Kolkata Court August 1943 Judgments
Mahabir Singh and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal17
Khundkar, J.1. The facts giving rise to this reference are briefly these: On 12th March 1942, a dacoity was committed in a kacheri at Kolai Kunda near Kharagpur, in the course of which three of the inmates of the kacheri were killed. After the usual police investigation, eight persons were placed on trial. Charges under Sections 396 and 395, Penal Code, read with Section 120B, Penal Code, were framed against Chorobey Kurmi, Kedar Maharaj, Hirga, Jaymull Singh, Mahabir Singh, Arjun Singh and Rajnarayan Sukul; and a charge under Section 412, Penal Code, was framed against Kausalya Bai. The accused were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Midnapore and a jury of seven. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in respect of accused Jaymulland of accused Kausalya Bai finding them both not guilty of the charges framed against them. By a majority of 5 to 2, the jury found the remaining six accused persons guilty under Section 396, Penal Code, and also under Section 120.B/395, Penal Code. T...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Mull Bagaria and anr. Vs. Sree Sree Iswar Gopal Jiew Thakur Rep ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal211
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. These two appeals are directed against a judgment of the President, Calcutta Improvement Tribunal, dated 3lst August 1938, passed in an apportionment case arising out of a reference made to him by the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta. The reference was made in connexion with the acquisition of premises No. 140 Cotton Street, Calcutta, which was acquired in pursuance of a declaration dated 22nd November 1931. Premises no. 140, Cotton Street, as it stands at present has been formed by amalgamation of a number of holdings which were originally numbered premises Nos. 140,140/1 and 141 Cotton Street, 17 Burtola Street (excluding the temple) and 9/1 Narayan Prosad Babu Lane. The last two properties admittedly belonged to three persons who may be described as the Bagarias, at the time of the acquisition, while the Cotton Street properties were owned at all material times by a deity known as Iswar Gopal Jiew which is located at Chinsurah in the district of Hooghl...
Tag this Judgment!Babulall Choukhani Vs. Hariprosad Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal72
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the defendant against an Order allowing an amendment of the plaint. It raises a question of pleading in connexion with the application of the Calcutta House Rent Control Order. The amendment was made in Order to make out a case under Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 9 (1) of the Order and is in these terms:That the defendant is a most troublesome recalcitrant, vexatious and dishonest tenant who gives the plaintiff as much trouble as possible by withholding payment of rent and by raising various false and dishonest pleas when the plaintiff is compelled to file suits against him for recovery of the same and it is most desirable in the interest of your petitioner that he should be evicted from the premises in suit and further the plaintiff bona fide requires the premises for his own occupation for locating the expanding Order supplying business of the plaintiff's son.The learned Munsif has not given any reasons for allowing the amend...
Tag this Judgment!R.C. Pollard Vs. Satya Gopal Mazumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal594
Derbyshire, C.J.1. On 25th May 1948 this Court issued a rule upon the District Magistrate of Murshidabad and upon the complainant to show cause why the conviction of the accused Pollard under Section 355, Penal Code (assault with intent to dishonour a person) and the sentence passed upon him to pay a fine of RS. 200 should not be set aside on the grounds that no previous sanction for the prosecution had been obtained under Section 197, Criminal P.C. or Section 270, Government of India Act, 1935, and that in the circumstances the accused was entitled to treat the complainant as a trespasser and thereby protected by the right of private defence. On 19th July 1943 the accused Pollard made a further application to this Court alleging that his trial was held in an atmosphere of prejudice rendering the proceedings ' illegal and void. In the second application the accused set out from his recollection certain parts of letters which he alleged were written by the then Chief Minister of Bengal,...
Tag this Judgment!Dewan Anwar Reza Choudhury Vs. Dewan Hachinur Reza Choudhury Through M ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal189
Akram, J.1. These two connected Appeals Nos. 80 and 38 of 1939 arise out of a suit for the possession of a 1/3rd share in the properties mentioned in the schedules to the plaint upon a declaration that the two wakfnamahs Exs. 1 and 1 (a) executed by one Dewan Ganiur Reza Choudhury on 17th July 1930 and 24th September 1930, respectively were void and inoperative and that plaintiff 1 was entitled to the aforesaid share as an heir under the Mahomedan law of inheritance and to recover mesne profits; the other plaintiffs 2 to 75 claimed to be the lessees of some of the properties under plaintiff 1 but subsequently failed to prove their leases. Defendant 1, the mutwalli contended that Exs. 1 and 1 (a) were valid deeds of wakf while defendant 2 (son of defendant 1) asserted that certain 'purchases made by him of the wakf properties were in good faith and for valid consideration and supported defendant 1; defendants 3 to 9, the recipients of certain allowances under the wakf, also sided with d...
Tag this Judgment!Ashutosh Sarkar Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal159
Rau, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for an injunction to restrain the Calcutta Corporation from demolishing a portion of a house said to have been constructed in violation of the plan sanctioned by the Corporation. The plaint also contained a prayer:If necessary, for a declaration that the Order of demolition passed by the Magistrate on 16th September 1935, is a nullity.2. One Tarak Chandra Das is the owner of the house in question being premises No.18, Bihari Doctor Road. The unauthorized structure was made between 1931 and 1933. In June 1934, that is to say, after the structure had been completed, the owner Tarak Chandra Das to the plaintiff Ashutosh Sarkar let out a portion of the house. We may mention that the owner himself occupies another portion of the house. In September the Corporation applied to the Magistrate under Section 363, Calcutta Municipal Act, for a demolition order. On 16th September the Magistrate made an Order directing the Corporation to demoli...
Tag this Judgment!Uday Chand Mahatab Vs. Kuroram Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal99
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the landlord decree-holder and is directed against an order made by the District Judge, Birbhum, affirming an order of the Subordinate Judge of that place allowing certain objections of the judgment-debtors respondents under Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act. The material facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows: The decree-holder appellant instituted a rent suit against the respondents on 15th April 1937, being Bent Suit No. 2 of 1937 for recovery of arrears of rent due in respect of a putni tenure for the years 1340 to 1342 B.S. The decree was obtained on 14th December 1937, and an attempt was made to execute the decree in 1938, but after proceeding to some extent, the application for execution was struck off. The putni itself was sold on 15th May 1938 for arrears of putni rent for the year 1344 B.S. under the Putni Regulations, and it was purchased by the landlord himself. The present execution was started on 2nd...
Tag this Judgment!Choudhury Mohammad Manjural Haque and ors. Vs. Shebait of Sri Sri Iswa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal202
Rau, J.1. This judgment is being delivered under peculiar circumstances which have been fully explained in our order dated 29th July 1943 on a petition for review of judgment presented by the plaintiff-respondent. We shall recapitulate them briefly here: This appeal was heard by us at great length in January last, a number of questions of law and fact being involved. The case was then set down for judgment on 29th January 1943 [See ('43) 30 A. I. B. 1943 Cal. 361--Ed.]. At the last moment however the parties informed us that they had arrived at a compromise. A petition embodying the terms was put before us and as some of the appellants were minors their guardian, who was also one of the appellants, asked for leave to enter into the compromise on their behalf, submitting that the terms were for their benefit. It may be mentioned that under these terms the appellants were to be given half of the property in suit whereas if the appeal were pressed there was danger of their losing the whol...
Tag this Judgment!Priyanath Roy Vs. Sreedhar Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal28
Rau, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a final decree in a suit for partition of a temporarily settled estate being No. 2989 of the 24-Parganas District, the plaintiff's share being one-fourth. The main point taken before us is that the decree is incompetent or irregular by reason of Section 154, Civil P. C. This section runs:Where the decree is for the partition of an undivided estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the Government or for the separate possession of a share of such an estate the partition of the estate or, the separation of the share shall be made by the Collector or any gazetted Subordinate of the Collector deputed by him in this behalf in accordance with the law if any for the time being in force relating to the partition or the separate possession of the shares of such estates.This should be read along with Order 20, Rule 18, Civil P. C, which for convenience is reproduced here:Where the Court passes a decree for the partition of property or for t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhabani Churn Law and anr. Vs. Tulsi Chandra Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal183
Lodge, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Gentle J, discharging a receiver, appointed by this Court in the following circumstances. The respondent, Tulsi Chandra Goswami, borrowed Rs. 6,50,000 from the appellants Bhabani Churn Law and Satish Churn Law on 6th September 1937 and executed in favour of the appellants an English mortgage of the greater part of his zemindari properties. One of the terms of that mortgage provided as follows:It is hereby further agreed by and between the said parties that upon a suit being filed by the mortgagees or any of them or their or any of their heirs executors administrators representatives and/or assigns upon these presents, the mortgagees may forthwith and before the filing of the written statement or appearance in such suit by the said mortgagor, his heirs executors administrators representatives and/or assigns and without any further consent on his or their part than is herein contained may with the sanction of the Court get appointed such per...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »