Kolkata Court February 1948 Judgments

Ram Krishna Bhakat and ors. Vs. Firm Haji Jonabally and Abdul Jalil

Court: Kolkata

B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The plaintiff opposite party which is a firm carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling biris instituted a suit against the petitioners in the Court of the Special Subordinate Judge of Assam Yalley Districts claiming compensation from the latter on the allegation that they were passing off the biris manufactured by them as the biris of the plaintiff.2. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the defendant petitioners was that in view of the provisions of Section 73, Trade Marks Act, 1940 (5 [v] of 1940), such a suit could be entertained only by the District Court, meaning thereby the Court of the District Judge. This contention found favour with the trial Judge who directed that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court. On appeal, this order was reversed, and the lower appellate Court has held that the suit was cognisable and triable by the Special Subordinate Judge, Assam Valley districts.3. The whole controversy centres rou...

Dominion of India Vs. Gopal Chandra Tapadar and ors.

Court: Kolkata

ORDERLodge, J.1. The facts giving rise to this rule may be stated briefly as follows: The Opposite Party No. 1 Gopal Chandra Tapadar had consigned on 28-7-1942, 440 bags of cement under cover of Risk Note z from Japla a station on the E.I. Ry., for delivery to the plaintiff at Gaibandha a station on the B. & A. Railway. The consignment was despatched from Japla in an E.I. Ry. Wagon to Bhagalpur and made over at that station to the O. & T. Railway then known as B. & N. W. Ry. It was despatched from Bhagalpur on 12-8-1942 and reached Mahadevpurghat on the O. & T Ry. on or about 16-8-1942. On 29-3-1943, the plaintiff was informed by the O. &. T Ry. Administration that the goods had been lost at Mahadevpurghat owing to disturbances of August 1942. Thereafter the plaintiff instituted a suit in the Calcutta Small Cause Court making the East Indian Railway Administration defendant 1, O. & T. Railway defendant 2, B. & A. Ry. defendant 3 and claimed compensation for the nondelivery of the goods...

Kanai Lal Paladi Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Harries, C.J.1. This is and reference made under Section 374, Criminal P.C., by the learned Sessions Judge of Hoogly for confirmation of a death sentence passed on Kanai Lal Paladi. The latter has also appealed against his convictions under Section 302 and Section 392/397, Penal Code. As I have stated, the appellant was sentenced to death under Section 302, Penal Code, but no separate sentence was passed under Section 392/397, Penal Code. It will be convenient to deal with the reference and the appeal in this judgment.2. The charge against the appellant was that he had in the early morning of April 6, 1947, at a village called Gopinagar murdered two persons Badal Chandra Das and Sudhan Ruidas. A further charge was that he had committed robbery and at the time of committing the said robbery he used a deadly weapon.3. The trial was before the learned Sessions Judge sitting with a jury. The jury convicted the appellant upon both charges and the learned Sessions Judge agreeing with the ver...

The Governor-general in Council Vs. Kishengopal Bhartia

Court: Kolkata

ORDERLodge, J.1. This rule has been obtained by the defendant Railway Company and it arises out of a suit for compensation for non-delivery of mustard seeds despatched from Alwar on the B.B. & C.I. Railway to Raniganj on the E.I. Railway.2. The material facts are as follows: 398 bags of mustard seeds were booked from Alwar on the B.B. & C.I. Railway by one Rampatmal Jaharmal to Ranigunj on the E.I. Railway. The railway receipt was subsequently transfer, red to Kishengopal Bhartia, the plaintiff who took delivery of such bags of mustard seeds as subsequently arrived at Ranigunj. At the time of delivery it was found that there were cuts in two of the bags and that consequently there was a shortage of 3 mds. and 30 seers of mustard seeds. The plaintiff sued the Railway Company claiming Rs. 72/14 as the value of the mustard seeds plus interest alleging that the shortage was due to the negligence and misconduct of the servants of the Railway Administration. When the goods were booked at Alw...

Bhutnath Choudhury Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Blank, J.1. This revision arises from the following facts. On 19th March 1947, Hazra Choudhury & Co. booked five cases of stationery goods at Juggannath Ghat for despatch by river to Dibrugarh Ghat in Assam. The goods were seized and found to consist of 155-dozen exercise books and 13 dozen registers. It was also found that they were despatched without a permit in contravention of Clause 2 of Notification No. 4476 com. dated 5th December 1944, published in the Calcutta Gazette on 9th December 1944. The petitioner, the proprietor of Hazra Choudhury & Co., was arrested and sent up for trial. On being charged under Section 7, Essential Supplies Act, 1946, the accused pleaded not guilty, his defence being that the despatch of the exercise books was not barred by law.2. The defence did not produce any evidence and, as the learned trying Magistrate observes, 'the facts were not at all challenged by the defence.' The trial Court found that the accused had booked for despatch to Assam without ...

Charu Chandra Mukherjee Vs. Khitish Chandra Mukherjee and ors.

Court: Kolkata

R.C. Mitter, J.1. Devraj Mukherjee was a leading pleader of the Suri Bar. He died at the age of about 76, in his Bolpur House on 15th February 1943. At the time of his death the following persons were his near relations: Sm. Kasi Kamini Devi, his widow, three sons viz., Charu Chandra, Kshitish Chandra and Tararanjan and four sons of Charu Chandra, viz., Dilip Chand, Manik Chand, Gouranga Sundar and Shankar Lal. His grandson Dilip had become pleader sometime ago and had acted as a junior to his grandfather Debraj Kshitish Chandra, Tararanjan and Dilip Chand applied for probate of his will said to have been executed by him on 23rd December 1942 at his Suri house. The will was registered at Suri on the same day. The objector is Charu Chandra who by the will has been practically cut off from the testator's estate. Only a small provision for his maintenance and of his wife and for his residence at the village house of the testator at Kalgram have been made for him.2. By the terms of the wil...

Basudeb Patra Vs. Kanai Lal Haldar

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1949CriLJ382

Blank, J.1. This Bule was issued to show cause why the sentence imposed on the accused should not be modified on the ground that the evidence discloses an offence under s, 403 and not under Section 406, Penal Code.2. The facts in brief are that the complainant is a goldsmith and the accused was his intimate friend. On 15th Baisakh 1352 B. s. (28th April 1945} the accused went to the complainant and told him that the date of the marriage ceremony of his youngest brother, Badal, was very hurriedly fixed for the next day so that there wad no time to have ornaments made for the bride, and requested the complainant to 'save his prestige',, as the learned Magistrate puts it, by lending him some ornaments and promised to return those ornaments as goon as the boubhat ceremony was over. This ceremony is one which takes place after the bride has gone to her husband's house, usually some five or ten days after the marriage ceremony. The complainant gave-the accused eight gold churis (bracelets) a...

Madangopal Bagla Vs. Lachmidas and ors.

Court: Kolkata

R.C. Mitter, J.1. The two respondents, Ram Kissen Das and Lachmidass, along with two other persons, Narrottam Das and Purushottamdas, carried on a business in co-partnership in Calcutta under the name and style of Narottamdas Gujrati. In the course of business transactions the said firm incurred a liability to the appellant, Madan Gopal Bagla, for a certain sum of money. The liability so incurred was for the price of goods supplied in Calcutta. In 1930 Madan Gopal Bagla brought a suit, being No. 481 of 1930, in the Original Side of this Court against the said firm to recover the money so due to him and got a decree on 22-8-1930 for Rs. 5696-15-3 with interest at 6 per cent, and costs. This decree would hereafter be referred to as ''the decree passed by this Court.' On 4-12-1930 it was transmitted for execution to the District Judge of Benares. There the decree-holder, Madan Gopal Bagla, applied for execution. A sum of Rs. 1108-2-0 was realised by him in 1931 by the sale of some immovab...

Sm. Nalini Bala Dassi Vs. Panchanan Das Bairagi

Court: Kolkata

Lodge, J.1. This matter arises out of an application made to the Registrar, Appellate Side, under Rule 18 (1) of chap, v, part II, Appellate Hide Rules.2. The material facts are as follows. The petitioner wished to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Howrah, passed in Title Appeal No. 187 of 1946 of that Court. The subject-matter of the appeal was valued at Rs. 30, a value which had been accepted in the Courts below. The petitioner contended that in view of the provisions of the Bengal Repealing and Amending Act, 1946 (Bengal Act XVI of 1946) whereby Sections 3 to 16, Bengal Court-fees Act (Amendment) Act (IV of 1922) and the whole of the Bengal Court-fees (Amendment No. II) Act (VI of 1922) were repealed there existed no provisions from which the proper court-fee on the memorandum of appeal could be calculated; he accordingly affixed a court-fee of Re. 1/-provisionally and prayed that the Registrar as Taxing Officer should decide the amount of co...

Satish Chandra Chatterjee Vs. Atul Chandra Chakravarti and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Chakravartti, J.1. This appeal is one by the decree-holder and raises a short question under, Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act. The appellant has lost in both the Courts below.2. The material facts are the following: The appellant obtained a rent decree against the respondents on 11th November 1941 in respect of an occupancy holding and for the years 1344 to 1347 B. Section Thereafter in 1943, he obtained another decree this time for the years 1348 to 1349 B.S. He chose to put into execution the second decree first which he did by sent Execution Case No. 902 of 1944 and purchased the holding himself on 16th August 1944. Thereupon, in November 1944 he put the first decree into execution and sought to proceed against other properties of the judgment-debtors when he was met with a plea under Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act.3. Both the Courts below have given effect to the plea though on slightly different reasons. The trial Court appears to think that when a landlord obtains two successive decrees...