Skip to content

Kolkata Court November 1919 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.

Nov 11 1919

In Re: Sourabmoni Dassi and Vs. Shashi Bhusan Bhur and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Nov-11-1919

Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.882

Ghose, J.1. This is an application by one Benode Behary Audhikary for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the property and credits of one Sourabmoni Dassi who is said to have died on the 3rd June 1908. The application is based upon the allegation that the applicant was the husband of the deceased, having married her about 15 or 16 years ago in the Kanti form prevalent amongst Vaishnabs. The application is opposed by five persons whose names are Shashi Bhushan Bhur, Sarat Chander Bhur, Gopi Kant Bhur, Fakirdas Bhur and Raghunandan Bhur. Their relationship to the deceased will be apparent from the following genealogical table: __________________________________________ | | | Harananda= Behari Lal Chuni Lal Sourabmoni Dassi. | ____________|_____ | | | | Gopi Kanto. Sarat Chandra. _______________|_______________________ | | | | Sasi Bhusan. Fakirdas. Raghunandan. Harimati.2. It appears that the deceased was, before her alleged marriage with the applicant, the widow of one Hara...


Nov 08 1919

Karim Bux, Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Nov-08-1919

Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.101

1. In this case the names of the petitioners were entered in a register made in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Criminal Tribes Act and on the register being lodged with the Superintendent of Police, an application was made to the Magistrate to the effect that the petitioners' names should be removed from the register. The Additional District Magistrate thereupon made a inquiry and submitted a report to the District Magistrate, and the latter on a consideration of that report rejected the petition. Against this order upon an application by the petitioners a Rule was issued on the District Magistrate calling upon him to show cause why that order should not be set aside, and the learned Vakil has in support of the Rule urged that we should direct the District Magistrate to make an enquiry into the facts alleged by the petitioners in support of the application for the removal of their names from the register.2. The first question that arises for our consideration is the...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial