Kolkata Court February 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.
Edon Karikar and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.829
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case we have read the learned Sessions Judge's charge to the Jury, The learned Counsel for the Crown, when we put the question to him, was constrained to admit that the charge was rather confusing. Speaking for myself, I should go further than the learned Counsel for the Crown. In my judgment, so far from this summing up making the case clear to the Jury giving them assistance, it was calculated to confuse them and, having read it, I have come to the conclusion that it would not be safe for us to allow this verdict to stand. The result is that we must set aside the verdict and the sentences upon the two appellants and direct that the case, as regards these two accused, Edon Karikar and Ofazuddi Karikar, should be re-tried.2. It appears that the Jury returned a verdict unanimously. They found that Edon Karikar and Ofezuddi Karikar were each guilty under Sections 325 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code: they found that none of the other accused was guilty ...
Abdul Gafur Alias Kala Meah Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.830
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the appellant was convicted by a Jury of an offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, and the appeal is based upon the allegation that the learned Additional Sessions Judge's charge was defective. The respective cases were as follows--I take them from the learned Judge's charge.2. The case for the prosecution was that after the death of a man called Sedu, who was uncle of one Arsad Ali, Arsad Ali gave a blank stamped paper to the appellant and one Amjad Munshi and that on this paper the appellant forged a deed of gift purporting to have been executed by Sadu and conveying his property to Arsad Ali and his brothers. The case for the defence was that the deed was written by the accused before the death of Sedu but that the date was not written by him, and that, as far as the appellant was concerned, the whole of the deed was genuine, except the date which must have been inserted afterwards.3. The learned Judge in his summing up to the Jur...
Jasir Khan Vs. Emperor on the Complaint of Hrishikesh Ghorni
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.61
1. In this case we make the Rule absolute and direct that the appeal of Jasir Khan be re-heard. We are far from saying that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was wrong in refusing to hear the learned Pleader inasmuch as ha had not got any Vakalatnama.2. But having regard to the fact that the learned Pleader appeared on behalf of the appellant, we think that the learned Additional Sessions Judge might perhaps have adjourned the case until the Vakalatnama was forthcoming. The result of what took plane was that the learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the Public Prosecutor upon the evidence and the appellant had not the advantage of being represented by the learned Pleader to whom he had in fast given instructions.3. Consequently, we think that this Rule must be made absolute and the appeal of Jasir Khan must be re-heard....
Bisseswar Lal Kedia and Company Vs. Basir Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal362,64Ind.Cas.809
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in an action for recovery of money due in respect of sale and purchase of sharas between them and the defendant from the 28th March 1918 to the 14th May 1918. The defendant did not deny the transactions, but pleaded that they were agreements by way of wager within the meaning of Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act. He said in substance that the common intention of the parties was that there should be no delivery of the shares under any circumstances but that there would be only settlement of differences. The substantial question in controversy between the parties, consequently, was, whether or not the transactions were agreements by way of wager.2. Mr. Justice Greaves has correctly laid down the law on the subject. He states that to constitute such a contract, a common intention to wager in essential and that speculation does not necessarily involve a contract by way of wager, Bhagwandas Parasram v. Burjorji Ruttonji Bomanji...
Hathim Mondal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.849
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case we do not admit the appeal. The charge against the accused was under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, vie,, dishonestly receiving stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.2. The only question which had any real importance in this case was the identity of the person who was in possession of the bundle, which contained the stolen articles at Jessore Station on the 1st of October last year: and, there is no misdirection, as far as I can see, in the learned Judge's charge to the Jury in that respect. The Jury came to the conclusion that the accused person was the individual who was in possession of the bundle containing the stolen articles on the 1st of October, the burglaries having been committed between the 28th of September and the 1st of October. Therefore, it may be said that the accused was in possession of recently stolen articles. The Jury found that the accused person was in possession of them, and ...
