Kolkata Court January 1947 Judgments
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Multanchand and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal3
Roxburgh, J.1. This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, in a case in which three accused, Multan Chand, Kalurani and Abdul Jabbar were convicted by the trial Court for contravention of Clause 3(1) of the Foodgrains Control Order, 1942, and sentenced Under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules each to pay fine of Rs. 500, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five months. The Court also directed that the gram in respect of which the offence had been committed or the price thereof be forfeited to His Majesty. On appeal the learned. Sessions Judge of Faridpur acquitted the accused.2. The prosecution case is that on the 16th May 1945, Mr. B.E. Bhattacharjee (P.W. 1), a Sub-Deputy Magistrate went to the godown of the accused Multan Chand in Ambicapur near Faridpur town and found 2895 maunds of gram. The accused Kaluram is said to be the manager of Multan Ghand's firm. In the course of the enquiry the accused Adbul Jabbar produced his lic...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Lal Sarnakar Vs. Abhoy Charan Jha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal5
ORDERLodge, J.1. The material facts giving rise to this case are as follows. The present petitioner Harilal Sarnakar presented an application before the Debt Settlement Board in respect of a debt due from him to his landlord, Bahadur Sing Singhi. That application was transferred by The Sub-Divisional Officer to the Milki Debt Settlement Board for disposal and an award was made by that Debt Settlement Board on 21-2-1941. The only creditor mentioned in the award was the landlord Bahadur Sing Singhi and there was only one debt included in the award. The opposite party, Abhoy Charan Jha, was a member of the Board in question. At some time subsequent to the preparation of The award false entries were made in the order-sheets of the Debt Settlement Board to indicate that an application had been made by the opposite party, Abhoy Charan Jha, in respect of a debt by The petitioner to Abhoy Charan Jha, and the original award was amended by the inclusion of this alleged debt of the petitioner to ...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Makhan Chandra Ro ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal40
Roxburgh, J.1. (Govt. Appeal 16.) This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, on behalf of the Provincial Government and is against an order of acquittal of two accused in respect of contraventions of the Defence of India Rules. The trial Court found some of the contraventions proved but acquitted the accused relying on the case in Chakradhar Sahu v. Emperor 32 A.I.R. 1945 Pat. 294 holding that the orders contravened had not been proved to have been published and circulated in accordance with the requirements of Rule 119, Defence of India Rules. It is obvious that this appeal has been filed mainly to have this particular error corrected and see that it does not lead to further acquittals in other cases. The case itself is otherwise not of special importance. This point has been settled by two decisions of this Court namely, Ashutosh Chatterjee v. Emperor ('46) 50 C.W.N. 459 and Purna Chandra v. Emperor ('46) 50 C.W.N. 614 and during the present ap...
Tag this Judgment!Brindaban Chandra Saha and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal108
ORDERClough, J.1. On 1.2-1945, information was lodged as a result of which the petitioners were sent up on a charge under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules. The petitioners are rice dealers and the allegation against them was that they had not submitted accounts in respect of certain stocks of foodstuffs which were found in their godown. On 18-6-1945, a warrant was issued against all; one of the petitioners was arrested and the other two were absconding. Therefter a bail petition was presented but bail was refused pending final investigation and the petitioner who had been arrested was remanded. On 23-6-1945, another bail petition was moved and bail was allowed. Up to this stage only one of the accused was present, the others were still absconding. They eventually surrendered. The date of their surrender was 15-8-1945 and bail was granted to them also. Thereafter, the order sheet shows that there were a very large number of adjournments, a great many of which were applied for by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Zafar Md. Sarkar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal382
ORDERLodge, J.1. This rule was issued upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Rule 5 of the rules framed under Ordinance 21 [XXI] of 1944 should not be set aside.2. It appears that on 9-1-1946, a complaint against the present petitioner was preferred to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, in the following terms:Sir,I have the honour to submit that the marginally noted accused person is violating the rules made by Government under Section 11, Public Health (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1944, and issued with notification No. 1843-Mdl., dated 22-5-1945, by making unauthorised advertisements about the treatment of venereal diseases on sequels of venereal diseases on signboards, walls etc., and in newspapers.3. On receipt of this petition of complaint, summons was issued upon the petitioner under Rule 5 of the rules framed under Section 11 of the Ordinance. One witness only was examined for the prosecu...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Amari (Charan) Ti ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal4
Ellis, J.1. This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal on behalf of the Provincial Government, and is directed against an order of acquittal made by Mr. B. Mukherji, Additional Sessions Judge of Khulna on 22-12-1945.2. The occurrence out of which the case has arisen wits a communal riot between the Mussalmans and the Namasudras of the District of Khulna which took place on 26-5-1944. His Lordship narrated the facts of the case and proceeded as follows.3. 81 persons were committed to stand their trial at the Court of Session; of them 83, were actually tried before Mr, B. Mukherji the Additional Sessions Judge and four assessors. The trial ended in the conviction of 9 only of the accused of an offence Under Section 148, Penal Code. These 9 appealed to the High Court against their convictions and sentences; two were successful while the convictions of the remaining 7 were maintained.4. The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs on behalf of...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Patta Kumari Bibi Vs. Nirmal Kumar Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal97
R.C. Mitter, J.1. Rai Dhanpat Singh Nowlakha of Azimgunj died intestate in the year 1914 leaving him surviving his widow, Patta Kumari Bibi, the appellant before us two natural born sons and six daughters. Shortly after his death his two sons died. In pursuance of an authority given by him, Patta Kumari Bibi adopted Nirmal Kumar Singh Nowlakha, the respondent before us, in April 1918. The latter attained majority in 1919. In 1924 disputes and differences arose between him and his adoptive mother. Those disputes and differences were referred to the arbitration of two gentlemen, Dhannu Lal Sucbanti and Askaran Bhutaria. The arbitrators gave their award on 13-11-1924. Paragraph 9, which is the only material paragraph of the award for this appeal, dealt with the rights of the parties in respect of ornaments, jewelleries, gold mohurs, silver ware and utensils. No list, however, of the ornaments etc., dealt with in that paragraph was appended to the award or even made by the arbitrators. Acc...
Tag this Judgment!Governor-general of India in Council Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal8
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the Governor-General of India in Council and is directed against a judgment of the Small Cause Court Judge of Sealdah dated 187-19-10, passed in an assessment appeal under Section 141, Calcutta Municipal Act.2. The point in controversy relates to the mode of assessment of premises No. 4 Dum Dam Road which is owned by the Government of India and which was assessed to consolidated rate by the Corporation of Calcutta, at its last revaluation Under Section 127 (b), Calcutta Municipal Act.3. The case of the Government of India is that the assessment should have been made Under Clause (a) of Section 127 of the Act. There was an appeal taken against the assessment order to the Small Cause Court Judge of Boaldah under the provisions of Section 141, Calcutta Municipal Act. The learned Small Cause Court Judge dismissed the appeal holding that the assessee not was rightly made. The assessee has now come up on appeal to this Court.4. Premises No.4 D...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Rajabala Vs. Sm. Sukumari Debi W/O Gurupada Haldar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal441
Chakravartti, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendant, and it arises out of a suit for ejectment, after service of notice to quit, in which a claim for arrears of rent a3 also for damages on account of subsequent use and occupation was joined. The plaintiff's allegation was that the defendant was occupying the land as a monthly tenant and had failed to vacate it even, after the expiry of the period given to her by the notice to quit.2. The trial Court decreed the suit in respect of both the claims and made an order for recovery of possession as also for rent as claimed in the suit, together with damages up to the date of the judgment, provided that the deficit court-fees were paid by the plaintiff within ten days. An appeal taken by the defendant to the lower appellate Court was dismissed.3. Only one point was urged before us in the present second appeal, and it will be sufficient to state the tenant's defence so far as that point is concerned. The suit was brought, on 29th May ...
Tag this Judgment!HossaIn Ali and anr. Vs. Kala Chand Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal444
ORDERBiswas, J.1. The petitioners in this ease claiming to be cosharer tenants of an occupancy holding applied for pre-emption under Section 26F, Ben. Ten. Act, in respect of certain portions or shares of the holding alleged to have been transferred by opposite parties 2 and 3 to opposite party 1. The application was resisted by opposite party 1 mainly on two grounds. It was contended, in the first place, that the petitioners had no interest in the holding, which originally belonged to one Misrabali and his brother Jumarali, and subsequently on an amicable partition between the brothers, came to belong exclusively to Misrabali, inasmuch as the petitioners were not the heirs of Misrabali at all, in particular petitioner No. 1 was not a son of Misrabali. Secondly, it was alleged that the opposite party 1 had already acquired the entire holding from Misrabali and the heirs of Jumarali by two conveyances, Exs. A2 and A3, the first of which was executed by Misrabali in 1921 and the other by...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »