Kolkata Court February 1947 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Pritam Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal128
Roxburgh, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of 24-Parganas recommending that certain proceedings now being held against one Pritam Singh be quashed on the ground that further prosecution of this accused for an offence under Sections 19A and 19 (f), Arms Act, is barred by the provisions of Section 403, Criminal P.C. The accused was first sent up on 1-11-1945, with another man. On 8-12-1945, a charge sheet against the accused alone under Section 19 (f), Arms Act, Section 3 of Ordinance 33 [XXXIII] of 1943 and Section 411, Penal Code was received by the Court. On 7-1-1946, the District Magistrate of 24-Parganaa granted sanction for the prosecution. The case had been transferred on 12th December by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the file of Mr. B.L. Saha for disposal. A fresh charge sheet on 21-1-1946, was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who transferred this to Mr. B.L. Saha for disposal.2. The accused was committed to Sessions, when on 28th May the pub...
Tag this Judgment!Amaresh Chandra Sinha Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal110
Roxburgh, J.1. This is a Rule against an order of conviction for contravention of cls. 4, 10 and 11 of Ordinance 35 of 19-13 read with certain notificatibns and is made under Clause 13 (1) and (2) of the said Ordinance. The accused was sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The prosecution case was that on 9th January 1945 the accused sold vegetable ghee to the Sub-Inspector at the rate of Rs. 2-3-0 per seer, a price much above the controlled rate. A first information was lodged and eventually a charge-sheet was submitted in which the offence committed was stated to be selling ghee at above the controlled rate, refusal to give a cash memo and failure to hang up the price list. The conviction was upheld on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Jessore.3. The case was tried summarily. The accused came before the Court on 15th January and this summary trial took 18 months, the conviction e...
Tag this Judgment!Kamala Ranjan Roy Vs. Ifran Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal14
R.C. Mitter Ag. C.J.1. Raja Kamala Ranjan Boy, the plaintiff in these suits, purchased Touzi No. 7 of the Murshidabad Collectorate at a revenue sale on 29-3-1930. He instituted these suits in the year 1939. The suits were for assessment of rent in respect of lands which had been recorded in the Record of Hights, finally published under chapter x of the Bengal Tenancy Act as niskar bhogdakhalsutre. The word 'niskar' appears in column No. 3 under the heading 'Khajana', and 'Bhogakhalsutre' appears in column No. 5 of the Khatian, that is to say, in the remarks column, In the plaint he recited his purchase at the revenue sale. In paragraph 2 of the plaint he stated that the entry in the Record of Rights was wrong, that is to say, the lands were not in fact niskar lands and so he was entitled to assess rent. In paragraph 3 of the plaint he stated that even if the lands were niskar, he being the purchaser of an entire estate at a revenue sale is not bound to recognise the niskar rights of th...
Tag this Judgment!Santi Lal Mehta and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal103
ORDER1. (21st Feb. 1947.)-This is a Rule against an order of conviction under Section 188, Penal Code. Four petitioners were convicted on their plea of guilty and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six weeks on 13-9.1946. On the same day, just after the order was passed they filed a petition alleging that they had not in fact pleaded guilty and had not understood the proceedings. The learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate noted that the facts stated in the petition were not correct, that everything was done in the open Court and he was satisfied with the plea of guilty before he convicted the accused and in his opinion the petition had been filed because the sentence of imprisonment had been passed.2. The proceedings started on a challan submitted by Sub-Inspector, M.K. Mukherjee of section F alleging that the accused had violated 'the provisions of Section 144, Criminal P.C. by carrying one bhujali and one dagger' in a certain car on 21-8-1946. We are to understand from our ...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhirkumar Bose Vs. Chandra Kanta Shewli and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1947
Reported in: AIR1955Cal560
ORDERBiswas, J.1. In my opinion, this Rule should be made absolute. The court below was wrong in saying that a claim under Section 73, Transfer of Property Act, as it now stands can be enforced only a suit. The section as it stood before its amendment in 1929 only created a charge in favour of the mortgagee on the surplus sale proceeds of the mortgaged property where it was sold through failure to pay arrears of revenue or rent due in respect thereof.If the mortgagee had only a charge created in his favour, it could obviously be enforced by means of a suit but the section was amended by Act 20 of 1929, and by the amendment it was declared that the mortgagee can claim payment of the mortgage money out of the surplus sale proceeds, remaining. There is no question now of bringing a suit to enforce the claim. Sub-section (3) no doubt uses the word 'enforce', but that must evidently refer to the mode in which the claims are to be satisfied under Sub-sections (1) and (2). There is no reason,...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Bahadur Sing Vs. Felani Mai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal407
Mitter, Ag. C.J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. He instituted the suit against the defendants for damages for use and occupation for the years 1342 to 1344 B.S. and for rent for the year 1345 B.S. The material statement is contained in para. 2 of his plaint. In that paragraph, he states that the defendants were in occupation of his khas lands without his consent and knowledge and had no rights in that land upto the year 1344 B.S. It is on this basis that he claimed damages for use and occupation for the said three years. He further stated that in a proceeding under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, rent was assessed at a certain figure from the year 1345 B.S. onwards. He therefore claimed rent at the rate settled in the proceedings under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, for the year 1345 B.S. The suit was instituted in the civil Court, namely, in the Court of the first Munsif, Dinajpur. The defendants admitted their liability to pay rent for the year 1345 B.S.; but stated t...
Tag this Judgment!Bonamali Pramanik and ors. Vs. Radhagobinda Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal388
Akram, J.1. In R.S. No. 404 of 1935 one Radha Gobinda Ghose, landlord, obtained a rent decree against the tenant Bon Behari Pramanik and two others. In execution of that decree he purchased the defaulting jote on 19-3-1987 and took delivery of possession of the same on 28-8-1937. The judgment-debtors thereafter, sometime in 1943, made an application under Section 37A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, before the Chandaikona Debt Settlement Board for setting aside the sale and getting back possession of the property sold. The Debt Settlement Board, on 30-9-1943 made an award purporting to be under the said Section 37A of the Act, in favour of the applicants holding that the decree-holder had recovered more than what was due to him and that nothing further remained due from the applicant to the decree-holder. The applicants thereafter filed the award before the executing Court as required under Section 37A(8) of the Act and the Court then on 19-8-1944, passed an ex parte order directing d...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Mannan and ors. Vs. Taiyab Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal390
ORDERLodge, J.1. This Rule arises out of an order passed under Section 522(3), Criminal P.C. The material facts are as follows : The present petitioner Abdul Mannan and six other persons were prosecuted on charges under Sections 143 and 352, Penal Code, and they were placed on their trial before a Magistrate of the first class at Sylhet. The learned Magistrate found all the accused persons guilty under Sections 143 and 352, Penal Code. The learned Magistrate sentenced Abdul Mannan under Section 143 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months. The learned Magistrate sentenced the remaining accused persons under Section 143, Penal Code, each to pay a fine of Rs. 40 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 30 days. No separate sentence was passed under Section 352, Penal Code, upon any of the accused persons.2. The accused persons appeale...
Tag this Judgment!Jaminikanto Harendralal Saha Vs. Bonomali Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1947
Reported in: AIR1949Cal172
Mitter Ag., C.J.1. One Bonomali De had let out an open piece of land to one Surendra Kumar Bagehi, who was a monthly tenant in respect thereto. Surendra Kumar Bagchi built a bustee on the said land and sublet a portion of the bustee, that is to say, some huts to the appellant before us Messrs. Jaminikanto Harendra Lal. Saha, who wore also monthly tenants in respect of the huts so let out to them. Bonomali De served a notice to quit on his tenant Surendra Kumar Bagchi and thereafter instituted a suit for ejectment against him. During the pendency of the suit Surendra Kumar Bagchi died and his widow Profulla Nalini Debi was substituted in his place. The suit for ejectment was decreed on 9th January 1942, before the Calcutta House Rent Control Order had been promulgated, The Calcutta House Rent Control Order was promulgated in 1943 and came into force on 26th June 1943. On the application for execution made by Bonomali De an order directing delivery of possession in terms of Order 21, It ...
Tag this Judgment!Anwara Khatoon Vs. Mt. Hasan Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal171
Mitter Ag., C.J.1. The appellant before us is one of the plaintiffs in a suit instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dacca. The defendants in that suit were the heirs of one Hafiz Mohammad Hossain as also the Receiver who had been appointed Receiver in an administration suit filed in the original side of this Court by some of the heirs of Haflz Mohammad Hossain against others. The said Receiver made an application in this Court under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent for the transfer of the suit instituted at Dacca to this Court. An order for transfer was made by this Court. That order for transfer was made in the absence of the appellant before us. The appellant before us later on made an application for revocation of the order of transfer, one of her grounds being that she had not been served with the rule nisi that had been issued for the transfer of the case. She also stated that it was not a fit case in which the suit instituted at Dacca ought to be transferred to this ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »