Kolkata Court May 1944 Judgments
S.M. Solaiman Vs. Noor Mahommed and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal395
ORDER1. The petitioner was a candidate for election to the Calcutta Corporation from the Mahomedan Constituency of Ward No. 25. There was only one vaqancy to be filled up from that ward. There were three candidates. The petitioner filed six nomination papers; they were all rejected at the scrutiny by the returning officer, Dr. S. Z. Ahmad, respon. dent 2 and respondent 1, Mr. Noor Maham-mad was elected Councillor defeating the other candidate, Mr. Mahammad Ali Khan. The respective number of votes obtained by each was 142 and 109 respectively. The petitioner seeks to set aside the election on the ground that the returning officer illegally and unfairly rejected his nomination paper. He alleges that the result of the election has been mate-rially affected by this illegal and wrongful rejection. The admitted and unchallenged facts are these. On 28th February 1944 the petitioner delivered to the returning officer six nomination papers. The returning officer received and marked them seriall...
Tag this Judgment!K.H. Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal374
Lodge, J.1. The two petitioners were tried by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta and were convicted of the offence of bribery. Petitioner 1, K. H. Bhattacharjee was sentenced under Section 161, Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Petitioner 2, Amar Bhattacharjee alias Mantu was sentenced under Section 161/109, Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The two rules have been issued to show cause why the convictions and the sentences should not be set aside. The case for the prosecution briefly is that petitioner, 1 K. H. Bhattacharjee was the personal assistant to the Controller of Inspection, Indian Stores Department, Calcutta Circle, and petitioner 2, Amar Bhattacharjee was a typist in the same office. The complainant Kunja Behary Ghose applied for an appointment in the office of the Indian Stores Department. He was directed to appear for a test and did so. A week after appearing for the test, this witness Kunja Behary...
Tag this Judgment!Rajani Kanta Pal Vs. Hrishikesh Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal391
1. On 18th November 1928 defendant-respondent 1 Hrishikesh Dass purported to borrow from the plaintiff appellant Rs. 1,60,000 on the security of immovable properties. The mortgage bond which was executed on that date provided for payment of compound interest at the rate of 8 1/2 per cent, per annum with yearly rests. Thereafter he paid large sums of money on diverse dates totalling Rs. 1,02,205. On calculating interest in terms of the mortgage bond and after giving credit for the payments Rs. 1,64,217-0-0 was found due from him on the 31st Chaitra 1342 B.S. (=14th April 1936). At the intervention of common friends, Rai Bahadur Satyendra Nath Dass and Jogesh Chandra Das, the appellant agreed to remit the sum of Rs. 48,012. On 14th Asar following corresponding to 18th June 1936 a memorandum (Ex. 4) signed by both the appellant and the respondent was addressed to Rai Bahadur Satyendra Nath Dass and Jogesh Chandra Dass. The material portion of the said memorandum runs thus:After giving cre...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ajit Kumar Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal159
Edgley, J.1. In this case we arc concerned with an appeal by nine persons who have been convicted by Mr. Roy Choudhury, the Sessions Judge of Faridpur, under Rule 56 (4)/121, Defence of India Rules and also with a reference made by the learned Judge in respect of 14 accused persons who, in his opinion, should be convicted under Section 147, Penal Code. The history of this case is somewhat peculiar. All the accused persons with whom we are concerned in the appeal and the reference were originally placed on their trial, together with a number of other persons, before Mr. Hattiangadi who had been appointed a Special Judge for this purpose under the provisions of Ordinance 2 of 1942. The trial before Mr. Hattiangadi began on 29th March 1943 and continued from day to day until 22nd April 1943 on which date the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 342, Criminal P.C. On 21st April 1943 this Court pronounced judgment in Emperor v. Banwari Lal Sarma. Reported in ('43) 3...
Tag this Judgment!Sanat Kumar Vs. Pramatha Nath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal325
1. The facts which are not in dispute in this appeal are these: The appellant borrowed Rupees 8,00,000 from the respondent by executing in his favour a mortgage bond on 12th December 1923 with interest at 8 1/2 per cent, per annum with six-monthly rests. The date fixed for repayment of the loan was 12th December 1928. One of the stipulations in the bond was that 'after the 12th day of December one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five and until all monies secured by the mortgage bond are called in by the mortgagee the mortgagor will be entitled to make part payments towards the principal sum of Rs. 8,00,000 by instalments of Rs. 10,000 or any multiple of Rs. 5000.' From 1st September 1931 the rate of interest was raised to 9 1/4 per cent, per annum with six-monthly rests-the time for repayment was extended to 30th September 1936. From 1st October 1936 the rate of interest was reduced to 7 per cent, per annum with six-monthly rests and the date of repayment was extended to 1st October 1...
Tag this Judgment!Bireswar Banerji Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal417
Roxburgh, J.1. Rule 921 has been obtained by the petitioner against an Order of conviction under Section 21, Calcutta Tramways Act (Bengal Act 1 of 1880) in a case in which the learned Presidency Magistrate inflicted no substantive sentence, but, as he expressed it, warned and discharged the accused. Rule 995 has been obtained by the same petitioner against an Order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate acquitting a conductor and an inspector of the Calcutta Tramways Company against whom he had directed processes to issue on a complaint made by the petitioner. The two cases arise out of the same matter. It appears that the petitioner who is a young lawyer had concluded that the Tramways Company were acting improperly in demanding that the exact fare should be tendered by the passengers and in refusing to give change. He offered a rupee for his fare from Esplanade to Alipore and demanded that change should bo given before he would hand over the rupee. There can be no doubt that he took a w...
Tag this Judgment!Mohendra Nath Haldar Vs. Mohendra Nath Sardar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal305
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant and it raises a point under Section 26G, Ben. Ten. Act. The defendant and his cosharer executed a mortgage by conditional sale in favour of the plaintiffs and put them into possession on 4th April 1923. The appellant took a sub-tenancy under the plaintiffs on 26th April 1926, on an annual rent of Rs. 117. The present suit is to recover rent for the years 1343 to 1346. The appellant's contention is that the plaintiffs cannot recover rent for the years 1345 and 1346 as their interest terminated at the end of 1344 under the provisions of Section 26G. The learned Munsif gave effect to this contention but his decision was overruled by the learned Subordinate Judge in the lower appellate Court. There was a dispute whether the interest of the mortgagors was that of occupancy raiyats or raiyats holding at fixed rates. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the appellant was estopped from pleading that it is the former in view of the fact that it...
Tag this Judgment!Jadu Nath Vs. Jagat Prasanna
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal320
1. The father of the respondents Rai Bahadur Girija Prossono Mukherjee borrowed on 24th October 1916 from the appellants' predecessors-in-title, Rai Bahadur Janaki Nath and Sita Nath Roy a sum of Rs. 3,15,000. To secure the sum of Rs. 3,00,000 he executed a mortgage bond (Ex. A) on that date in favour of the lenders. The mortgage comprised five items of property. Two of those were situate in Calcutta -- one in Masjidbari Street and the other in Elgin Road being premises No. 5 of that street, and the remaining three were mufassil properties. Interest stipulated for w.s at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum (compound) with quarterly rests. The due date for repayment was 24th October 1919. The remaining sum of Rs. 15,000 was secured by a deed of further charge (Ex. B) executed on the same date which secured the self same properties. The stipulation for interest was the same as in the mortgage bond, but the due date of repayment was 24th October 1917.2. The mortgagor, Girija Prossona, died ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalachand Shaw Vs. Ramani Mohan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal321
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is directed against an Order of the Munsif refusing to vary a decree under the provisions of Section 11, Calcutta House Rent Control Order, 1943. A preliminary question arises as to the competency of the appeal. This is not an objection Uinder Section 47, Civil P.C. It is an application asking for a variation in the decree. No doubt if the Munsif had allowed the application, the varied decree might have been appealable as a decree; but he has merely rejected it. I am therefore of the opinion that the appeal is not competent. It therefore remains to consider whether I should interfere in revision. Appellant 1 is the judgment-dobtor against whom the decree for ejectment has been passed. He constructed a hut on the land. Appellant 2 is said to be a sub-tenant of some of the rooms. Before the Munsif could make an Order varying the decree, he would have to be of opinion that the decree would not have been passed if this Order has been in operation at the time. Th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›