Kolkata Court March 1944 Judgments
Durga Charan Chatterjee Vs. Sm. Benodini Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal301a
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the judgment-debtor. The decree under execution is one for costs. It consists of three parts (1) the costs awarded to the respondent by the 4th Subordinate Judge at Alipur in connexion with the respondent's application for probate (2) the costs awarded by this Court dismissing an appeal by the appellant, and (3) the costs awarded by this Court refusing the appellant leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The respondent applied to the Subordinate Judge for a transfer of the decree and he transferred it under Section 39, Civil P.C. to the District Judge at Howrah. He transferred it to a subordinate Court, i.e., the Court of the 2nd Munsif. The appellant then filed an objection under Section 47, Civil P.C. to the effect that the Court had no jurisdiction to execute the decree in these proceedings. The point of the appellant's case was that the Subordinate Judge had no power to execute the Order of costs made on the application for leave to appeal to the Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Birbhadra Chandra Vs. Surendra Prasad Lahiri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal303
1. This appeal which is by the debtor, arises out of an application made by him under Section 38, Bengal Money-Lenders Act (10 of 1940). The facts, which are not in controversy, are the following. On 27th October 1897, the appellant's grandmother Bama Sundari Debi, as executrix to the estate of the appellant's father borrowed from the respondent's predecessor-in-interest Swarnamoyee Debi Rs. 5000 on a simple money bond (Ex. A-3) with a stipulation to pay simple interest at the rate of Rs. 7-8-0 per annum. On 1st October 1904 the appellant executed a renewed bond (Ex. A-2) for Rs. 7000 in favour of the said Swarnamoyee Debi at the same rate of interest. The said sum of Rs. 7000 was made up of Rs. 5000 the original loan and of Rs. 2000 which represented the arrears of interest on the same due at the date of the renewed bond. On 25th September 1911 the appellant executed the bond Ex. A, in favour of the creditor, Swarnamoyee, for Rs. 14,000. The said sum was made up of Rs. 10,264-12-9, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra Nath Roy Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal103
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a rule calling on the Municipal Magistrate and the Chief Executive Officer of the Calcutta Corporation to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner should not he set aside. He has been found guilty of the violation of a bye-law made under the powers conferred upon the Corporation under Section 559 (18) of Act 3 of 1899. The petitioner was the secretary of an association formed to hold a religious celebration and festival from 17th November 1941 to 14th December 1941, He applied to the Chief Executive Officer for a licence to hold it on a vacant plot of Corporation land. The license was granted but nothing was said about the payment of fees. The conservancy officer in charge of that part of the town took the apparently reasonable view that some fees ought to be paid. The petitioner, perhaps unwisely, adopted an uncompromising attitude and refused to pay anything. The conservancy officer seems to have been a gentleman of very considerable ingenuity. He ...
Tag this Judgment!Hatemali Jamadar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal407
Derbyshire, C.J.1. The Rule in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 251 of 1943, and the connected rules in Criminal Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 285, 286, 287 atnd 288 of 1943, were issued at the instance of the accused upon the District Magistrate of Bakarganj to show cause why the ease pending against the petitioners should not be transferred from the Court of Mr. S.K. Roy, a Magistrate of the First Class at Barisal, to some other Court. It appears that the petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous Case no. 251 of 1943, Khan Sahib Hatemali Jamadar, is the Chairman of the Matberia Debt Settlement Board within the Pirojpur Sub-Division of the Bakargang District. A report being made that there had been misappropriation in connexion with court-fees in the Debt Settlement Board at Matberia an investigation was ordered and ultimately a charge-sheet was submitted against Khan Sahib Hatemali Jamadar and the other petitioners. After the charge-sheet was submitted the Circle Inspector reported that the acc...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Nath Som Vs. Dwija Pada Samanta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal411
Derbyshire, C.J.1. On 2nd March 1944, at the instance of the petitioner, the complainant, this Bench issued a Rule upon the District Magistrate of Burdwan to show cause why this case should not be transferred from the file of the Sub-divisional Officer at Burd wan or such other Order made as the Court might think fit. The matter arose in this way. On 20th September 1943, the petitioner lodged a complaint in the Court of the Sub-divisional Officer at Burdwan alleging that the opposite parties, the accused and others had committed offences against him under Sections 147, 325 and 395, Penal Code. The substance of the com plaint was that on 18th September 1943, the accused armed with spears, lathis and other weapons trespassed into the complainant's house and looted 50 or 60 maunds of paddy from his granary; that the complainant resisted the accused whereupon he was hit on the head and wounded, and that when he raised his hand to protect his head he was struck by one of them with a lathi w...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. D.B. Futnani and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal402
Roxburgh, J.1. This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, against an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, acquitting two persons, D.B. Futnani and A.V. Joshi of offences under Rule 75A (7) and 46(3), Defence of India Rules. The prosecution case is that D.B. Futnani is a partner of the firm of Murlimal Santram and Co., having its Head Office at Lachmidass Street, Karachi, and A.V. Joshi is the Calcutta Manager or representative of the Firm, having his office at 20 Muharshi Debendra Road, Calcutta. Application for a licence to import 25 tons of barbed wire from America was made by the firm in Karachi to the Steel Controller, Calcutta, by Ex. 1, signed in the firm name, the writing having been proved by the handwriting expert (P.W. 2) to be the hand of Futnani. Import licence No. 4216 was duly issued by the Deputy Steel Controller on 3rd November, and was received by Major Thomas (P.W. 7), Deputy Controller of Purchase, along with the...
Tag this Judgment!Maharani Nilimaprova Vs. Kadambini Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal309
Biswas, J.1. The petitioner in this case, Maharani Nilimaprova Nandy, lent a sum of Rs. 15,000 to opposite party 2, Lalit Mohon Saha on the mortgage of a certain property in Kalighat, being premises Nos. 71B and 71C, Kalighat Road, and obtained a decree on the mortgage on 19th September 1940. On 31st January 1941, the petitioner filed an application for execution of the decree. The opposite party No. 2 thereupon applied for reopening of the decree Under Section 36, Bengal Money Lenders Act, but the application was rejected. He then applied to a Debt Settlement Board for relief under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, but this too was refused. Thereupon it is said he caused a suit to be instituted by his mother Kadambini Dasi, who is opposite party No. 1 in this rule, claiming a two-thirds interest in the property as heir of two deceased minor sons, on the allegation that the property had been purchased by opposite party No. 2 with funds belonging to the joint family of which he and t...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra Vs. Nanda Kumar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal385
ORDER1. This Rule is directed against an Order of the District Delegate of Bagerhat, in the District of Khulna, dated 8th June 1943, rejecting an application of the petitioner for revocation of a probate, under Section 263, Succession Act. The facts so far as they are material for our present purposes may be stated as follows: The opposite parties are executors under the will of one Prokash Chandra Mandal applied for and obtained ex parte a grant of probate of the said will from the District Delegate at Bagerhat. The grant was made on 2nd February 1938 and on 22nd December 1938, the petitioner, who is a brother of the deceased and but for the will would have inherited half of the estate left by him, presented an application before the same District Delegate for revocation of the grant, on grounds inter alia that no citation was issued on him and that the will of which probate was obtained was a forged will. Before the opposite party received any notice of this proceeding, the applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Samad and anr. Vs. Aslam Munshi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal381
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the judgment-debtors. The question involved is whether a certain sale held in execution of a decree was a nullity. The sale was held on 10th June 1936, in the course of the monthly sales. They were not finished on 8th June 1936, the date mentioned in the sale proclamation. No formal Order for adjournment was then made, the property, however, was put up to sale the next day. As the decree-holders' bid was not sufficient, a formal Order for an adjournment of the sale to the next day was made. The property was then purchased by the respondents on 10th June 1936. The learn, ed Subordinate Judge dealt with this matter as an irregularity under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. Indeed, the petition of objection was actually drafted that way. The learned District Judge, however, considered whether the sale was a nullity, but apparently did not appreciate that that was a matter under Section 47, Civil. P.C. If the appellants can establish that the sale was a nullit...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadish Chandra Vs. Jogendra Nath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal326
1. The appellants before us are the shebaits of certain idols and as plaintiffs they commenced a suit in the Court of the third Subordinate Judge at Dacca for a declaration that the defendants hold the property in suit, not as permanent tenants but as tenants at will under the deities, at a rental of Rs. 4-11-0 per month. There was also a prayer for recovery of rent from the defendants at that rate from Baisakh 1341 to Chaitra 1343 B.S. The material facts which are not in controversy may be shortly stated as follows: The disputed property is a house together with the land underneath and is situated at Kumartooli in the town of Dacca. It admittedly-belonged to two brothers Kebal Sen and Kanai Sen. These two brothers established two idols known as Sri Sri Sudarsan Chakra Jew and Sri Sri Gobind Jew, and dedicated jointly, in favour of them, seven house properties including the property in suit. On 9th September 1854, Kebal and Kanai jointly executed a will by which four persons to wit Ram...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »