Kolkata Court February 1949 Judgments
Matleb Sk. and ors. Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1949
Reported in: 1949CriLJ1001
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal by ten per. sons who were tried by a learned Assistant Sessions Judge and a jury upon a charge under Section 304, Penal Code, read with Section 149 Penal Code. It is to be noted that there was no charge framed under either Section 147 or Section 148, Penal Code.2. Eventually the jury returned a verdict of guilty of an offence under Section 325 read with Section 149, Penal Code against all the appellants, and an offence under Section 328, Penal Code against appellants Nos. 6,7, 8 and 9. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge accepted this verdict and sentenced each of the appellants to 4$ years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 125 read with Section 149, Penal Code, and passed no separate sentence against the four appellants convicted under Section 823, Penal Code.3. The case for the prosecution was that at about 10 p. m. on 9th March 1948, the appellant Apel Shaikh rushed into the house of the com-plainant Ainal Shaikh driving before h...
Tag this Judgment!Rajlakshmi Dasi W/O Tulsi Charan Das Vs. Sm. Susilabala Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal351
R.P. Mookerjee J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of defendant 4 in a suit brought by the plaintiff for declaration of her title to the disputed lands and for recovery of khas possession thereof.2. The only material question in issue in this appeal is whether Rajlakshmi Dasi, defendant 4, has got a subsisting right of tenancy or not. It will not be necessary to go into the series of litigations in respect of this holding but we may limit ourselves to the relevant facts pertinent for a decision of the only point which is raised in this appeal. The holding in question originally belonged to three brothers Krisha, Rakhal and Tulsi. The plain-tiff Sushilabala is the daughter-in-law of Krishna. Defendant 2, Sashi, is the son of Bakhal and defendant 4, the appellant before this Court, Rajlakshmi, is the wife of Tulsi. In 1929, the landlords obtained a rent decree against the three brothers in respect of arrears of rent due in respect of this holding. In the execution proceedings which followed...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ambica Textiles Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal491,54CWN157
Sinha, J.1. This matter has come before me for settlement of the list of debts and claims. 2. The Company was incorporated on 5th April 1945. The Company never carried on any business nor was any commencement certificate taken. Certain applications were made for shares in the Company and a total sum of Rs. 78,750 was paid to the Company by intending shareholders. The money received from the shareholders was deposited with the Central Bank of India Ltd., Clive Street Branch, a sum of Rs. 445-14-0 has since accrued as interest on the said deposit. 3. As the promoters of the Company found it difficult to commence business of the Company, at a meeting held on 10th March 1947 it was resolved that the share money received from the applicants should be refunded in full to the respective applicants. It was also resolved that the Central Bank of India be requested to honour the cheques in respect of such refund by debiting the current account of the Company. The Central Bank of India, however, ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hashem and anr. Vs. Balahari Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal380
R.C. Mitter, J.1. One Maraful Huq was the owner of 9 bighas 11 cottas odd land comprised within premises, which were formerly numbered as Nos. 125, 126, 127, 128 & 130 Tollygunge Circular Road & No. 1 Durgapore Lane. The said premises have now been re-numbered as Nos. 62 Alipore Road & 42 Raja Santosh Road. He died leaving the plff. & 'pro forma' defts. 7 to 18 as his heirs. As a result of a partition between the said heirs which came into effect on 4-3-1944 the said premises fell to the share of the plff. alone.2. On 16-4-1916, one Ramdas Das executed a 'kabuliat' in respect of the said premises in favour of the said Maraful Huq. The lease was for a term of ten years commencing from Pous 1321. Ramdas was already on the greater portion of the lands so demised by virtue of an earlier lease, & had already built a rice mill there. After the expiry of the term of the lease he held over as a yearly tenant. This is accepted before us by both parties. By two successive court-sales the tenancy...
Tag this Judgment!In the Goods of Borendra Nath Mitter and Sudhirendra Nath Mitter Vs. A ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal418
Banerjee, J.1. The application is for an administration 'pendente-lite' touching a Will-The power to grant such administration is conferred on the Court by Section 247, Succession Act.2. The words 'may appoint' in the sections indicate that the Court has a discretion in the matter. That discretion is judicial & not arbitrary, to be exercised on established principles of law.3. This section replaces Section 34, Probate & Administration Act of 1881. It is based on the Court of Probate Act, 1857, 20 & 21 Vict., C. 77, Section 70 & is substantially in the same words. The English decision therefore, are authorities on the question under consideration. In any event, they may be relied on for the exercise of a sound discretion under this section.4. But before I consider the decisions under the statute, I turn to the earlier English decisions, for the principle on which that discretion was exercised before the Statute. I read only the leading cases.5. In 'King v. King' (1801) 6 Ves 172. opposi...
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Nath Roy Vs. Sm. Sukumari Bakshi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal352
ORDERSen, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the deft, in a suit for rent. The plff. sued the deft. for rent at the rate of Rs. 9-4-0 per month for the period Kartick 1350 B. S. to Sravan 1352 B.S. She has given the deft, credit for the sum of Rs. 4-14-9 being the amount paid by him.2. The plff's. case is that the deft, is her tenant at the rate of rent stated above & that he has fallen into arrears which she claimed.3. The defence in the written statement was a very elaborate one & I must confess far from convincing. The deft, stated that he borrowed one thousand rupees from the plff's. husband. In order to avoid the provisions of the Bengal Money Lenders Act the wife of the deft., Surabala, & one Nani-bala, the widow of the deft's. brother, executed a fictitious kabala on 17-6-1942 in favour of the plff. for the sum of Rs. 1,000/- transferring the property in respect of which rent is claimed to the plff. One month thereafter the deft. Birendra Nath Roy executed another fictitious do...
Tag this Judgment!J.H. Amroon Vs. R. Sassoon
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1949
Reported in: 1949CriLJ1006
ORDERBlank, J.1. This Revision arises from an order of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta raising maintenance from Bs. Vi to Es. 60 per month with effect from the month of September 1948, the application for alteration of the allowance having been made on 31et August 1948. It appears that the petitioner had an illegitimate child and that in the proceedings in the Presidency Magistrate's Court in 1935 he was ordered to pay Rs. 10 per month for the ncaintenance of the child as from the date of fling of that case. The allowance was afterwards raised to Bs. 12 per month, it is said, by the petitioner as an act of grace. The opposite prirty, the mother of the child, applied for increase of the amount of maintenance to Bs. 60 per month on the ground that she was not in a position to maintain the child with the amount grarted, The child is said to be a be y now at school.2. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate went into the allegations of the parties as to the circumstance...
Tag this Judgment!S.C. Mitter Vs. the King and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1949
Reported in: 1949CriLJ979
ORDERBlank, J.1. The matter for decision in this Rule lies within a narrow compass but it is necessary to mention the facts in some detail, The petitioner was appointed Director of Industries, Bengal in 1937 and was made the Agent of the Government of India in 1911 for procurement and supply of War materials. In October 1944 he was appointed Deputy Director General (Pro. duotion) and Controller of Supplies, Bengal Circle. On 26th October 1945 the petitioner's residence was searched, it is said, at the instance of the Special Police Establishment, Ministry of Home Affairs. On 14th August 1947 the petitioner was placed under suspension. On 22nd November 1947 an officer of the Special Police Establishment filed 7 petitions of complaint in the Court of the First Special Tribunal, Calcutta, against the petitioner and others charging them with having committed offences under S3. 120B, 161,16S, etc., Penal Code.2. Case No. 1 was against the petitioner only, the charge being for conspiracy wit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›