Kolkata Court March 1921 Judgments
Abdul Latif Yusuff Vs. Abu Mohammed Kassim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1921
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.241
1. In this case the allegations made in the complaint against the accused-petitioner are that while the accused was in the service of the complainant firm at Singapore, he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 12,379 and goods to the value of Rs. 2,386-13-0. The complaint was made to the Presidency Magistrate of the Northern Division on the 17th of June, and the accused obtained the present Rule on the 10th of January 1921. His contention is that on the allegations made by the prosecution the offence complained of, if any, was committed and completed in Singapore and that the Courts in Calcutta have no jurisdiction to try the case. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the provisions of Section 181(2) of, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the, decision of this Court reported as Simhachalam v. Rali Kanta Laha 41 Ind. Cas. 138 : 44 C. 912 : 21 C.W.N. 573 : 25 C.L.J. 451 : 18 Cr.L.J. 762.2. But here the further case of the prosecution was that for al...
Tag this Judgment!Sona Sheikh and ors. Vs. Naib Ali Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.714
1. In this case it appears that the petitioners before us were convicted of the offense punishable under Section 143, Indian Penal Code, on the 30th September 1920. The last date for filing their appeal was, therefore, the 6th November, after making allowance for the time required in obtaining copies. As a matter of fact, the appeal was presented in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Mymensingh on the 17th November. On the 11th October the Civil Court vacation began and continued up to the 16th November. For that period two officers were appointed to act as Vacation Judge, one for the first half of the vacation and another, Mr. Rajendra Narain Roy, for the second half of the vacation, beginning from 29th October 1920. The explanation offered by the petitioners of their delay in presenting their petition is that Mr. Roy, the Vacation Judge, for the second half of the vacation, did not in fact arrive in Mymensingh on the days on which he was respected to sit at the head-quarters of that ...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman of the Municipal Commissioner of Dacca Vs. Krishna Das Nag an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal473,64Ind.Cas.168
1. This appeal arises oat of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs have a right to vote in the election of the Municipal Commissioners of (sic). It appears that in consequence of some letter received by the Chairman of the Municipality from Government, the names of the plaintiffs were struck out, on the ground that each member of a joint family had no right to vote separately even though he was qualified under the law to vote. The present suit was, thereupon, instituted. There is no question that the plaintiffs have the qualifications laid down by Section 15 of the Bengal Municipal Act III of 1884 and the Rules framed by the Local Government It is also admitted that the tax which each of them pays exceeds Rs. 1 8, the minimum qualification under the rules, but it is paid jointly, and not separately. The only question, therefore, is whether the word 'person' in Section 15 of the Act excludes the members of a joint Hindu family, The Courts below have some to the conclusion that th...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnajiban Sanyal Vs. Mahammad MasiuddIn Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal653,63Ind.Cas.244
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has culminated in the first of these two appeals is a mortgage-bond executed on the 25th April 1904 by the ninth defendant Ichamayi Debi on behalf of her infant adopted son, the first defendant Krishnajiban Sanyal, in favour of one Sariat Ulla Mandal, a member of a Muhammadan family described in these proceedings as the Mandals of Biswanathpore in the District of Malda. The relationship of the different members of this family will appear from the following genealogical table: JHALU. | --------------------------------------- | | | Khasa, Dassi, Ratan, | | | | Gulzar, | | Defdt. No. 6 | | | ----------------------- ------------------- | | | | Sariatulla, Sabaktulla, Bepati. Shahimuddin. | | | | | |-------------------- | | ----------------------------- | | | | | Misrabi, Khatyan, Kantu, | Defend- Defend married | ant No. 3. ant No. 2. Sakina, | | | ---------------------- | | | | Din Mahomed, Kasirannessa, | Pro Defend Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Jogmohan Pradhani Vs. Indra Chandra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.895
1. This appeal is against an order passed in proceedings for execution of a mortgage decree, by which the Court below held that the decree-holder was bound by a composition which was approved of by the Insolvency Court and under which the decree-holder was bound to accept 7 annas in the rupee.2. It appears that the decree-bolder appellant had a mortgage decree against the judgment-debtor. He had also money due to him under a mortgage bond, and a decree for Rs. 5,000 and odd against the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor in the insolvency proceedings put in an application, in which he stated that certain creditors had agreed to accept lesser sums in satisfaction of the amount of debts due to them. The name of Jagmohan Prodhani was entered in the list as a decree-holder and it was stated that he had agreed to accept Rs. 13,000 in full satisfaction of the debts due to him under the mortgage decree, the mortgage bond and the money decree. In the said petition the judgment debtor suggeste...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Taribullah Shaikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal252,66Ind.Cas.180
Ghosh, J.1. This is a reference tinder Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned. Sessions Judge of Pabna in a trial held by him, with the aid of a Jury, of nine persons named Taribulla, Korban, Rahimuddi, Mahajan Mondal, Hajrat Ali Sheikh, Badu Mondal, Maju Sheikh, Amir Munshi, and Rajab Sheikh, charged with offenses punishable under Sections 147, 302 and 323, Indian Penal Cede and of one of the said persons named Maju Sheikh also charged with an offense punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The Jury were unanimously of opinion that three of the accused, namely, Taribulla, Mahajan Mondal and Badu Mondal were guilty under Sections 147 and 323, read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, but that the other accused persons were not guilty of any offense. The learned Sessions Judge, for the reasons stated by him in his letter of reference, was unable to accept the verdict of the Jury and has submitted the case for the consideration of this Court. In his o...
Tag this Judgment!Mahammad Araj Vs. Abdul Gofur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.368
Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for khas possession of 1 k. 2 gds. of land as described in the plaint on establishment of the plaintiff's jote right thereto. The land in suit forms part of Dag No. 741 and this Dag and Dag No. 740 were formerly the property of Umed Ali, the father of the plaintiff, Umed Ali died leaving the plaintiff his son and two daughters, defendants Nos. 5 and 6, as his heirs. After their father's death the heirs came to an amicable arrangement; and the plaintiff's is that by this arrangement the daughters got Dag No. 740, and he got Dag No. 741, including the land in suit. This claim of the plaintiff is supported by a nadabi or a deed of release admittedly executed by the two daughters. The first Court gave the plaintiff a decree, but that decree has been reversed by the lower Appellate Court on the finding that the nadabi was a fraudulent, document and the land in suit was made over to the daughters at the time of the amicable arrangement between ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Prosad Lahiri Choudhuri Vs. AftabuddIn Ahmed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1921
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.43
Newbould, J.1. This Rule was directed against an order of the Small Cause Court Judge decreeing a suit against the petitioner. The plaint in the suit was presented on the 16th May 1919, the last day for filing the suit under the limitation Act. That plaint was insufficiently stamped and the Court required the plaintiff to supply the deficit Court-fee within four days. This was not done and the plaint was rejected on the 28th May 1919. On the 5th June 1919 the plaintiff applied for a review of the order rejecting the plaint and the review was granted without any notice of the application to the defendant. The order of rejection of the plaint was set aside and the plaintiff was allowed 15 days' time from the date of that order, the 20th December 1919, for putting in the deficit Court-fee. The Court-fee was duly paid by the plaintiff and the plaint was registered In due course. The suit was tried, and at the hearing of the suit the Pleader for the defendant stated that he would not press ...
Tag this Judgment!Probodh Chandra Mitter Vs. Harish Chandra Naskar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal145,64Ind.Cas.58
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent under the following circumstances. One Purna was the proprietor of an estate in the Sunderbans. He sold an 8-annas share of the estate to one Chandra Nath on the 9th August 1897. The latter got his name registered in respect of the 8 annas share under the Land Registration Act. About six years afterwards, on 12th May 1903, the defendant No. 1 took a lease of 400 bighas of land from Purna alone and executed a registered kabuliyat in his favour, agreeing to pay a fixed rent of Rs. 350. He appears to have paid rent for some years to Purna alone. Purna died leaving two sons, and the plaintiff is the ijaradar of an 8-annas share of the estate from the sons of Purna whose names were registered in respect of the 8-annas share. The plaintiff brought a suit against the defendant for the rent reserved in the lease. The defendant pleaded that he had paid an 8-annas share of the rent to the representative of Chandra Nath, who was registered as proprieto...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Kumar De Vs. Samedur Raza Chaudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.167
1. In this case the allegations of the prosecution were, that in a money-suit brought by a certain plaintiff against the mother of the accused person, certain property including a house with corrugated iron roof was attached before judgment, the said attachment being made under the provisions of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code. The further case for the precaution was, that after this attachment the house in question was dismantled and the materials were about to be removed and disposed of. Being satisfied by an affidavit submitted by the plaintiff in the suit that the materials of the house were about to be removed and disposed of, the learned Munsif in whose Court the suit was pending issued a temporary injunction under the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 1(6), restraining the defendant in the suit from removing the materials of the house and further directing that the materials of the house including the arrogated iron sheets should be removed to the Court house for their...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »