Kolkata Court May 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.
Emperor Vs. J. Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal414
Biswas, J.1. This is a Rule on the Editor, Publisher and Printer of the Calcutta Weekly Notes, a well-known law journal now in the 52nd year of its publication, calling on them to show cause why they should not be committed or otherwise dealt with for alleged contempt of Court in respect of the publication of an article in the issue of the paper dated 21-4-1947.2. The proceeding was commenced on a report made to this Court by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, Mr. W.J. Palmer, I.C.S., by his letter Ro. 1408 dated 5-5-1947, calling our attention to the following passage in the said article which appeared in the second column on page xcii as editorial comment:On top of this, came the other day news of armed police men breaking into a house in the heart of the city - premises No. 100, Harrison - Road be labouring all and sundry, arresting whoever they did not perhaps like the look of, and raping a married woman. The excuse for this barbarous intrusion, after the curfew order, in...
Upendra Lal and anr. Vs. Birendra Lal Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal457
1. The subject-matter of the suit is a tenure in a permanently settled area. After the final publication of the Record of Rights prepared under chap. 10, Bengal Tenancy Act, which bad recorded that (sic) the rent of the tenure to be liable to enhancement, the landlords, who are the appellants, before us, filed an application before the Revenue Officer under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, for settlement of fair rent. The tenure-holder, Jogesh, did not appear and take part in those proceedings with the result that the question as to whether the rent of the tenure was at all liable to enhancement was not raised. In an ex parte hearing the Revenue Officer proceeded on the basis of Section 7, Bengal Tenancy Act, and settled the fair rent at Rs. 271-2-0 with effect from 1339 B.S. The existing rent was Rs. 200-10-0. The respondent Birendralal Dass, who is the purchaser of the said tenure at a subsequent sale held in execution of a rent decree obtained against Jogesh, filed a suit, hereafter...
Brojo Kishore De Vs. Krishna Das Adhardas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal389
ORDERHarries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a District Judge reversing an order of an Appellate Officer and holding that an application under Section 37A, was properly constituted.2. The decree-holder was an idol and an application was made by the debtor under Section 37A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors (Amendment) Act, for relief as against the decree-holder. The decree-holder was cited as the idol represented by the shebait, Lalit Mohan De. This application was dated 1-4-1943.3. Applications under Section 37A, of the Amending Act, have to be made within one year of the date upon which the Act came into force and this application was within a period of one year. Unfortunately, however, the shebait, Lalit Mohan De, had been dead since 14-2-1940, and therefore the application was against an idol unrepresented by anybody. An idol is a juristic person and can sue and be sued, but it must bring a suit or it must be sued through a representative, usually the shebait. As...
Sm. Suhashini Das W/O Surendra Nath Das Vs. Mahendra Kumar Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal455
Chakravartti, J.1. This rule fails on a preliminary ground and it is therefore unnecessary to refer to the merits of the order against which it is directed. The facts, briefly stated, are the following: The petitioner, along with her husband was the tenant of premises No. 1, Girish Vidyaratna Lane, Calcutta, which however came to be required by the landlord for his own occupation. When the petitioner came to know of that circumstance, she purchased a house, for herself, namely premises No. 9, Jugipara Bye Lane, in September, 1944. A tenant, however was in occupation of the house purchased by the petitioner. On 18-1-1945, the petitioner made an application to the Bent Controller for leave to bring a suit for ejectment against the tenant in occupation of the house. Permission was granted on 12-7-1945, but against the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant preferred an appeal to the learned District Judge of Alipore under the Calcutta House Rent Control Order. That appeal was, in the fi...
Syed Ahammad and anr. Vs. Makku Mia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal69
Gopendranath Das, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendants. The facts are somewhat peculiar. On 18-4-1933, two suits for rent in respect of the same holding were filed by two sets of cosharer landlords, viz., 6 annas and 10 annas landlords. In each suit, the remaining osharers as also the tenant defendant were made parties. The rent suit filed by the ten annas cosharer was decreed on 20-11-1933. This was later than the decree passed in the rent suit brought by the six annas cosharers which was decreed on 2-11-1933. Both the decrees were executed. The dates, however, when the execution cases were initiated, do not appear. In execution of the decree obtained by the ten annas cosharer the tenancy was brought to sale on 10-6-1936, and possession was taken through Court on 13-5-1939. In execution of the decree obtained by the six annas cosharer, the identical holding was sold on 12-10-1936, and possession was taken on 24-2-1939. The purchase in each execution case was made by the exe...
Bibhuti Bhusan Das Vs. Bejoy Chandra Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal34
Gopendranath Das, J.1. Those appeals are on behalf of, the plaintiff in suits for recovery of arrears of rent. The claim in these suits includes a sum payable under an award and certain arrears of rent which accrued since the award, viz., arrears due from Pous kist 1346 B.S. to Aswin kist 1348 B.S. The award included a claim due under a decree in respect of arrears of rent for the period 1342 to 1845 B.S. and a claim for arrears of rent for Ashar and Aswin kists 1846. The suits have been, decreed in part by the Courts below, the lower-appellate Court holding that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the arrears of rent for Ashar and Aswin kists 1346, covered by the award and rent from Poush kist, 1346 to Aswin kist 1348; it has disallowed the claim for arrears of rent for 1342 to 1345 B.S. which were covered, by the decree and later included in the award. The question raised in these appeals is whether this claim can be recovered by a civil suit.2. Both the Courts below have held ...
Purna Chandra Ghose Vs. Sm. Kiran Bala Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal53
Chakravartti, J.1. This appeal raises a question under the Registration Act which does not seem to have been considered in any reported case. The facts are simple and may be briefly summarized as follows. On 8-3-1937, one Sarat Chandra Ghosh, the maternal uncle of the plaintiff, executed a deed of gift in her favour and thereby gave her a piece of land, apparently as a present on the occasion of her marriage. The land was situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar at Barangail in the district of Dacca. Shortly after the execution of the deed, Sarat died and the document could not be registered by him. On Sarat's death the plaintiff made repeated requests to the defendant, who is a brother of Sarat and his heir, to get the deed registered but he refused to do so and thereupon the plaintiff presented the deed for registration before the 'Special Sub-Registrar' of Dacca. That officer, by an order dated 23-4-1938 refused registration on the ground that execution was not admitted...
Goppi Ballav Mondal Vs. Aswini Kumar Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal31
Chakravartti, J.1. This Rule raises two questions under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, both of which are of some importance. They arise out of the following facts.2. On 29.9.1938, the petitioner and his co-sharers obtained a rent decree against the opposite parties and, in execution of that decree, the holding was sold on 14-2-1939, when it was purchased by the petitioner. Ho took delivery of possession in due course and claims to have settled the land with a third party. On 14-1-1943, only some of the opposite parties made an, application Under Section 87-A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act before the Special Debt Settlement Board at Allipore and of them, again, some dropped off subsequently. The petitioner resisted the application and one of the grounds upon which he did so was that no application Under Section 87-A was maintainable at the instance of some only of several joint debtors. The Board, being in doubt as to whether the application could be entertained, made a referenc...
Bhubaneswar Baidya and ors. Vs. Rabi Charan Baidya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal149
ORDERHarries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a lower appellate Court remanding the case to the Court of a learned Munsif. An application was made in the Court of the Munsif for pre-emption of a certain sale. The plaintiff impleaded all the transferees as majors, but according to the defendants one of the transferees, Sidheswar, was a minor. No guardian was appointed and the case proceeded to its conclusion before the learned Munsif. The Munsif held that in the circumstances there was no right to preempt; further that Sidheswar was a minor and that the proceedings against him in any event would be null and void.2. The plaintiff appealed to the lower appellate Court and that Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had the right to pre-empt in the circumstances of the case. The Court further held that if Sidheswar was a major then the matter was ended, but if ho was a minor then the proceedings were to all intents and purposes null and void The lower appella...
Jitendra Nath Mondal Vs. Nandalal Dass and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal434
Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Asansol, District Burdwan.2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff's case is that the disputed property belonged to Kamaruddin Molla who sold the same to plaintiff's father on 6-3-1933. On 17-11-1938 defendant 1 purchased the disputed property in T. Execution Case No. 103 of 1938 against the heirs of Kamaruddin. The plaintiff having being dispossessed on 8-1-1939 by defendant 1 at the time of taking possession in the said execution case, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P.C., which was dismissed on 13-5-1939. The plaintiff accordingly filed the suit for declaration of the plaintiff's nishkar right in the suit land and for khas possession on demolition of the huts erected by defendant and for permanent injunction.3. The suit was contested by defendant 1 mainly on the ground that the plaintiff's kobala was a benami transaction, that the plaintiff or his father ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »