Kolkata Court May 1923 Judgments
P.E. Billinghurst and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal18
1. Nos. 646 and 649 of 1922 are appeals by Billinghurst and Michael against conviction by the Chief Presidency Magistrate who found them guilty on each of the two charges and sentenced them to one year's imprisonment. Blackburn and Stoddart were charged with the same offences but were acquitted by the Magistrate.2. The first charge is as follows : 'That you, J. Stoddart, H.P. Blackburn, P.H. Billinghurst, and P.H. Michael, during the period from June 1918 to July 1919, in Calcutta conspired with each other and with C.S. Waite and other persons unknown to commit an offence punishable under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, to wit, to cheat the Government of India of large sums of money in respect of the supply of linseed oil, turpentine, and water-soluble oil by Messrs. Spalding & Co., to the Munitions Board, Calcutta, and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B and 420, Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of my Court.'3. Objection was taken by learned Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Dula Meoh Vs. Moulavi Abdul Rahaman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal452
Newbould, J.1. The plaintiff sued the defendant No. 1, who is the petitioner in this rule on a bond in the Court of the Small Cause Court Judge at Lakhipur. The plaintiff's case was that the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 25 from him and executed a simple bond for Us. 25 in favour of one Mafizulla who was the plaintiff's benamidar and was made defendant No. 2 in the suit. The petitioner admitted having taken a loan of Rs. 15 only from defendant No. 2 and having executed a bond for this amount in his favour and alleged that the amount due on this bond had been paid to defendant No. 2. The judgment of the Small Cause Court Judge was as follows : 'Payment of the bond is not proved save as to Rs. 5, Its. 15 seems to be changed as Rs. 25. Defendant No. 2 does not file W.S. I find that Rs. 15 were paid and the bond is due.' He decreed the suit for Rs. 38 but did not allow costs.2. The petitioner relying on the doctrine of Master v. Miller [1791] 1 Sm. L.C. 767 contends that as it has been fou...
Tag this Judgment!P.E. Billinghurst and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1923
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.545
1. Nos. 646 and 649 of 1922 are appeals by Billinghurst and Michael against conviction by the Chief Presidency Magistrate who found them guilty on each of the two charges and sentenced them to one year's imprisonment. Blackburn and Stoddart were charged with the same offences but were acquitted by the Magistrate.2. The first charge is as follows: 'That, you, J. Stoddart, H.P. Blackburn, P.E. Billinghurst, and P.H. Michael, during; the period from June 1918 to July 1919, in Calcutta conspired with each other and with C.S. Waite and other persons unknown to commit an offence punishable under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, to wit, to cheat the Government of India of large sums of money in respect of the supply of linseed oil, turpentine, and water-soluble oil by Messrs. Spalding & Co., to the Munitions Board, Calcutta, and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 120B and 420, Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of my Court.'3. Objection was taken by learned Co...
Tag this Judgment!Dula Meah Vs. Moulavi Abdul Rahaman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.641
Newbould, J.1. The plaintiff sued the defendant No. 1, who is the petitioner in this Rule, on a bond in the Court of the Small Cause Court Judge at Lakhipur. The plaintiff's case was that the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 25 from him and executed a simple bond for Rs. 25 in favour of one Mafizulla who was the plaintiff's benamdar and was made defendant No. 2 in the suit. The petitioner admitted having taken a loan of Rs. 15 only from defendant No. 2 and having executed a bond for this amount in his favour and alleged that the amount due on this bond had been paid to defendant No. 2. The judgment of the Small Cause Court Judge was as follows :' Payment of the bond is not proved save as to Rs. 5. Rs. 15 seems to be changed as Rs. 25. Defendant No. 2 does not file W.S.I find that Rs. 15 were paid and the bond is due.' He decreed the suit for Rs. 38 but did not allow costs.2. The petitioner relying on the doctrine of Master v. Miller (1791) 1 Sm. L.C.(11th Ed.) 767 : 4 T.R. 320 : 2 R.R. 39...
Tag this Judgment!Bansi Mirdha and ors. Vs. Brojeswar Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal95,81Ind.Cas.974
1. In this case it appears that after the appeal in the lower Court had been presented, the records were called for by the Magistrate. On the 2nd March 1923, after the records had arrived, it being the date of hearing of the appeal, the appeal was taken up for hearing. On that date, no one appeared in support of the appeal on behalf of the appellant and no application for adjournment was filed. The learned Magistrate thereupon dismissed the appeal. Under the provisions of Section 423, Cr.P.C. it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to go through the record and to dispose of the appeal on the merits. He could not dismiss the appeal merely because there was default in the appearance of the pleader for the Appellant.2. In this view of the matter the Rule is made absolute. The matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate in order that he may re-hear the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with the terms of Section 423, Cr.P.C....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Easatulla Mian Alias Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal104,76Ind.Cas.1031
1. The present Rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate of Rajshahi to show cause why 'the proceedings taken against the petitioner should not be quashed in the circumstances set out in the petition. It appears that two persons named Keramuttulla and the present petitioner were sent up for trial in connection with a half portion of a Government Currency Note for Rs. 100. The petitioner was discharged at the trial and cited as a witness for the prosecution and examined as such in the case against Keramuttulla. After the prosecution had closed their case against Keramuttulla and after the petitioner had been examined and cross-examined as a witness for the prosecution the Magistrate of his own motion took cognizance of the case against the petitioner and ordered a fresh enquiry into the case against Keramuttulla and the petitioner and made over the case to another Magistrate for disposal. Now it seems to us that after the petitioner had been discharged in respect of the case ...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Moitra Vs. Kamini Mohan Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal107
1. This is the Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Barisal and also upon the opposite party to show cause why the case against the petitioner should not be transferred to the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate or any other stipendiary Magistrate in Calcutta as this Court may think fit to transfer to, or why such other or further order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.2. It appears that a complaint under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. was lodged against the petitioner in the Court of the Deputy Magistrate of Barisal. The circumstances which gave rise to this complaint being lodged, shortly stated, are these: The petitioner before us carries on business as a coal merchant at 1, Pollock Street, in Calcutta. The complainant who resides in Barisal entrusted the petitioner with a sum of Rs. 400 being part of the price of a certain quantity of coal which the complainant asked the petitioner to despatch to Barisal from Calcutta. The petitioner says...
Tag this Judgment!Bande Ali Vs. Rejaullah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal263,76Ind.Cas.975
1. This Rule was issued in a matter of 145 proceedings which had been decided ex-parte in the absence of the first party. It appears that on the date the case was fixed for hearing, a hazira or a list of attendance of witnesses was filed by the first party. At the moment the case was called on, the Mukhtear who was engaged by the first party was absent and was arguing a case in another Court. The petitioner went to fetch his Mukhtear. The Mukhtear could not come and it appears that on the second occasion when the petitioner went to fetch the Mukhtear, he was not available. The petitioner did neither examine himself nor did he examine the witnesses whose names were mentioned in the hazira. The learned Honorary Magistrate in his explanation states that he waited for full 20 minutes and that then proceeded to take evidence of the witnesses on behalf of the second party. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, we think that the petitioner should be given an opportunity of adducing...
Tag this Judgment!Annada Mohan Roy Chowdhury Vs. Kina Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal394
Buckland, J.1. These appeals have now to be disposed of finally after remand for a finding as to adverse possession. The learned District Judge has found not only that the defendants have all along been in possession since 1873, but also that their possession has been adverse as against the Government. This finding is challenged as not being justified by the facts. The suits not only had been fully heard when they came before us on second appeal on the previous occasion, but we also gave the parties permission to adduce further evidence if so advised and they have done so. The matter has been very fully considered and there are no grounds for interfering with the finding.2. On such finding a further point has been argued, as to the date from which adverse possession should be deemed to run. Article 144 of the first schedule to the Limitation Act provides that in a suit for possession of immovable property the period of limitation shall be twelve years from the time when the possession ...
Tag this Judgment!Priya Nath Basu and ors. Vs. Tarachand Moral and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal341
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of rent.2. The plaintiffs-appellants alleged that the defendants held a tenure consisting of 1,752 bighas of land at a rent of Rupees 915-12-6 under them, and the rent for the years 1321 to 1324 was claimed in the suit.3. The main defence was that the tenure consisted of more than 2,000 bighas of land, that the plaintiffs had let out about 600 bighas of land out of the lands of the defendants' tenure, to one Gobinda Mandal who had dispossessed the defendants from a portion of the tenure; that rent had also been realised on plaintiffs' behalf from some of the defendants' tenants on the land, and that the rent payable for the tenure should therefore be suspended. The Courts below have concurred in dismissing the suit, and the plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.4. Three contentions have been raised on behalf of the appellants. The first is that the Court below is in error in holding that the disputed land was included in the defendants'...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »