Kolkata Court July 1946 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Hari Charan Nath and ors. Vs. Barada Prasad Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal325
Blank, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff, a borrower, from a decision of a learned Sub-ordinate Judge of the 24 Parganas reversing or rather' modifying, the decision of the learned Munsif of the second Court at Baruipore.2. The plaintiff's case in brief is that he borrowed Rs. 25 and Rs. 50 from defendant 1 on two promissory notes, that he failed to pay and that defendant 1 filed a suit and obtained a decree with interest at 25 per cent Defendant 1 purchased in execution plaintiff's homestead for Rs. 85 on 14-7-1938. The decree is still unsatisfied. Defendant 1 sold the homestead to defendant 2. The plaintiff applied for reduction of interest and for instalments.3. Both the defendants contested. Defendant 2 alleged that he was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration so that the decree could not be re-opened. Defendant 1 raised certain defences which are not now material. The learned Munsif found for the plaintiff in full and gave a decree for sums aggregating about Rs. 1...
Subodh Chand Mitter Vs. Bhagwandas Sha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal353
Lodge, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. The original plaintiff, Subodh Chand Mitter was the Receiver in charge of a debutter estate, under a scheme of management framed by this Court in Suit No. 258 of 1886. The property now in dispute belongs to that debutter estate. It was formerly known as 124 Cornwallis Street but is now described as 43/4 Baghbazar Street. Prior to 1933, one Prasadi Saha was in possession of the land as a monthly tenant. The Receiver obtained a decree against the said Prasadi Saha for arrears of rent. In execution of that decree, the structures on the land were put to sale and were purchased by the original defendant, Bhagwandas Saha.2. Thereafter Bhagwandas Saha entered into negotiations with the Receiver for a lease, and was put in possession of the property. He erected substantial structures on the property under the encouragement and with the active assistance of the Receiver.3. Then in the year 1940, the Receiver Subodh Chand Mitter institu...
RamadhIn Singh Vs. P. Metharam and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Cal342
ORDERLodge, J.1. This rule was issued on the District Magistrate of 24 Parganas to show cause why an order passed by Mr. M.B. Roy, Deputy Magistrate on 4th May 1946, should not be set aside.2. The present petitioner filed a petition of complaint before the said Magistrate accusing two persons, P. Metharam and Babulal Chowkhani of offences punishable under Section 323 and 504, Penal Code. On 2nd May 1946, the learned Magistrate passed the following order:Examined the complainant. Summon P. Metharam and Babulal under Section 323/504, Penal Code, fixing 22-5-1946.3. It appears that each of the two accused persons had also filed complaints which in a sense can be regarded as cross cases. On 4th May 1946, the learned Magistrate recorded another order which runs as follows:Read petition filed by accused. It appears that there are 2 counter complaints-one filed by accused Metharam and another by accused Babulal (real name being Babulal Chattani). These have been sent to O/C Tollygunge P.S. fo...
P.K. Banerjee Vs. L.J. Simonds and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal307
Gentle, J.1. The appellant was the petitioner in an application under Section 45, Specific Relief Act. He describes himself as carrying on business in Calcutta in hardware, machinery, mill stores and as a general order supplier. Respondent 1 is an Assistant Controller of Salvage at Head Quarters, Eastern Command; in his affidavit in opposition he states his office is at Tollygunge, a suburb of Calcutta, which is outside the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. Respondent 2 is the Regional Commissioner of Disposals of Army Salvage and his office is at No. 6 Esplanade East, Calcutta, within the jurisdiction.2. The application relates to an alleged sale on 6-12-1945 to the appellant by one Major J. Charnock, Liaison Officer (Disposals) H.Q. 202 L. of C. area, Gauhati, Assam, of 497 tons of unserviceable ferrous scrap, including M.T. parts, lying at No. 103 Salvage Depot 404 area, Chittagong, Bengal, (outside the Court's jurisdiction) at the price of Rs. 7150, delivery of wh...
Raigarh Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal98
Gentle, J.1. The plaintiffs carry on business at Raigarh in the Central Provinces. The defendants are the owners of a railway in Calcutta, their stations include Rathtola, Baghbazar, Chitpore and Cossipore and part of west Docks Junction. At Rathtola, the business of booking and despatch of freight is conducted by the Bengal Assam Railway on the defendants' behalf. At West Docks Junction the defendants' railway joins the Bengal Nagpur Railway; each railway administration is responsible for its respective, portion of the junction, and where trains pass from one system to the other.2. The plaintiffs were the owners of a large quantity of jute. On 2nd February 1944, it was delivered to the Bengal Assam Railway at Eathtola, acting on the defendants' behalf, to be loaded into wagons and despatched to the plain, tiffs at Raigarh. The wagons would travel by the defendants' railway from Rathtola to West Docks where they would pass on to the Bengal Nagpur Railway to complete the journey. The de...
Kali Das Mukherji and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Cal16
Ellis, J.1. In this case a rule was isued on the District Magistrate of Khulna and on the opposite party Amulya Ratan Kanjilal to show cause why the conviction of the three petitioners Kali Das Mukherjee, Bimal Kanti Chakravarty and Karnadhar Roy Mondal and the sentences passed on them should not be set aside.2. The charges against the three petitioners one were Under Section 147, and the other Under Section 427, Penal Code. They were charged for that on 28-3-1913, at Lockpur Bazar under police station Jakirhat in the Bagerhat sub-division of Khulna district; they were members of an unlawful assembly the common object of which was to loot the cutchery, demolish the privy and erect fencing on the land of the cutchery belonging to Kai Bahadur Sailendra Nath Ghose and others on settlement plots No. 879, 878, 881 find 883 of Mouza Lockpur and in prosecution of that common object committed an offence of doting and thereby committed an offence Under Rule 147, Penal Code. They also stood char...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Moazzem Hossain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal318
Chakravartti, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bengal against an order of acquittal dated 22-12-1945, passed by Mr. U.C. Sarkar, Magistrate, First Class, Barial. The acquittal was not on the merits but on the ground that the necessary sanction for the institution of the proceedings had not been obtained in accordance with law.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows : It appears that the respondent is the manager of a shop in the town of Barisal which is known as the Royal Stores. On 15-4-1945, the shop was searched and it is alleged that 7 Sarees, 1 Dhoti and 34 yards of Jangli Chhit were recovered from the shop. Thereupon the respondent was immediately placed under arrest under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, and produced before the Magistrate on the same date. Thereafter, he was produced before the Magistrate on three other occasions, the last of which was on 25-5-1945, but even then the Police was unable to submit a charge-sheet and prayed for a furth...
Mahendra Chandra Dey Vs. Mahendra Chandra Kar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal288
ORDERLodge, J.1. This rule was issued on the prayer of the defendant to show cause why a decree passed by the Munsif, Third Court, Narainganj, in Small Cause Court jurisdiction should not be set aside. The plaintiff opposite patty sued to recover Rs. 50 from the present petitioner on the basis of an agreement entered into on 26th of Agrahayan 1349 B.S. It is now conceded that on 26th Agrahayan 1349, the present petitioner borrowed Rs. 400 from the opposite party and executed a document in which he acknowledged having borrowed the money and agreed to repay the loan in eight annual instalments of Rs. 50 each. The opposite party asserted that Rs. 100 Had been paid in respect of the instalments for 1349 and 1350 B.S. and he claimed in the present suit the instalment for the year 1351 B.S. The present petitioner asserted that Rs. 200 had been paid and he denied that any sum was due. There was an endorsement on the back of the bond which originally showed that Rs. 200 had been paid. This had...
Brijkishore Singh and ors. Vs. Sm. Nazuk Bai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Cal19
1. One Dhan Singh, a person a governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law, died on 11-10-1922 at Karagpur in the District of Midnapore. He migrated to Bengal from the Central Provinces. By carrying on the business for a contractor and other businesses in the District of Midnapore including a business of sale of country liquor he acquired considerable properties, both movable and immovable. He left behind him his wife an adopted son of the name of Puran Singh, a Mohamedan mistress, Mustani Bai, two children by her, Nazuk Bai and Fakir Singh, and a number of nephews-brother's sons and sister's sons. Both his adopted son and his illegitimate children were minors at the time of his death. Two days prior to his death he executed a will by which he appointed his sister's sons, Hari Singh and Sital Prasad, as executors. Both of them obtained probate of his will on 8-10-1923 from the District Judge of Midnapore on an application made by them in January 1923. Shortly after the grant of proba...
Ganjee Sajun and Co. Vs. Lalji Agarwala and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Cal45
Latifur Rahman, J.1. This appeal by the defendants arises out of an action in ejectment. It appears that the property in suit was leased out by the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs to the present defendants by an indenture of lease dated 14-9-1914, for a period of 15 years commencing from 1st Ashar 1321 B, Section with an option of renewal for another period of 10 years. When the lease for 15 years expired the defendants intimated their desire to exercise their option for renewal of the said lease. They were then allowed to continue in possession of the property in suit, and according to the plaintiffs the period of 10 years expired on 1st Ashar 1846 B.S. Thereafter, the plaintiffs served & notice on the defendants asking them to quit and vacate on the ground that the plaintiffs required khas possession of the property in question for their own use. Subsequently in the suit which the plaintiffs instituted they prayed for recovery of possession, also claimed arrears of rent as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›