Kolkata Court March 1946 Judgments
Tohur Sheik Vs. Monoranjan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal266
ORDERLodge, J.1. This rule was issued to show cause why an order passed by the District Judge under the proviso to Section 10, Bengal Alienation of Agricultural Land (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1914, should not be set aside.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in revision with the orders of the District Judge. Section 10 of the Act reads:Neither the High Court nor any civil Court shall have jurisdiction in any matter which the Collector is empowered to dispose of under this Act:Provided that any person who is dissatisfied with any order of the Collector made under Section 4 or Sub-section (1) of Section 8 may within 30 days from the date of such order apply in the prescribed manner to the District Judge for the revision of such order and the decision of the District Judge thereon shall be final.3. It has been contended by the petitioner that this section does not prohibit the exercise of revisional powers by this Court and it has be...
Tag this Judgment!Lokeman Ali Vs. Abdul Motaleb and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal327
ORDERLodge, J.1. This Rule was issued to show cause why an order passed under Section 26F, Bengal Tenancy Act should not be set aside or modified. The material facts are not in dispute. The petitioner Shek Lokman Ali was one of a number of co-sharers in possession of a rayati holding recorded in khatian No. 110 of Mouza Kaspai in the district of Birbhum having acquired his interest by purchase by a kobala, dated 12-2-1944, but registered on 5-6-1944. C.S. Plot No. 409 is one of the plots comprised in that rayati holding. Other lands of the holding were transferred by other cosharers to opposite party 1 Abdul Mota-lib by a registered kobala, dated 19-2-1944. Abdul Motalib again transferred these lands to opposite party 2 Samsuzzoha. Petitioner Shek Lokman Ali made an application under Section 26F (1) within four months of the transfer to Abdul Motalib but after the transfer by Abdul Motalib to Samsuzzoha and deposited the amount of the consideration money for which Abdul Motalib purchas...
Tag this Judgment!indra Sekhar Chakravarty Vs. Raju Bala Haldar W/O Rati Kanta Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal447
1. This is an appeal against a new decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge after re-opening an earlier decree under the provisions of the Bengal Money-lenders Act. The real question in the case is what is to be regarded as the principal of the loan. For determining that question the following facts are necessary : Ashutosh Chakravarti, Satish Chandra Ghakravarti and others borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,500 on a promissory note from the Bagerhat Loan Company. The said company filed a suit and obtained a decree against all the pro-missors, namely Ashutosh Chakravarti, Satish Chandra Chakravarti and others. The company however did not proceed to realise the decretal amount from the property of all the judgment-debtors. They selected one amongst them, namely Ashutosh, the father of the plaintiff appellant Indra Sekhar Chakravarti. Ashutosh satisfied the decree and thereafter brought a suit, being No. 170 of 1926 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Khulna, for contribution against hi...
Tag this Judgment!Amano Barmanya Vs. Adhar Chandra Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal330
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the landlord t decree-holder and is directed against an order dated 12-7-1943 made by the Subordinate Judge, Murshidabad, dismissing the appellant's application for execution of a rent decree on the ground that it is barred under Section 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act. The facts material for our present purposes may be shortly stated as follows : The appellant instituted a suit against the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent due in respect of a darputni tenure held by the respondent under her, in the Court of the Sub-ordinate Judge of Murshidabad in the year 1937 and it was registered as Kent Suit No. 27 of 1937. The claim in the suit was for arrears of rent due from Ghaitra kist 1341 B.S. to Ashar kist 1344 B.S. Before this suit was disposed of, an-other suit was brought by the appellant against the respondent claiming rent in respect of the same tenure for a subsequent period and this suit was numbered Rent Suit No. 1 of 1940. Both th...
Tag this Judgment!Akam Sheikh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal35
1. This is an appeal against a conviction of 3 accused by a majority verdict of 3 to 2 of an offence under Section 364, Penal Code. The accused have each been sentenced to 6 years' rigorous imprisonment. The case was tried by an Assistant Sessions Judge. The prosecution case is that there had been enmity between the deceased Kalu and the 3 accused and that the two parties had been working in their fields during the day time. After dark the 3 accused were found holding the deceased Kalu captive and leading him away from his field forcibly. Some cries were heard. Kalu did not return home that night and on a search being organised his dead body was found the next morning a little to the north of his land under a heap of straw. Obviously, the prosecution case must be that the 3 accused either themselves murdered the deceased Kalu or abetted his murder and that the murder was committed in consequence of the abduction, an offence under Section 302 or under Section 302/109, Penal Code, the pu...
Tag this Judgment!Amiya Probha Das Vs. Jyoti Prokash Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal364
Sharpe, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a proceeding in execution of decree obtained by the respondent against Sarat Chandra Das, husband of the appellant, Amiya Probha Das, and others, on 30.5-1941 in Suit No. 1840 of 1940 in the original side of this Court. The claim in that suit was based on a hand-note executed by Sarat Das and others in favour of the father of the respondent, in Mymensingh. It was subsequently assigned to his son, the present respondent, in Calcutta. The decree was transferred to the District of Mymensingh for execution in March 1943 and the decree-holder prayed for attachment and sale of eleven lots of property. The judgment-debtor, Sarat Das, preferred an objection under Section 47, Civil P.C., to the execution on the ground that the decree was made without jurisdiction. The appellant, Amiya Das, preferred a claim under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C., to lot 4, a holding in village Dhamsur with the structures thereon described separately as ...
Tag this Judgment!S.B. HossaIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal29
ORDER1. These are two Rules against convictions of 2 members of the Civic Guard by a Magistrate of Alipore which have been upheld on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, 24 Parganas. The petitioner S.B. Hossain has been convicted under Section 213/109, Penal Code and under Section 217, Penal Code and sentenced to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment under each section, the sentences to run concurrently. Hafiz Khan has been convicted under Section 213, Penal Code and also sentenced to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment. Briefly, the prosecution case is that one Hiralal was arrested on the night of 19th August 1944 carrying two bags of atta and flour weighing about 3 maunds which act prima facie appeared to be an offence as the carriage was within a rationed area. Two of the Civic Guards approached him and demanded a bribe of 8 rupees. They were then interfered with by other Civic Guards and eventually Hiralal was sent by the Group Commander Makhan Lal Ghosh (P.W. 5) to the District Commanda...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›