Kolkata Court December 1944 Judgments
Monoharlal Banerjee Vs. Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal308
ORDERKhundkar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P. C., for a declaration of the plaintiff-appellant's title to premises No. 24, Bhabananda Road, Tollygunge, which were originally P318, Russa Road, and for the release of the said premises from attachment in execution of a decree obtained by defendant 1, the Bengal Immunity Company, against one Haridas Banerjee, defendant 2 in the suit. The facts in so far as they are material for the purposes of this appeal are as follows: On 26th October 1933 Charulata, wife of Haridas Banerji, acquired the premises in suit by purchase as the benamidar of her husband. The benami nature of the transaction has been found as a fact by the Court below, and that finding is not challenged. On 5th December 1934 Charulata mortgaged the property to one Pulin Krishna Roy, by a deed in which Haridas joined as a confirming party. Haridas, who was employed by the Bengal Immunity Company, was charged with defalca...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnu Prosad Chunder Vs. Binoy Krishna Rahatgi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal142
1. Premises No. 12, Khangrapatti Street (hereafter called the acquired premises) was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the improvement of Calcutta. It was a narrow piece of land, 29 feet 3 inches long from east to west and 5 feet 4 inches broad from north to south. Its area was 3 chittaks and 21 square feet. At the time of the acquisition there was an one storied building upon it, about ten feet high from the ground level. Premises No. 5, Armenian Street (hereafter called the dominant tenement) on which there is a four storied building was to the immediate east of the acquired premises and of the adjoining premises No. 11, Khangrapatti Street. In its western wall it has a vent hole in the ground floor and a window on the fourth storey which overlooks the acquired premises. There are three other windows on the first, second and third floors, on that wall which overlooks premises NO. 11, Khangrapatti Street. The owners of premises No. 5, Armenian Street, who are the respondents...
Tag this Judgment!Province of Bengal Vs. P.L. Nun, K.C. Pal, Receivers Appointed by High ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal312
1. Premises No. 37, Chandni Chawk Street, which covers an area of 6 cottas 5 chittaks and 5 square feet with the building standing thereon was acquired by the Province of Bengal for the Trustees for the Improvement of. Calcutta. The declaration under the Land Acquisition Act was published on 23rd January 1930 and the award was made by the Collector on 18th December 1936. It was in one of the most important trading, centres of the city and is just opposite an important market called the Chandni Chawk. He gave Rs. 47,765 for the land and the building, and also other sums of money as compensation for the tenant's structures and as damages under Section 23, secondly and fourthly, of the Land Acquisition Act. The joint receivers who are the respondents before us, acting on behalf of the owners accepted the amount which the Collector had awarded as damages under Section 23, secondly and fourthly, but did not accept what he had awarded for the land and building. They appeared before the Colle...
Tag this Judgment!Chang Chung Ching and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal363
Roxburgh, J.1. In this case the accused have been convicted for an offence under Section 3 of Ordinance 83 of 1943 in respect of possession of 63 tins of cheese bearing Government mark D arrow D and of certain cartons of Philip Morris cigarettes. Chang Chung Ching as manager and Chang Tsai Ching as the proprietor of the restaurant in which the articles were found have been sentenced each to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of rupees 500 in default to suffer further three months' rigorous imprisonment. Chow Ching Young a cook of the restaurant has been sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment. The goods in question were found in the course of a drive which the Military authorities held when several premises in Calcutta were searched and articles were seized bearing Government marks. The finding of the articles is not disputed. The defence of the accused is that the cheese was bought from one Banwarilal Saha, a regular supplier of goods to the restaurant, by th...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Alias Mahadeblal Agarwala Vs. Indra Chand Alias Inder Chand Ke ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal417
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of one of the judgment-debtors and is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Nadia, dated 29th April 1942, by which he refused to stay proceedings in execution of a decree on receipt of a notice from a Debt Settlement Board under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935. The material facts are not in controversy and may be stated as follows. The decree-holder whose name is Inder Chand Kezriwal obtained a money decree against four judgment-debtors in the Original Side of this Court on 23rd April 1934. The decree was transmitted for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Nadia, and on 2nd September 1941, the decree-holder started Execution Case No. 102 of 1941 in that Court, and prayed for realisation of the decretal dues by attachment and sale of certain immovable properties belonging to the judgment-debtors and situated within the district of Nadia. After the attachment processes were issued and sale procla...
Tag this Judgment!Shashi Bhusan Basuri Vs. Moti Bala Dassi W/O Ram Prasad Mandal and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal317
ORDERB.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This revision case raises a somewhat interesting point of law which turns upon the construction of Section 37A (3), Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The material facts are not in dispute and may be shortly stated as follows: The petitioner before us obtained a final mortgage decree for a sum of Rs. 12,635 and odd annas against the predecessors-in-interest of the opposite party in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Asansol on 13th December 1932, on the basis of a mortgage bond executed by the latter in his favour. The mortgage decree was put into execution in Execution Case No. 204 of 1935 of the same Court and the mortgaged properties were put up to sale and purchased by the decree-holder on 12th December 1936. The sale was confirmed on 24th August 1937, and soon after that the petitioner took delivery of possession of the properties purchased by him. On 10th June 1942, the judgment debtors filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Asansol for o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›