Kolkata Court April 1922 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.
Aswini Kumar Dutt Aud ors. Vs. Sukhoda Sundari Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal319,68Ind.Cas.448
1. This Rule mast be made absolute. The petitioner was the appellant in the Court below. The appeal was taken up by the Court on the 27th July 1921 for hearing when neither the petitioner nor his Pleader was found, nor was the respondent present. The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal for default, On the 25th August the petitioner filed a petition for re-hearing of the appeal on the ground that he was unable to be present on the 27th July as he was ill and could not tome to Court to instruct his Pleader. It appears, however, from the judgment of the learned Judge that the reason for non-appearance of the petitioner was that the 27th July was observed in that locality as a hartal. That may or may not be, but on the if 29th August both parties, the appellant and the respondent, filed an application before the learned Judge settling the dispute between them and asking that the case might be decided in terms of the petition of compromise filed. The petitioner's application for restorat...
Rasik Lal Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal492,71Ind.Cas.503
Walmsley, J.1. The petitioner, Rasik Lal Das, has been convicted under Section 54-A of the Calcutta Police Act, and sentenced to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. According to the Police Officer, P.W. No. 1, there were found in the house of the accused 23 ties, three pairs of gloves, two scarfs, two braces, one pair of stockings and one night cap. There is no evidence as to the condition of these things. The case for the accused is, that they are old worn-out things such as are to be found with bikri wallas and are of no further use. For the purpose of section, 54-A of the Police Act, it is obligatory on the prosecution to show that there is reason to believe that the goods had been stolen or fraudulently obtained. It appears to me in this case that the mere evidence of the Sub-Inspector that second-hand articles of clothing were recovered from the house of the accused would warrant us in saying that there is reason to believe that the articles found in the possession of the...
Ramkamal Banik Saha Vs. Syam Sunder Banik Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1922
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.41
1. This appeal is directed against a decree of dismissal made in a suit for construction of a Will. One Krishna Prosad Saha Banik, the father of the plaintiffs and the first defendant made a testamentary disposition of his properties on the 30th April 1897. Probate was taken by the executors on the 13th September 1897. The present suit was instituted on the 15th August 1919 for construction of the Will and for a declaration that the testator has died intestate with regard to all his properties except what he had specifically bequeathed to his widow, and that the plaintiffs had thereupon become entitled to two-thirds share of the estate left by their father by right of inheritance. The suit was defended on a variety of grounds which need not be enumerated for our present purpose. It is sufficient to state that the suit has been dismissed as barred by limitation. The Subordinate Judge has held that right to sue for declaration that the father of the plaintiffs had died intestate and that...
Gosto Behary Basu and ors. Vs. Baistom Das Denre
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.509
Walmsley, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted under Section 186, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay fines of Rs. 150, Rs. 30 and Rs. 75 respectively. The Magistrate purported to dispose of the case under summary procedure. So under Section 414, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners had no right of appeal. They moved the Sessions Judge for a reference to this Court, but without success.2. The circumstances under Which we issued a Rule are as follows. The petitioners were summoned under Section 186 and Section 206, Indian Penal Code. Offences under the latter section cannot be tried summarily, and the learned Magistrate began to try the case under Chapter XXI, recording the evidence in the manner prescribed in Chapter XXV. Seven witnesses for the prosecution were thus examined-in-chief on September 17th, the accused were also examined on that day. Then the Magistrate recorded this order: 'As no offence under Section 206, Indian Penal Code, has been made out, the case will go...
Haridasi Debi Vs. Gopeshwar Pyne and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal599,77Ind.Cas.619
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an application made by the learned Vakil in respect of a petition presented by the appellant to England in an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The petition is as follows: It is addressed to 'The Hon'ble Sir Lancelot Sanderson, Kt., K.C., Chief Justice and his companion Justices, of the said Hon'ble Court.'1. That your petitioner put in Rs. 100 as a deposit towards costs of preparation of paper-book in the above-mentioned appeal.2. That on nth July 1921 the said appeal was dismissed for default for nonpayment of the balance of the costs.3. That nobody appeared for the respondents in the said appeal.2. The prayer was for the refund of the said sum of Rs. 100 or any sum that is in deposit to the credit of petitioner after deducting the necessary costs incurred by the office, in connection with the said appeal or to pass such other, order as to your Lordships may seem fit and proper.'3. When this petition was presented the officer of...
Jagat Chandra Roy Vs. Kalimuddi Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal382,71Ind.Cas.693
1. This Rule is directed against an order discharging nine accused persons, opposite parties, in a case brought against them under the provisions of Section 147, Indian Penal Code. The order of discharge followed upon an application made by the Public Prosecutor for permission to withdraw from the prosecution of these accused persons and upon the consent of the Court given to that application. In the case reported as Umesh Chunder Roy v. Satis Chandra Roy (1917) 22 C.W.N. 69 it has been held that in according or withholding sanction to an application for withdrawal made by the Public Prosecutor under the provisions of Section 494(a) the Court acts in a judicial capacity, and, for such order so judicially made, the Court must give and record its reasons, so that the High Court may be in a position to say whether the discretion vested in the Court has been properly exercised. In the present case for the order giving sanction to the Public Prosecutor's application for permission to withdr...
Krishnendra Nathsarkar and ors. Vs. Rani Kusum Kamani Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal351,76Ind.Cas.324
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for enhancement of rent of a jote and also for additional rent for increase in area. The defence was that the tenure was a mourasi mokarrari one, that the rent was not liable to enhancement; and that there was no increase in area. The claim for additional rent for additional area was dropped in the lower Appellate Court. The Court of first instance, held that the rent was not liable to enhancement. The Court of Appeal below held that it was, and gave a decree for enhancement of rent. The defendants have appealed to this Court.2. It appears that the plaintiff's father-in law granted a jote. potta in favour of one Biswanath Sarkar, the defendant's predecessor, on the 22nd Poush 1276 B.S. in respect of an entire mourn (Malda,); and two jotes situated in two other villages, one of which stood in the name of Biswanath's father and the other in the name of his uncle. The rent settled for the entire tenancy was Rs. 418-9-5. The material portion of the potta...
Sitanath Das Vs. Rani Kanak Probha Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal322(1),67Ind.Cas.879
1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of Khulna in appeal rejecting an application for execution. The facts appear to be these: The decree-holder obtained a decree against Rani Durga Sundari in 1900. Execution was taken out against Rani Durga Sundari in 1911 in which year she died. Execution was again taken out in 1914. Execution was sought for against the son, who was defendant No. 1, and the grandsons, who are judgment-debtors Nos. 2 to 4, were included as parties. This application was dismissed in default. Subsequently, further applications for execution were made against defendant No. 1. The other judgment-debtors were described as parties but execution was not asked for against them. Various sums were realised, The present appeal arises out of an application made in 1920 in which execution was sought for against respondent No. 1 and also the present respondents NOS. 2 to 4 and defendants NOS. 5 to 7. The Court of first instance allowed the execution ...
Amarendra Nath Dey and anr. Vs. Baranagore Jute Factory Company Limite ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.939
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court, 24-Pargannahs, whereby he dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs are the owners of certain premises, No. 32, Kali Krishna Tagore Road, which lie on the north side of the road, and the defendants are the owners of certain mills, which He on the south side of that road. The plaintiffs' premises include a consecrated temple at which, it is alleged a large number of people call daily and on festive occasions to worship the Thakur and the plaintiffs and their relations also worship the said Thakur an ceremonial and other occasions. In addition, the priest and other people live on the premises throughout the year for the purposes of service of the said Thakur.2. There is septic tank on the south side of the road on the defendant's premises and lying to the east of the plaintiffs' premises and it is alleged that offensive smells emanated from that septic tank and complaints h...
Krishnadas Acharjee Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Samsan Ali Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal431,74Ind.Cas.925
1. A preliminary objection was made that no appeal lies to this Court: The argument put forward was that this is an order passed by the Special Judge. The only section which applies to appeals from Special Judge is Section 109A of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and that as Section 109A applies only to appeals from appellate orders, and as this is not an appeal from appellate order but from an order no appeallies; and in support of this contention he has relied on the rulings in Motkur Chandra Majumdar v. Tara Sunkar Ghose 7 C.W.N. 440, and Mathura Nath Roy v. Basanta Kumar Chakrctvarti 2 Ind. Cas. 572 : 36 C. 512. As against this the appellant has relied upon the ruling in Manmotha Nath Dey v. Gadadhar Manna 41 Ind. Cas. 751 : 45 C. 381 : 28 Cr.L.J. 155. This latter case is similar in many respects to the present case. In view of this authority we arc of opinion that the appeal docs lie in the present case.2. This is an appeal from an order refusing to set aside the abatement of, an appeal. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »