Kolkata Court December 1917 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.
Karim Buksh and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.796
1. There is a decision of this Court, Emperor v. Momin Malita 35 C. 434 : 7 C.L.J. 602 : 12 C.W.N 752 : 4 M.L.T. 340 : 8 Cr. L.J. 9, that an Appellate Court cannot exercise the power given by Section 106(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, where the conviction has not been by a Court specified in Sub-section (1). Having regard to the fact that amendment of the Code is under contemplation it does not appear to be worthwhile to refer the question to a Full Bench, though the decisions in the Madras and Bombay High Courts are to the contrary effect. We accordingly, without expressing an opinion on the subject, make the rule absolute and set aside the order under Section 106(3) in this case. Rule made absolute....
Kailash Chandra Chakrabarty Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.820
1. Though Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code, undoubtedly gives the Appellate Court power to summarily dismiss an appeal, it is obvious that that power must be exercised with judicial discretion. These were not oases in which the appeals should have been summarily dismissed. They were cases complicated both in law and fact and the judgment of the Deputy Magistrate covers nine typewritten pages. We do not think that, in those circumstances, the cases ought to have been disposed of in this way. We accordingly set aside the order of summary dismissal and direct that the appeals be admitted and re heard by the Sessions Judge. The petitioners will remain out on bail pending the hearing of the appeals....
Bilas Roy Chaudhuri and anr. Vs. Ram Gopal Khemkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.291
1. In this case Bilas Roy Choudhuri and Biseswar Lal Lohia were accused before the Presidency Magistrate of criminal trespass and theft, the complainant being Ram Gopal Khemkar. On applying; for processes on 6th November last, the complainant also applied for a search warrant to search the house of the accused No. 1, alleging that there would be found the property belonging to him which had been removed from his place of business at 203/1, Harrison Road. The matter was then before Mr. Keays, the Second Presidency Magistrate. No order was passed on the 6th and that application was renewed or fresh applications were presented on 9th, 13th, 22nd, 26th, 28th and 29th. Eventually on 29th November, Mr. Swinhoe, the Chief Presidency Magistrate, who bad taken the case on to his own file during the absence of Mr. Keays, passed an order for the issue of a search warrant returnable on 1st December 1917. That day the accused No. 1 applied to this Court and on 30th November obtained a Rule, apparen...
Dharani Kanta Lahiri Chaudhuri and ors. Vs. Amir Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.152
In S.A. No. 176 of 1913.1. In this case it appears that the landlord appellant made an application under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for the settlement of fair rents in the case of each of a large number of tenants. The application came on for hearing before the Settlement Officer and judgment was delivered on the 23rd August 1912. At the close of the judgment the Settlement Officer says this: 'It is now necessary to prepare schedules on the basis of the findings and in accordance with the directions given above for all the tenancies of those cases except the tenancies regarding which the claim was withdrawn. Office to prepare the schedules and to put them up. The schedules will show the fair rent settled.' In accordance with that order a schedule was prepared, approved and signed by the Settlement Officer on the 14th September 1912. Then followed the Civil Court vacation. On the reopening day, the 12th November 1912, the plaintiff-landlord presented an appeal against the fai...
L.S. Durrell Vs. Kumud Kanta Chakrabarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1917
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.74
1. In this case we think that the Second Additional Sessions Judge is clearly right and that the conviction and sentence on the accused Kumud Kanta Chakrabarty were wrong. We accordingly accept the reference and set aside the conviction and the sentence passed on the accused. The fine, if paid, will be refunded....
Ananga Mohan Dutta Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.352
1. In this case a Rule has been issued to show cause why the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 182, Indian Penal Code, should not be quashed. It appears that in his complaint the petitioner made no statement which can be said to be false. It is not denied that the hukka was stolen from his house. As to the person or persons who stole it, all that he said in his complaint was that he suspected two persons. That does not amount to giving false information. The Rule is accordingly made absolute and the proceedings against the petitioner are quashed....
Sashi Bhusan Panignahi and ors. Vs. Srimati Labanyabati Debya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.981
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the judgment of the learned Second Subordinate Judge of Midnapur, dated the 23rd June 1915, dismissing their suit. The suit was brought by the father of the present appellants asking for a de duration that the Will, said to have been executed by the brother of the original plaintiff dated the 1st Assar 13 6, was fraudulent and invalid and could not affect the plaintiffs' right by survivorship to the joint family property. The defendants were the widows of the deceased brother of the original plaintiff and they raised more than one defence, the chief amongst them being that this family was not governed by the Mitakshara School of the Hindu Law and that a separation had taken place between the original plaintiff and his brother, the deceased Chandra Mohan. As I have already stated, the original plaintiff died and the present plaintiffs were substituted in his place. The learned Judge of the Court below came to this conclusion. First...
Gajanand Maskara and anr. Vs. Shaik Taleb Jalaluddin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.173
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Greaves by the defendants in the action who traded under the name of Kaluram Nund Lall.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs asking for a declaration to the effect that the plaintiff firm was not bound by the contract of the 8th of November 1916. The contract was made between the defendants and the plaintiffs through a firm called Ghaneshyam Dass and Co., the brokers, as I understand, purporting to act on behalf of both parties: and the contract was for the sale of a certain quantity of Hessian. Apparently, the market went down and the buyers, who are the plaintiffs in the case, refused to take delivery, and, a dispute arose. Thereupon, the defendants relied upon the arbitration clause in the contract, which was in the usual terms and provided that 'any dispute whatsoever arising on or out of this contract should be referred to arbitration under the rules of the Bengal Chamber of Commer...
Draupadi Dasya Vs. Rajkumari Dasya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.760
Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal is against an order refusing an application for revocation of Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed, which had been granted to the respondent Raj Kumari Dasi in 1914.2. It appears that one Broja Kishore died leaving his widow Kunja Mani, a daughter Raj Kumari, a daughter's son Sarat, a widowed daughter-in-law Draupadi and two granddaughters Sarala and Khiroda. Brojo Kishore executed a Will on the 3rd November 1896 by which he bequeathed, subject to the life interest to be enjoyed by his widow Kunja Mani and with the exception of some properties and legacies, an 8-annas share of his estate to big widowed daughter-in-law Draupadi and the, other half to his daughter Raj Kumari. In 1907 Kunja Mani applied for and, obtained Probate of a later unregistered Will said to have been executed by Brojo Kishore on the 8th June 1906. By this Will the right of the daughter-in law in the estate was considerably cut down, Kunja Mani died in 1914 and her ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›