Kolkata Court May 1923 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.
Kripal Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal231,81Ind.Cas.940
1. This is an application on behalf of one Mohunt Kripal Singh who has been convicted under Section 62-A of the Calcutta Police Act and fined Re. 1, and whose kirpan has been ordered to be confiscated by the Second Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta.2. It appears that, on the 27th April 1923, the applicant was arrested by the police on the allegation that he was carrying a sword without any license or permission from the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta. The applicant protested that he was carrying a kirpan which, according to him, was a part of the religious creed of every member of the Sikh community. On the 2nd May 1923 the applicant was convicted as mentioned above.3. On behalf of the applicant it has been contended before us that the learned Magistrate has entirely ignored the fact that carrying a kirpan is part of the religious obligation of every member of the Sikh community, and that any notification issued under any Act, interfering with the religious beliefs and practices of a...
Giris Chandra Gangopadhyay and anr. Vs. Sri Krishna De Nag and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.325
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit which was commenced by the plaintiffs-respondents so far back as the 14th April 1909 for apportionment of rent and for recovery of arrears. The litigation has had a chequered career during the last thirteen years. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the 17th January 1910. The District Judge affirmed this decision on the 21st November 1910. On second appeal to this Court, the suit was remanded for re-consideration' on the 14th March 1913, by Jenkins, C.J., and Mullick, J. On the 9th January 1914 the District Judge remitted the case to the Court of first instance for re-trial. On the nth May 1915 the Trial Court decreed the claim in p Article On the 23rd August 1916 the Subordinate Judge on appeal reversed this decision and dismissed the suit. On second appeal to this Court. N.R. Chatterjea and Newbould, JJ., set aside the decision of the Subordinate Judge on the 22nd March 1920, and remanded the case for re-consideration. O...
Probodh Chandra Mitter Vs. Harish Chandra Naskar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal124
1. This appeal was heard once before see the judgment in Probodh Chunder v. Hurish Chunder A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 145, but as the judgment proceeded partly upon a concession made by the pleader for the appellant, the judgment was set aside on review, and the appeal has been heard again.2. The appeal arises oat of a suit for rent under the following circumstances : One Purna was the proprietor of an estate in the Sunderbuns. He sold an 8 annas share of the estate to one Chandranath 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 ijardar of an 8 annas share of the estate from the sons of Purna whose ...
Ganoda Dassya Vs. Srimanta Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal541a,73Ind.Cas.784
1. This reference has arisen out of a case instituted under the provisions of Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a widow for orders as regards the maintenance of an illegitimate child of hers by one Srimanta Ghosh. The Deputy Magistrate directed that Srimanta Ghosh should pay a sum of Rs. 5 per month for the maintenance of the illegimate child. Against this order an application for revision was made before the learned Sessions Judge of Pabna and Bogra. The learned Sessions Judge found on examination of the record that the trial had been vitiated by refusal on the part of the Trying Magistrate to examine a witness who was said to be deaf, but who could speak and write : and further that the evidence in the case had not been recorded in the manner prescribed by the Code.2. As regards this last point, it appears to us that the record of the evidence as it stands cannot be described as a memorandum of the evidence which the Magistrate, under the provisions of the Code of Crim...
Hatemali Chaprasi Vs. Osimuddi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal544a
1. In this case, as the record shows, there was no evidence adduced at all before the Magistrate. That being so, the order of the Magistrate holding that the second party is entitled to possession of the property in dispute is one which must be set aside. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to make an order under this section without any evidence being adduced before him.2. Accordingly the order complained of is set aside.3. The Rule is accordingly made absolute....
Suresh Chandra Ghose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal542
Cuming, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows. The petitioner, Suresh Chandra Ghose, was on his trial on charges under Sections 324 and 326. In the course of the trial an Investigating Police Officer was examined as a witness. The accused, for the purpose, apparently, of contradicting the witnesses for the prosecution, questioned the witness (Police Officer) with regard to certain statement made to him by the witnesses and on his stating he did not recollect, asked him to refer to his diary to refresh his memory. The witness refused to do so on the ground that it was a special diary and had been recorded under Section 172. Upon this the defence filed a petition asking the Court, in the interests of justice, to send for the diary of Panchanon Mukherji and to look at it, and allow the defence pleader to inspect the said diary on certain points which had been raised by the petitioner. The Magistrate made an order on the petition rejecting it on the ground that the petitioner was not,...
Probodh Chandra Mitter Vs. Harish Chandra Naskar, Who Appeared; and Pa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.7
1. This appeal was heard once before [see the judgment reported in 64 Ind. Cas. 58 : 48 C.1078] but as the judgment proceeded partly upon a concession made by the pleader for the appellant, the judgment was set aside on review and the appeal has been heard again.2. The appeal arises out of a suit for rent under the following circumstances : One Purna was the proprietor of an estate in the Sunderbuns. He sold an 8-annas share of the estate to one Chandranath 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 kabuliat in his favour agreeing to pay a fixed rent of As. 350. He appears to have paid rent for some years to Purna alone. Purna died leaving two sons and the plaintiff is the jaradar of an 8-annas share of the estate from the sons of Purna, whose names were registered...
Messrs. Sadasook Ramprotap Vs. Hoare Miller and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal719,80Ind.Cas.632
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Buckland in a suit for damages for breach of contract. On the 4th May 1921, and 9th June 1921, the defendants entered into two contracts with a firm of the Dame of Balfour & Co., for the sale of corasacks. On the 15th July 1921, Balfour & Co. assigned their interest in the contract to the plaintiffs, Sadasook Ramprotap, a firm carrying on business as commission agents and bankers. On the 11th November 1921, the plaintiffs instituted this suit as assignees of the contracts to enforce their rights thereunder. Mr. Justice Buckland has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs had not complied with the terms of Section 131 of the Transfer of Property Act. No oral evidence has been adduced in the case; and it appears to have been taken as common ground' before Mr. Justice Buck-land that if notice was not given under Section 131, though the transfer might have been valid, the suit against the defendant Company must...
Suresh Chandra Ghose Alias Barka Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.261
Ciming, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows. The petitioner, Suresh Chandra Ghose, was on his trial on charges under sections 324 and 326. In the course of the tri al an investigating Police Officer was examined as a witness. The accused, for the purpose, apparently, of contradicting the witnesses for the prosecution, questioned the witness (Police Officer) with regard to certain statement made to him by the witnesses and on his stating he did not recollect asked him to refer to his diary to refresh his memory. The witness refused to do so on the ground that it was a special diary and had been recorded under Section 172. Upon this the defence filed a petition asking the Court, in the interests of justice, to send for the diary of Panchanon Mukherji and to look at it and allow the defence Pleader to inspect the said diary on certain points which had been raised by the petitioner. The Magistrate made an order on the petition rejecting it on the ground that the petitioner was not, ...
Hatemali Chaprasi Vs. Osimaddy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.814
1. In this case, as the record shows, there was no evidence adduced at all before the Magistrate. That being so; the order of the Magistrate holding that the second party is entitled to possession of the property in dispute is one which must be set aside. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to make an order under this Section without any evidence being adduced before him.2. Accordingly the order complained of is set aside.3. The Rule is accordingly made absolute....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »