Kolkata Court November 1947 Judgments
Sm. Akhoy Kumari Debi Vs. Chand ModdIn Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal206
ORDER1. One Chand Moddin Mondal opposite party and his father Pir Box who was also the father of the other opposite parties served as Tehaildara of two Mouzas, Sibarampur and Kazipara, which belong to the petitioner Sm. Akhoy Kumari Debi. At the time of their appointment as Teksildara they executed a security bond in favour of the zemindar undertaking to perform their duties properly and to remit all the collections made by them to the zemindar. They also gave an undertaking that they would not allow rents to be barred by limitation. The clause dealing with the last mentioned matter is to the effect that they would submit a list of claims for rent from the tenants about to be barred to the principal officer before one month of the Tamadi day in order to get sanction for the purpose of instituting suits for the recovery thereof but if they did not do so and rents became barred by reason of their not submitting the list in time to the zemindar or his principal officer, then they would be...
Tag this Judgment!Gurupada Roy Vs. P.N. Malia and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal246
Roxburgh, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Burdwan in a case in which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Asansol has permitted the Public Prosecutor to withdraw a case under Section 379, Penal Code against the two accused named Kumar Pashupati Nath Malia of the Searsole Raj family and Upendra Nath Ghatak, his Manager. The complainant in the case was a clerk acting on behalf of a Muktear Guru Prasanna Banerjee who was the real complainant in the case, the offence alleged being one of paddy cutting.2. The complaint was filed on 7-1-1946 (though dated 1945). It was sent for a judicial enquiry by a Magistrate of the first class who reported on the 25th February that a prima facie case had been made out against the two persons named above; whereupon summons under Section 379 of the Code was issued against them. The Kumar was allowed to appear by an agent.3. On the 19th April before any witnesses had been examined in the case a long petition was filed on behalf of t...
Tag this Judgment!PulIn Chandra Daw Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal190
Chakravartti, J.1. The appellant, Pulin Chandra Daw, has been convicted by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, under Section 282, Companies Act, and sentenced to detention till the rising of the Court as also a fine of Rs. 1000, in default, rigorous imprisonment for nine months. The act for which he has been so convicted and sentenced is that he, as a Director of the Santal Parganas Electric Supply Corporation, Ltd., made in the balance sheet of that company for the year 1944, a statement to the effect that the company owed a debt of Rs. 73,000 secured by a first mortgage on all its properties and undertakings, although, in fact, there was no such mortgage and that he thus made a false statement, knowing it to be false, in a material particular in the said balance sheet.2. The facts are simple and are not disputed. It appears that a firm called Datta Brothers obtained a license from the Government of Bihar for the supply of electricity within the town of Deoghar and adja...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sundar Halwasiya Vs. Jodhraj Halwasiya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal214
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order made by Edgley J. on 3-7-1947, by which the present appellant, who was the plaintiff in a civil suit, has been committed to prison for contempt of Court and further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 400. The facts so far as are material for our present purposes may be shortly stated as follows:2. The appellant Shyam Sunder Halwasiya brought a civil suit against Seth Jodhraj Halwaisya in the Original Side of this Court which was registered as suit No. 1227 of 1946 and the suit came up for hearing before Edgley J. on 23-6-1947. On the afternoon of 24-6-1947, the plaintiff, who had examined himself as a witness in this case, was under cross examination by the defendant's counsel and before the cross-examination was finished the case was adjourned till the day following, It appears that one Gajanand Chamaria was instructing the defendant's counsel while ho was cross-examining the plaintiff, and it is said that the defendant requeste...
Tag this Judgment!Nisha Kanto Roy Chowdhury Vs. Smt. Saroj Bashini Goho
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal294
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Gentle J. in a case of contempt of Court.2. The present appellant and the respondent had entered into a tenancy agreement in respect of a room in No. 1A. Obhoy Goho Road, Calcutta. The respondent, who was the owner of these premisss had let to the defendant one room in the premises as a shop in which the trade of a butcher was to be carried on. In that room the appellant installed the images of Kali and Siva and to this the respondent objected. Eventually the respondent gave to the appellant notice to quit the premises and brought a suit for ejectment in this Court.3. The suit was not contested, but on the contrary the parties came to an agreement. The terms of compromise were drafted and signed by the parties and these terms were handed, into Court and the compromise was made a rule of Court.4. By the compromise the present appellant admitted that he was a monthly tenant of the premises which he used as a meat shop. He also admitted...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›