Kolkata Court February 1948 Judgments

Mahammad Azam Khan Vs. the King

Court: Kolkata

Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of orders of the Courts below convicting the petitioner under Section 7 of Act xxiv of 1946 read with Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default of payment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. There was also an order confiscating certain flour.2. The case for the prosecution was that on 10-4-1946, the petitioner purchased 63510 pounds of flour. This flour belonged to the military and was actually put up for sale as condemned flour that is flour unfit for human consumption. The price paid for it was Rs. 2/8/- per 100 pounds which, would be a natural price for flour unfit for human consumption. The total price came to Rs. 1587-12 and this sum was deposited in the Midnapore Treasury by the petitioner on 10-4-1945 under Chalan No. 69.3. Shortly after this sale the police seized the flour. It is not quite clear whether or not after the purchase the petitioner had moved this flou...

Subodh Chandra Goho Vs. Jamser Mondal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1949CriLJ461

Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order passed by a learned Magistrate initiating proceedings under Section 514, Criminal P. C, against sureties.2. Summonses had been issued against two persons and the three petitioners stood surety. The persons accused moved this Court in revision praying that the proceedings against them should be quashed. This Court issued a rule and stayed all further proceedings in the lower Court until the rule was heard and disposed of.3. The learned Magistrate knowing that ft stay order had been made by this Court directed proceedings to be drawn up under Section 614, Criminal P. C., against the sureties. In the view of the learned Magistrate an order of this Court staying proceedings did not absolve the accused in the proceedings stayed from appearing from time to time in the Court as directed by their bail bonds. As they had failed to appear the learned Magistrate was of opinion that proceedings should be taken against these sureties.4. Wh...

Kalipada Koer Vs. Purnabala Dassi

Court: Kolkata

Chakravartti, J.1. A great many points were sought to be argued by Mr. Chowdhury in this appeal, but in reality, on the findings, only one question arises.2. The appellant Kalipada Koer was the defendant in a suit which was brought by a Hindu widow named Purnabala Dassi for avoiding a kabala executed on her behalf, either by obtaining a declaration that it was void or by having it set aside. The kabala was executed by one Nani Gopal Sain, a paternal uncle of the lady, purporting to act as her guardian and by it 5 bighas and 9 cottas of good arable land, belonging to the estate left by the plaintiff's husband, was sold to the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 200. At the date of the kabala which was 28th of Bhadra, 1342 B.S., corresponding to 14-9-1935 Purnabala had already become a widow, but was still a minor. Her case in the suit was that Nani Gopal had no right to act as her guardian and the kabala executed by him on her behalf was utterly void. She made an alternative case that ...

Man Mohan Das and ors. Vs. Mohendra Bhowal

Court: Kolkata

Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition praying that certain proceedings pending in the Court of a Magistrate of Dibrugarh be quashed. It appears that the petitioners and the opposite party were partners and it was suggested that the petitioners had converted to their own use the share of the profits to which the opposite party was entitled. It. was also suggested that the petitioners had misappropriated or converted to their own use the books of the partnership. Eventually the petitioners were prosecuted for offences under Sections406 and 424, Penal Code.2. The petitioners have urged before us that they cannot be prosecuted under Section 406 or Section 424 because the parties are partners. All are joint owners of the partnership assets and each is only entitled to such part of the profits as on account would show is due to him. It is clear that one partner cannot sue another for his share of the profits. It has been held repeatedly that one partner if he desires to claim what he alleges is...