Kolkata Court January 1947 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.
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Fate Chand Baid a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal39
Roxburgh, J.1. This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, on behalf of the Provincial Government against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate of the first class, Khulna, Under Section 81(d), Defence of India Rules in respect of an alleged contravention of Clause 14 (2), Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1943. The accused are alleged to have had in possession 19 1/2 pairs of cloths which under the terms of Clause 14(2) should have been sold prior to the date on which they were seized namely 29-5-1945. The defence was that Under Clause 15A of the Order inserted in it on 22-1-1944 'notwithstanding anything contained in Clause 14 (2), cloth or yarn not disposed of within the period specified in those clauses could be kept and sold by a dealer subject to the conditions notified in this behalf by the Textile Commissioner. No conditions had been notified and therefore there was no offence in having the cloths in stock.2. The learned trial Mag...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Sona Mia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal95
Roxburgh, J.1. This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, on behalf of the Provincial Government against six accused who were acquitted on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chittagong. One of the accused, Munshi Mia, against whom the appeal was admitted is now reported to be dead. The accused wore tried along with six others by Mr. Ganguli, a Magistrate of Chittagong on charges under Sections 147, 332/34, 225 and 224, Penal Code. The trial Magistrate acquitted six accused before him and convicted the remainder under various sections and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment under various sections.2. The prosecution case is that one Sashi Kumar Nath (P.W. 11) reported a robbery on 13-2-1945 by four persons including two of the present accused, Sona Mia and Siddique Ahmed. Information was recorded by Gopal Chandra Nag (P.W. 1) Assistant Sub-Inspector (EX. 7). Iavestigation was taken up by Sub-Inspector, Moklasar Rahman (P.W. 2) who...
Bhagirath Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal42
ORDERLodge, J.1. These four Rules arise out of a prosecution Under Sections 82 and 134, Companies Act. The four petitioners wore tried jointly by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, the allegation against them being that they were directors of a company known as the City Commercial Bank Ltd., that that company held an annual general meeting on 29-10-1944 and that that was the only general meeting of the company held during the year 1944. The further allegation was that no list of share-holders and summary were submitted within 21 days of that meeting as required by Section 32, Companies Act; and that the accused persons, as directors, knowingly and willfully authorized and permitted the company to commit the default and that they thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 32(5), Companies Act. The other charge was that they omitted to file with the Registrar three copies of the balance sheet and profit and loss account made up to a date not earlier than the date of th...
Sukumar Bose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal116
Roxburgh, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted under Section 11, Bengal Public Gambling Act of 1867 for unauthorised betting at the Calcutta Race Course. He has been fined Rs. 50 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one week. A sum of Rs. 7500 which was found with him was directed to be forfeited. He was tried along with another man Shisu Ghosh who pleaded guilty and was then examined as a witness. When examined as a witness the latter denied that the present petitioner had any connection with him.2. The principal point urged by Mr. Noad before us is that there is no authority under the Gambling Act (Act 2 [II] of 1867) for the Magistrate to direct forfeiture of the money found with the accused and we must accept this contention as sound. In Section 5 the Magistrate or other officer empowered is given certain powers to enter and search a suspected gaming house and it is provided that he.may seize or authorise such officer to seize all instruments of gaming and ...
S.K. Dalil Vs. Radha Nath Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal367
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule arises out of an application made by the opposite parties for pre-emption under Section 26F, Bengal Tenancy Act. The petitioner before us is the purchaser of a portion of an occupancy holding and his purchase is dated 14-6-1942. The opposite parties presented an application for pre-emption on 16-21944, alleging that they were co-sharer tenants and hence entitled to preempt, nder the provisions of that section. The whole controversy centres round the point as to whether the opposite parties are really co-sharer tenants and hence are entitled to claim pre-emption under Section 26F, Bengal Tenancy Act. The trial Court answered this question in the negative and the appellate Court has decided in favour of the opposite parties and it is against this order that the present rule has been obtained.2. Now, the opposite parties claim to be co-sharers in the tenancy on the basis of a purchase of a portion of the occupancy holding made by them on 80-3-1922, that is t...
Gopal Chandra Haldar Vs. Nepal Chandra Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal81
ORDERLodge, J.1. This rule arises out of an order passed by the District Judge of Khulna under Section 40A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935. The material facts giving rise to the present rule are not disputed and they are as follows: The petitioner before me borrowed Rs. 1200 in Baisakh 1337 B.S. and executed a simple mortgage bond in favour of opposite party No. 1. In the month of Chaitra 1341 B.S. he borrowed Rs. 470 and executed a second mortgage in favour of opposite party No. 2, the son of opposite party No. 1. Thereafter the petitioner before me presented an application under Section 8, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935, before the Bagerhat Special Board. Sometime subsequent to the presentation of this application the Rajnagar Debt Settlement Board was constituted and on the recommendation of the Bagerhat Special Board the application was transferred on 9-1-1940, to the Rajnagar Debt Settlement Board, for disposal. The Rajnagar Debt Settlement Board took evidence and ca...
Prafulla Chandra Ghosh Vs. Ramesh Chandra Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal74
Akram, J.1. This appeal by one of the judgment-debtors, Prafulla Chandra Ghose, arises out of an execution proceeding started in connexion with Suit No. 66 of 1936 of the Court of the Second Munsiff, at Dacca, in which one Amulya Charan Ghose got a decree for costs amounting ultimately to Rs. 269-9-6 against one Nishi Kanta Ghose and Prafulla Chandra Ghose aforesaid (Nishi is now dead). Amulaya thereafter on 24-5-43, transferred the decree to one Ramesh Caandra Ghose, and when Ramesh applied for execution (Execution case No. 79 of 1943) objections were taken by the judgment-debtors, one of which gave rise to Miscellaneous case No. 180 of 1943; the main objection in this case was to the effect that the decree could not be executed inasmuch as it had already been attached on 11-5-1943 (Execution case No. 53 of 1913) by one Rebati Raman De, who had obtained a decree at Alipore against Amulya in Suit No. 11 of 1939. The learned Munsif upheld this objection and dismissed the execution case....
K.K. Ram Vs. Prithwiraj Bucha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal7
ORDERLodge, J.1. This rule was issued upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why the proceedings pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate should not be quashed on the ground of absence of territorial jurisdiction.2. The material facts are as follows: One Prithwiraj Bucha filed a petition of complaint against the present petitioner K.K. Ram alleging that his wife had been enticed away from his house in Calcutta by some unknown person, that sometime thereafter he received a communication from the accused K.K. Ram stating that the wife wag staying under the care and guidance of the Bengal Hindu Mahasabha (I understand that the place where she wag staying was situated in Lillooah outside the jurisdiction of the Chief Presidency Magistrate). Thereupon the complainant Prithwiraj Bucha saw the accused and endeavoured to secure the restoration of his wife, but the accused refused to restore the wife to the complainant. The complainant had since...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›