that the landlord decree-holder could not proceed by attachment and sale against any property other than the tenure in arrear. The decree sought to be executed was a decree in respect of arrears of rent due on a patni tenure, passed in January 1938. The decree-holder realised in 1938 a portion of his dues by sale of the defaulting tenure, and was himself the auction purchaser. He has applied in 1941 for execution in respect of the balance of his dues by attachment and sale of other properties of the judgment-debtors, who claim that Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act, which came into force in January 1941, is a bar to the proceedings. On behalf of the la...
Sushil Kumar Bose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal489
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an application by Sushil Kumar Bose under Section 491, Criminal P.C., alleging that he has been illegally and improperly detained in jail custody and should be set at liberty or brought up before the Court to be dealt with according to law. The petitioner was on 26th January 1948, convicted by a Special Magistrate at Narail (in the district of Jessore) sitting under the provisions of the Special Criminal Courts Ordinance (ordinance 2 of 1942). The conviction was under Sections 120B and 411, Penal Code. Under the former charge, which was conspiracy to steal guns and cartridges, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years, and under the latter charge, namely under Section 411, Penal Code, receiving stolen property i.e., a shot gun, he was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The offences were alleged to have taken place on September 4/5, 1942, and were regarded as being in the nature of subversive activities. Other persons were originally...
Hemanta Kumar Bose Vs. Jitendra Nath Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal135
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The facts giving rise to these two appeals, which arise out of two analogous suits between the same parties, may be shortly stated as follows: One Chunilal Jama-dar mortgaged certain properties to the plaintiff's father, Nagendra Kumar Bose, in the form of an English mortgage on 23rd December 1929. The amount advanced on the mortgage bond was RS. 45,000. On 15th June 1932 Chunilal granted a lease of the property in suit, which was included in the mortgage, to defendant 1 for a term of 10 years, on an annual rental of Rs. 50. Nagendra obtained a decree on the basis of the mortgage instrument and in execution of the same the mortgaged properties were put up to sale and they were purchased by him on 14th March 1936. After purchase Nagendra obtained symbolical possession of the properties in due course but on attempting to take actual possession he discovered that defendant 1 was in possession of the disputed property on the basis of the lease which being in contravent...
Jitendra Mohan De and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal79
Edgley, J.1. This Rule is directed against the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, 24-Pergannas, dated 11th February 1943, whereby he affirmed the conviction of the petitioners by Mr. Ahammed, Magistrate of Alipore, under Section 41, Calcutta Suburban Police A Act (2 of 1866) and Section 853, Penal Code. The admitted facts of the case are briefly as follows: On the night of 10th August 1942, at about 10 P.M. the petitioners were found drinking and quarrelling at a place near the Kalighat Temple. They were seen by some members of the Civic Guard who asked them to desist, but, as they refused to do so, they were arrested. They then ran away to take shelter in a dala shop where they were followed by the members of the Civic Guard. An affray took place in the shop during the course of which a slight injury was inflicted on one of the Civic Guards. The petitioners were in due course placed on their trial before Mr. Ahammed and were convicted as already mentioned.2. In the first place, i...
Lomax (inspector of Taxes) Vs. Peter Dixon and Son, Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1943
Reported in: [1944]12ITR1(Cal)
LORD GREENE, M. R. - For the purposes of this judgment the following short statement sufficiently explains the facts of the case. Previously to the year 1933, the appellant company had advanced to a Finnish company (whose whole issued share capital belonged beneficially to the appellants) sums amounting to $319,690. The Finnish company had been formed by the appellants for the purpose of manufacturing and supplying to the appellants the wood pulp required by them in their business of manufacturers of newsprint. In the absence of any finding to the contrary, it must be assumed that these advances were repayable on demand. In these circumstances the two companies entered into an agreement for funding the outstanding indebtedness. This agreement was dated November 11, 1933, but it operated in effect as from January 1, 1933. Its essential terms may for present purposes be thus summarised : (1) The Finnish company agreed to issue to the appellants 680 notes (which were freely assignable) of...
SaharaddIn Dewan Vs. AltafuddIn Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal590
1. This is an appeal from an appellate order of the Subordinate Judge of the 5th Court, Dacca, affirming an order of the Munsif of the 5th Court, Munshiganj, allowing the application of respondent 1 for restoration of possession of lands under Section 26G, Ben. Ten. Act. The order has been passed under the section as it stands after amendment in 1940, The brother of the applicant before the Munsif mortgaged the lands to the appellant on 8th Falgun 1331, corresponding to 20th February 1925, the terms being (1) that the mortgagee would retain the rents and profits of the land in lieu of interest, (2) that the amount would be paid by Bhadra 1332, (3) on failure to pay the land would remain in the possession of the mortgagee till repayment, (4) if the amount due to the mortgagee were not fully recovered from the mortgaged property the mortgagee would be competent to realise it by attaching and putting to auction other moveable and immovable properties of the mortgagor. The mortgagor sold h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »