Kolkata Court November 1920 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.
Raja Khan and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.800
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Raja Khan and Cherak AH Akon, The gist of the case was that one Torap Ali was guilty of cheating by personating one Sabdar Faraji, and using his name on a surety-bond. The charge against Torap Ali was that he was the principal in the case and the charge against Raja Khan and Cherak Ali Akon, the two appellants, was that they abetted by being present at the personation which is alleged to have been committed by Torap Ali. Torap Ali has been acquitted by the Jury; and, therefore, it must be taken that the case against him could not be substantiated. The learned Judge did not tell the Jury that the first thing that mast be decided was, whether the alleged offence had been committed by Torap Ali, and he omitted to tell them that unless they found that Torap Ali was guilty of the offense Raja Khan and Cherak Ali Akon could not be found guilty of abetting that offence Having regard to the omission to which I have referred in the Judge's summing...
Marium Begum and anr. Vs. Banku Behary Bose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal94,62Ind.Cas.205
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this matter it appears that the judgment of the first Court was in favour of the defendants and the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs than filed an appeal to this Court; but apparently, according to the judgment which was delivered on the 10th of February this year, the appellants were guilty of great laches and they had not filed their paper-book. Then, when the appeal came into the Daily List for disposal, certain explanations were put forward by the appellants. These explanations' were not accepted as satisfactory by the Court and the result was that their appeal was dismissed. The merits of the ease were not enquired into, The appellants (the appellants in the High Court appeal) now apply to this Court for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. When asked by me, the learned Counsel bad to admit that if this case were allowed to go to the Privy Council, the only question for the Judicial Committee would be whether t...
Emperor Vs. Nazir Ali Beg
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.334
1. This case comes before us on a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Jessore under the provisions of Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Prose dure. The accused in the ease is one Nazir Ali Beg, and the charge against him was that on the 13th May 1919 he committed murder by causing the death of one Ahmed Shaikh.2. We have read or had read to us the learned Judge's letter of reference and also the Judge's charge to the Jury, and it is conceded on both sides that the learned Sessions Judge's charge very fairly represents the evidence that was adduced in the ease. We do not wish to go into the merits of the case, beyond saying that having regard to the charge, the letter of reference and what has been stated by the Counsel and Vakil appearing on either side, we cannot say that there is not in this case evidence fit for the consideration of a Jury, We do not go further into the merits, because we are of opinion that by reason of an incident which occurred on the 23rd July, the...
Sarat Chandra Chatterjee Vs. Biraj Mohun Chuckerbutty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal77(1),68Ind.Cas.451
Greaves, J.1. This is an application to review a taxation by the Registrar. The facts are as follows;--A Rule was obtained under the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Court, viz., under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, That Rule was discharged and it appears to me having regard to the provisions of Chapter XXXiV of the Rules and Orders of this Court that, under the provision of Rule 7, only the fee to one Counsel should have been allowed on taxation. Against the discharge of the rule, an appeal was preferred. No appeal in fast lay and the appeal was ultimately dismissed, but, having regard to the provisions of Chapter XXXV , Rule 57 (a), it seems to me that if an appeal had lain only the fees of one Counsel would have been allowable on taxation unless the Court otherwise ordered and it seems to me to follow, under the circumstance, viz, of no appeal lying, that similarly the fees of only one Counsel should be allowed.2. Consequently, I think that fees of two Counsel in the Appeal...
Lalit Kumar Mukerjee Vs. Dasarathi Singha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal139,66Ind.Cas.261
Lanselot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of my learned brother, Mr. Justice Rankin.2. On the 24th of November 1919, a suit was brought by the plaintiff against Dasarathi Singha, based upon promissory-notes alleged to have been executed by the defendant, the dates of which extended from the 28th of July to the 3rd of September 1919. The defendant was sued as a person who was suijuris. On the 17th of December 1919, an ex parte decree was made. Thereafter, there was an attachment of certain propertied, and, in consequence thereof, on the 16th of February 1920, an application was made by Subashini Dasi, who was alleged to be the certificated guardian of the defendant, that the decree should be get aside. It was alleged that at the time of the above-mentioned suit and decree the defendant, Dasarathi Singha, was a minor. On the 15th of June 1920, the learned Judge delivered judgment after an issue or issues had been tried, and the following order was made: 'This Court d...
Amanulla Manjhi Vs. Ayfarjan Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.444a
Beachcroft, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the plaintiff in a rent suit, the suit was brought against 11 persons and a decree was obtained ex parte in 1917. The holding was sold in 1918 and subsequently on the 10th January 1920 an application was made by the defendant to set aside the ex parte decree. The Munsif made an order setting aside the decree, application for time was rejected and one witness was examined who had no knowledge of the service of summons. Whether the fasts stated by. the, Munsif were sufficient to justify the Court in setting aside the decree, it is not necessary to discuss here. The question for decision is whether the Munsif complied with the provisions of Section 153A of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That section provides that where an application is made to set aside an ex parte decree, the application should not be admitted unless one of two things occurs, viz., (1) either the applicant deposits the amount of rent which he admits to be due or the amou...
Emperor Vs. Rash Behari Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-02-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.590
1. This has come before us on a Reference by the District Magistrate, recommending that the sentences upon the amused should be enhanced. If an accused pleads guilty, it is open to the Magistrate in his discretion to take further evidence, and it is also open to the Crown to suggest that this may be done, In this particular case, having regard to the fast that the prosecution did not ask for the examination of further witnesses than those who were examined before the framing of the charge, that the name of the Head constable referred to in the reference was not on the list of witnesses and having regard to the record of the evidence of the witnesses who were in fast examined, we do not feel disposed in the circumstances of this case to accept the recommendation and, therefore, the sentences will stand....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›