Mir Mouze Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.858
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the appellant, who was a Head Constable named Mir Mouze Ali, has been convicted at a trial by the Jury of offenses under Section 334 (extortion), 448 (house trespass), 342 (wrongful confinement) and 323 read with Section 109 for abetment of the offence of voluntarily causing hurt. He was tried along with another man who was a constable called Belat Ali, who was found guilty of an offence under Section 354 which offences is that of assaulting or using criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. He was also convicted of offences under sections 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The second accused has not appealed.2. We have to deal at the present moment with the appeal of Mir Mouze Ali alone.3. There were other charges against these two men in respect of which they were acquitted. The first accused was charged with abetment of rape under Section 376 road with Section 109 and the second accused was charged with rape under Sectio...
Kamala Kanta Roy and ors. Vs. Monaraddi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.203
Teunon, J.1. This appeal arisen out of a suit for recovery of possession of a certain parcel or parcels of land and for mesne profits. The suit was instituted on the 4th 1907 and the decree, awarding possession and directing enquiry into the amount of mesne profits both before suit and also pending the suit was made on the 15th July 1908, Appeals against this decision followed and the final decision of this Court was not arrived at until the 30th March 1915. Meanwhile on the 2nd January 1915 an application for the ascertainment of mesne profits was made in the Court of the 5th Munsif of Comilla, the Court in which the original suit had been instituted and decided. Proceedings on this application continued for sometime but eventually on the 29th January 1916 the application was dismissed for default in the absence of both parties. That was a dismissal to which the order and rule' applicable is Order IX, Rules 3 and 4. On the 21st December 1916 or on the 30th March 1917, a second applica...
Biswambar Halder Vs. Giribala Dasi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal571,58Ind.Cas.877
1. There is no contest now that the plaintiff is entitled to one-sixth share only. As regards the joint family properties, the only question which was raised was in respect of properties Nos. 21, 23 and 27 of Schedule ka to the plaint. We think the learned Subordinate Judge has correctly found that these properties were acquired in the lifetime of defendant No. 1's father, Gobinda, apparently in the benami name of Prosonno Banerjee, with the income of ijmali properties, that, therefore, it must partake of the nature of a joint family estate, and that the plaintiff is entitled to her share therein.2. The next question raised before as is as regards the accounts against the defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge has rightly held that for the period of Gobinda's management, the defendant No. 1--his son--is not liable. Gobinda died on 1314. The learned Judge holds, however, that the defendant No. 1 is liable to account from 1314 and relies upon the case of Annamalai Chetty v. Murugasa 7 ...
Krishna Kishore De Vs. Amar Nath Khettry and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.532
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit to declare the invalidity of the decree in a mortgage suit, in so far as such decree affects land situated beyond the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court, on the ground that leave under clause 12 could not have been granted and the decree was consequently to that extent made without jurisdiction. The question raised is of first impression, and the facts material for its determination are not in controversy.2. On the 30th August 1907 certain persons who may be called the Mookerjees and their trustee, one Bhattacharyya (represented by defendants Nos. 4--9 in the present litigation), executed a simple mortgage in favour of Banerjee (defendant No. (3) to secure the repayment of a loan of Rs. 25,000 which was charged upon a share of lots Santoshpore and Mandalika, Patni Mahals in sub-district Howrah within the district of Hughli. On the 13th December 1907 Banerjee executed a mortgage in f...
Chandmull Goneshmull Vs. Nippon Munkwa Kabushiki Kaisha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal342,64Ind.Cas.798
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Greaves, in which he has held, on an application by the respondents, that the award made against them by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Tribunal on the 21st July 1919 at the instance of the appellant must be set aside or taken off the file2. The contract between the parties was made, on the 1st August 1918 for the, sale of 28 bales of Japanese sheeting at Rs. 19 12 0 per piece, Shipment November--February 1919. The contract contained an arbitration clause in these terms: 'Any dispute as to damage, difference, inferiority, short quantity or measure or defect or amount of allowance, to be referred, at sellers option, to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce or two Europeans or Japanese merchants or European or Japanese assistants in Mercantile Firms, one to be named by each party; if either party shall fail to nominate an arbitrator within three days after being required to do so, the other party shall be at li...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »