Kolkata Court February 1950 Judgments
B.K. Biswas and ors. Vs. Phanindra Nath Bagchi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal401,55CWN107
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This is a rule against an order passed on the 14-12-1948 by a Munsif of Alipur rescinding on certain conditions a decree passed on the 23-11-1948 under the Calcutta Rent Ordinance. (Bengal Ordinance No. 5 of 1948 (sic)). The judgment in the suit under the Ordinance shows clearly that it was found that at the date of the suit & at the date of the decree there were no actual arrears of rent. The suit was brought on the 11-4-1947 when the provisions of the Ordinance were in force. It was found by the trial Ct, however, that there had been a default in payment of rent on some month that could not fairly clearly be fixed in the sense that the payment had not been made by the 15th of the month. The matter arose out of a question whether the tenant had deposited the rent for March 1946 in due time. It was found that eventually the whole amount of rent had been deposited as shown by the various receipts he produced showing the deposit of rent with the Rent Controller. But t...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Bose and ors. Vs. the Chief Secretary to the Government of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1950
Reported in: 54CWN394
1. These are 381 Rules issued in respect of 381 persons 370 of whom are under detention by orders passed under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1930, as amended by the Criminal Law Amendment (Amending Ordinance, 1949) and two of whom, namely, Purna Chandra Ghose and Dulal Bose; are under detention by orders passed under the West Bengal Security Ordinance, 1919. Of the persons who are subject to these rules, eight have been discharged and one has escaped from custody. So far as these persons are concerned, the rules have become infructuous and no further orders on these rules are necessary.2. Most of these rules were issued before the Constitution of India came into force and they were under Section 491, Criminal P. C. Thereafter the Constitution Act came into force by which the High Courts were given powers to issue, inter alia, writs in the nature of habeas corpus by Article 226(1) and all the rules issued by this Court were treated in the alternative as being rules nisi for the...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Narayan Deb and anr. Vs. Bhairabendra Narayan Deb and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal386
Harries, C.J.1. These are two petitions for revision of orders made by the learned Subordinate Judge of the First Court of 24-Parganas on 29th September 1948. By these orders the learned Subordinate Judge held that two suits filed by the petitioners were not maintainable by reason of Section 42, Specific Relief Act.2. The petitioners were related--one being the uncle of the other. Each of the petitioners had brought a suit claiming that the Bijni Raj which owned extensive zamindary property in Assam and other properties in Calcutta and Benaras, belonged to them. One based his claim on lineal primogeniture and the other on the rule of ordinary primogeniture. In both the suits two defendants were impleaded, namely, Kumar Bhairabendra Narayan Deb, the present holder of the Raj as defendant 1 and the same Bhairabendra represented by the Manager of the Bijni Raj Wards Estate, as defendant 2.3. To appreciate the points at issue it will be necessary shortly to set out the history of litigatio...
Tag this Judgment!Bejoy Chand Patra Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal363,54CWN447
Harries, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a conviction under Section 307, Penal Code, and a sentence of six years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The charge against the appellant was that he on 13th July 1949 had attempted to murder his cousin, Kumud Chandra Patra, P. W. 1. The trial took place before a learned Assistant Sessions Judge sitting with a jury. The jury unanimously returned a verdict of guilty under Section 307, Penal Code, and agreeing with that verdict the learned Assistant Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant as I have indicated.3. The facts of the case were comparatively simple. The appellant and the injured man, Kumud, were cousins and apparently were co-sharers in a tank near the village. Alongside this tank ran a roadway or a pathway and it is said on behalf of the prosecution that the appellant claimed the sole right in this approach to the tank. His right was disputed by the injured man and this, it is alleged, led to a quarrel between them sometime before the occurrence...
Tag this Judgment!Annada Prosad Vs. Harihar Manna and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal374,54CWN582
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This rule raises the question; can a cosharer who is not in any way a party to the suit or execution proceedings in which a share of a tank has been sold in execution make an application under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P. C. The trial Court has decided that he can ; the lower appellate Court relying on an incorrect version of Rule 89 as in force in West Bengal, has decided that he cannot.2. The tank in question was part of the joint property of three brothers, one of whom is the depositor under Rule 89 and another the deceased father of the judgment debtors. The other joint properties of the brothers were partitioned, the tank remaining joint. The sale was held in execution of a money-decree.3. Authority on the question is curiously meagre, no case of this Court directly in point had been cited before me. It was considered in Bisheshar Kuar v. Hari Singh, 5 ALL 42: (1882 A. W. N. 146) in 1882 under the provisions of the Old Code, but in relation to Section 311 or Ord...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Kissen Khettri Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal329,54CWN488
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This is a rule against an order of conviction under Section 112, Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 180 (d), Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, and sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 20, in default, seven days rigorous imprisonment. The appropriate rule is in fact not 180 (d) but 174 (d).2. The facts are that the taxi B. L. T. 669 was produced before the Motor Vehicles Department for renewal of the certificate of fitness as required by Section 38, Motor Vehicles Act. On test, the taxi meter was found to be defective, registering one anna per mile in excess. The police thereupon prosecuted the owner and the driver. The driver was acquitted and the owner has been convicted and has moved this Court.3. The driver was acquitted on the ground that it was not proved who had produced the car, an omission which surely the Magistrate himself ought to have noted and should have been remedied. However the owner now objects that he ought not to be convicted, on the evidence, for a breach of...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Nath Shaw and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal310
Harries, C.J.1. These are two appeals from convictions under Section 395, Penal Code. The appellant Kailash Nath Shaw, who is the sole appellant in Appeal No. 213 of 1949 was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The seven persons who are the appellants in Appeal No. 220 of 1949 were each sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The offence with which these eight persons were charged, was a most serious one of dacoity and if they were guilty of the offence the sentences imposed, namely, three years' and two years' rigorous imprisonment, were far too lenient. As the learned Judge accepted the jury's verdict he was in my view bound to impose very much more severe sentences then those which he did.3. The eight appellants were tried by a learned Sessions Judge and a jury upon this charge of dacoity. The jury by a majority of 3 to 2 found all the eight appellants guilty. The learned Judge apparently agreed with the verdict and sentenced the appellants in the manner I have...
Tag this Judgment!Garibulla Mondal and ors. Vs. Esmail Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1953Cal337,55CWN682
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of the debtors, and is directed against an order passed by the Additional District Judge of 24-Parganas under Section 40A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act.2. The relevant facts necessary for determining the matter in dispute may be shortly stated. In 1921 a conveyance was executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the debtors petitioners in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties in respect of a certain share in different plots of land. An agreement for reconveyance was also executed immediately thereafter by the purchaser in favour of the predecessor of the debtor. The dispute between the parties is as to whether these transactions were in essence a loan governed by the provisions of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act or not.3. On 2-10-1942, the predecessor-in-interest of the debtors petitioners applied before the Special Debt Settlement Board at Basirhat under Section 8, Bengal Agricultural Debto...
Tag this Judgment!Kanai Lal Dwary Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal413
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal by one Kanai Lal Dwary who was tried by a learned Assistant Sessions Judge and jury upon a charge of dacoity. The jury unanimously found the appellant guilty Under Section 395, Penal Code, and the learned Judge agreeing with the verdict convicted the appellant under that section and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment. It is from that conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been preferred.2. The charge against Kanai was that he and others on 17th March 1949, committed dacoity in the house of one Durgadas Nandi at Kanchannagar. A number of dacoits are said to have broken into the house and looted cash and property to the value of Rs. 1300/-.3. At the trial the factum of dacoity was not contested and the only point at the trial was whether or not Kanai and four others who were standing their trial, were amongst the dacoits and had been satisfactorily identified by the witnesses. The only other piece of evidence against the accu...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasray Singh and ors. Vs. Bibhisan Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal372
Bachawat, J. 1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Darjeeling, dated 9th September 1942.2. The matter arises out of an application made under Section 38, Bengal Money-lenders Act by the respondent who was the borrower against the appellant. The appellant contested the application and two points arose before the learned Subordinate Judge. The first issue was : 'Is the loan a commercial loan ousting the scope of the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940?' The second point was if it was not a commercial loan what should be the amount of the liability of the applicant calculated in accordance with the Bengal Money-lenders Act. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the loan was not a commercial loan and therefore the provisions of the Bengal Money-lenders Act applied. He further held that the applicant-respondent was liable for the sum of Rs. 2029. Eventually by an order dated 25th April 1912 he declared that the debtor was liable to the creditor for the s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »