Kolkata Court August 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.
Keamuddi Karikar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal79,81Ind.Cas.593
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Keamuddi Karikar, who was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Dacca and a Jury. By the unanimous verdict of the jury he was found guilty of an offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and of an offence under Section 325 read with Section 149. The Jury found him not guilty under Section 325, Section 304 and Section 304 read with Section 149.2. Shortly stated, the facts were these:3. The police were summoned for the purpose of preventing a considerable number of people from fishing in a certain tank. In the first instance the police were attacked, but the next thing that happened was that the people, who had assembled for the purpose of fishing, apparently gave way and retreated. The allegation was that then some of the people, who were with the police, and the police themselves pursued the retreating crowd. The deceased man, who was aged about sixty, fell at the rear of the crowd, and he was so severely beaten that he died o...
A.J.E. Abraham Vs. H.B. Sookias
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal777,(1924)ILR51Cal337
Chatterjea and Panton, JJ.1. This Rule arises out of proceedings under the Provincial Insolvency Act (V of 1920). The opposite party applied to be adjudged an insolvent and was adjudged insolvent by the Subordinate Judge of Asansol on the 19th September, 1922, who directed the insolvent to apply for his discharge within 6 months from that date. The 6 months expired on the 18th March, 1923. On the 3rd April, 1923, the insolvent made an application for his discharge supported by an affidavit explaining the delay in making it. On the 4th April, 1923, the Sub-ordinate Judge extended the time for making the application for discharge. That matter is now pending.2. Against that order this Rule was obtained and it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Court had no power under Section 27, Clause (2), to extend the time after the expiry of the period of 6 months. Section 27, Clause (2), of Act V of 1920 lays down that the Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, extend the period wit...
Karimunnessa Khatun Vs. Fazlal Karim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1055,84Ind.Cas.471
Richardson, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Barisal refusing to set aside a sale of certain properties in execution, held on the 17th January, 1921. At this stage, it is conceded that the only ground on which the application to set aside the sale can be supported is that the properties that have been sold are properties in the hands of a Receiver appointed in a partition suit to which the appellant is a party. It is as clear as daylight that on the merits the application entirely fails. The learned Subordinate Judge in the course of his concise and excellent judgment points out that the properties were sold for a sum considerably in excess of that at which they had been valued by the judgment debtor herself. Even, therefore, if there were any irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale, the applicant has suffered no loss in consequence thereof. The only objection now pressed is of an entirely formal and technical character. Nothing was said about...
Nripendra Bhusan Ray Vs. Gobinda Bandhu Majumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1018,82Ind.Cas.266
C.C. Ghose, J.1. The facts connected with this Rule are as follows : The petitioner, Nripendra Bhusan Ray, is a nonresident zemindar of Narail in the district of Jeasore. It is stated that he resides at Madhupur in the Sonthal Parganas and that all the affairs of his zamindari, which lies in several districts, are managed by one Bepin Behari Dutt, who is his manager and who resides at his sudder cutohery in Narail. There is a hat at a place called Simakhali, 17 or 18 miles distant from Narail, which is owned by the petitioner and others. This hat is let out to various persons under leases for a term. In 1327 B.S. the hat in question was leased out to one Ibrahim Sikdar for a period of three years at an annual rental of Rs. 575 and during the pendency of this lease a rival hat was started in or about January, 1922, at a place called Kholabari, which is within a mile of Simakhali. On the 17th September, 1922, a riot occurred at Kholabari. Certain persons, namely, Forman, Izatulla, Wares ...
Jagannath Motilal Vs. Bala Prosad Arjundas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal166,78Ind.Cas.859
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff's from an order made by my learned brother Mr. Justice Greaves on the 14th of May 1923.2. The order was: 'It is ordered that the further and better affidavit of documents filed by the plaintiff firm after the expiration of the time granted by the said order be taken off the file: And it is further ordered that this suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.'3. The facts which it is necessary for me to mention for the purposes of my judgment are as follows:On the 2nd of August 1921, an order was made that the plaintiffs in this suit should file an affidavit of documents within ten days, such affidavit to be made by their gomasta. The affidavit was not filed within ten days, and it was not until the 3rd of January 1922 that the plaintiffs filed the affidavit sworn by the plaintiffs gomasta. On the 8th of February 1923, the defendants made an application for a further and better affidavit of documents by the plain...
Baikuntha Nath Chattoraj Vs. Prosannamoyi Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal769,(1924)ILR51Cal324
1. We do not think that this is a case in which restitution can properly be ordered.2. It appears that the appellant applied for letters of administration to the estate of one Mandakini Debi, and the respondent set up a will of the deceased. The movable properties in dispute were at that time in the possession of the respondent. The Court appointed a commissioner to make an inventory of the properties, and in the course of the proceedings she set up a title to many of the properties as belonging to herself. An inventory was made by the commissioner and the properties were locked up in a room under seal, the keys remaining with the commissioner. Letters of administration were granted to the appellant and probate of the will was refused to the respondent. On appeal by the respondent to the High Court the decision of the District Judge was reversed and probate of the will was ordered to be granted to the respondent. She then applied for removal of the seals and for delivery of the propert...
Raj Rajeswari Jiu and ors. Vs. Gati Krishna Chakrabarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal953
Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal raises a question of some novelty and of considerable importance.2. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in this court, instituted a suit for recovery of possession of land and mesne profits in the Court of the Second Munsiff at Midnapore. The subject-matter of the litigation was valued at Rs. 600 and court-fee was paid accordingly. The defendants objected that the suit had been undervalued and that, if properly valued, it would be found to be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court where it had been instituted. This point was investigated and on the 1st December, 1921, the Munsiff came to the conclusion that the value of the subject-matter of the litigation was Rs. 6,000. The result was that the plaint was returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court. On the 21st December, 1921, the plaint was presented in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Midnapore; but notwithstanding the finding of the Munsiff, the suit was valued at Rs. 1,125...
Raj Rajeswari Jiu Vs. Gati Krishna Chakrabarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1923
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.292
1. This appeal raises a question of some novelty and of considerable importance.2. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in this Court, instituted a suit for recovery of possession of land and mesne profits in the Court of the Second Munsif at Midnapur. The subject-matter of the litigation was valued at Rs. 600 and Court-fee was paid accordingly. The defendants objected that the suit had been undervalued and that if properly valued it would be found to be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court Where it had been instituted. This point was investigated and on the 1st December, 1921, the Munsif came to the conclusion that the value of the subject-matter of the litigation was Rs. 6,000. The result was that the plaint was returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. On the 21st December, 1921, the plaint was presented in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Midnapore; but notwithstanding the finding of the Munsif, the suit was valued at Rs. 1,125 and Court-fee was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›