Kolkata Court January 1924 Judgments
Gobinda Chandra Roy Vs. Abdul Rashid
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1924
Reported in: AIR1928Cal235
1. The accused Gobinda Chandra Roy has been convicted in this case by an Honorary Presidency Magistrate under the provisions of Sections 482 and 486, I.P.C. The conviction took place on the 31st August of last year and the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Es 50 in respect of the conviction under Section 486 and to pay a similar fine for the offence under Section 482. It appears that since the year 1918, or 1920 as the petitioner alleges, the complainant Abdul Rashid has sold on the market in Calcutta soap on which appears on the front a picture of Mr. Gandhi, at the top of which picture appears the word 'Mahatma' and at its foot the word 'Gandhi.' On the back appear the letters 'A.R.M. Ishaq' and the words 'sole agent' and the letters 'A.S.F.' also appear which mean 'American Soap Factory.' The accused has been recently selling on the market soap similar in shape and colour, and bearing on the front a picture of Mr. Gandhi somewhat alike, but not indentical with the picture on th...
Tag this Judgment!icchamoyi Pal Vs. Pearymohan Shah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal512
Suhrawardy, J.1. The facts of this case are rather complicated and the parties have been fighting over this matter for over 12 years: but they may be shortly stated in order to understand the position of the parties to this Rule. The plaintiff brought a suit against 21 defendants for recovery of possession of a certain property on the allegation that they had joined in dispossessing him. He got a decree in the first Court against all the defendants. Two of them (defendant Nos, 2 and 4) preferred an appeal to the lower Appellate Court making the plaintiff as the only respondent and it was dismissed. A second appeal was filed in this Court which was allowed and the case was sent back to the lower Appellate Court to be re-heard after receiving some additional evidence. In the meantime, the opposite parties (defendants Nos. 9, 10, 12 and 13) brought a suit for setting aside the decree passed against them in the original suit by this Munsif. Their suit was decreed and the decree of the firs...
Tag this Judgment!Nanda Lal Roy Vs. Gurupada Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal588
Buckland J.1. The plaintiff who describes himself as a dealer and broker in stocks and shares, sues to recover the sum of Rs. 40,875 as damages suffered by him in his firm of N.L. Roy & Co. by reason of the defendant having neglected and failed to deliver certain shares which he agreed to sell to the plaintiff. In the first paragraph of the plaint the plaintiff alleges that between the 7th August and 13th September 1919, the defendant entered into various contracts with him in his firm of N.L. Roy & Co. by which the defendant agreed to sell various lots of shares in limited companies at various rates. A statement is annexed to the plaint giving particulars of the contracts and a specimen form of the contract in suit is attached. The plaintiff further pleads that the time for delivery of the shares was extended by mutual agreement to the 16th October 1919, and that on that date he made a tender of the price, and thereupon, the defendant having failed and neglected to deliver the shares ...
Tag this Judgment!ichhamoyi Pal Vs. Pearymohan Shah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.427
Suhrawardy, J.1. The facts of this ease are rather complicated and the parties have been fighting over this matter for over 12 years; but they may be shortly stated in order to understand the position of the parties to this Rule. The plaintiff brought a suit against a 21 defendants for recovery of possession of a certain property on the allegation that they had joined in dispossessing him. He got a decree in the first Court against all the defendants. Two of them (defendant Nos. 2 and i) preferred an appeal to the lower Appellate Court making the plaintiff as the only respondent and it was dismissed. A second appeal was filed in this Court which was allowed and the case was sent back to the lower Appellate Court to be reheard after receiving some additional evidence. In the mean time the opposite parties (defendants No. 9, 10, 12 and 13) brought a suit for setting aside the decree passed against them in the original suit by the Munsif. Their suit was decreed and the decree of the first...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Ranjan Nag Vs. Kshitish Chandra Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal898
Suhrawardy, J.1. The facts of this case are peculiar and give rise to an important question of law. The plaintiffs respondents brought a suit against the appellant and several others for declaration of right of way. The suit was decreed against the appellant but dismissed against defendants Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 10 on the ground that summonses were not properly served on them. The appellant who was the defends ant No. 2 in the suit preferred an appeal against the decree to the lower appellate Court, while the plaintiffs filed an application for review before the trial Court against that portion of the order of that Court which purported to dismiss the suit against the defendants Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 10. A few dates will be of importance in considering the question raised. The judgment was delivered on the 15th April, 1920 and the decree signed on the 22nd April, 1920. The defendant No. 2 preferred an appeal to the lower Appellate Court on the 27th May, 1920. The application for review by the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Saradindu Mukerjee and ors. Vs. Girish Chandra Tewari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal184
Suhrawardy, J.1. The facts relating to this Rule are that the petitioners who are the decree-holders attached in execution of their decree certain properties belonging to the judgment debtor. A claim was preferred by a certain person in respect of two of those properties. The petitioners applied for the issue of the sale proclamation and it was ordered on the 13th February 1922 that the sale proclamation might issue on their depositing cost. On the 18th March 1922 the claim was allowed and two of the properties were released from attachment. On the 18th March the petitioners applied for the issue of fresh sale-proclamation in respect of the remaining properties. The order passed thereon was that the 11th May 1922 be fixed for the sale and that the sale proclamation should issue on the petitioner's paying the necessary costs. On the 11th May, the following order was passed. 'Correct processes not filed and no further steps taken. The execution case be dismissed for default.' In the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Dalsuk Roy Agarwalla Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal248
1. This rule was granted at the instance of one Dalsuk Roy Agarwalla on grounds Nos. 1 and 3 as set out in the petition. Ground No. 1 is that the joint trial of the petitioner with one Motiram was bad in law and without jurisdiction and that it has seriously prejudiced the petitioner. Ground No. 3 is that the learned Sessions Judge did not deal with ail the material points raised in the grounds of appeal. We have not gone into ground No. 3 having regard to the view we take on the first ground on which the rule was granted. Now the facts, so far as they are material, are shortly as follows: The accused, Dalsuk Roy Agarwalla, was convicted by a Magistrate of Sibsagar on the 12th June, 1923, of an offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. He was tried along with one Motiram who was acquitted. The charge against both Dalsuk and Motiram was of receiving and retaining certain property dishonestly and knowing that i...
Tag this Judgment!East Indian Railway Co. Vs. Sib Prosad Dutt Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal306
Suhrawardy, J.1. In this case the suit was brought by the plaintiff against the East Indian Railway Company, for damages for loss of two tins of ghee and for shortage in weight of other two tins. The latter part of the claim was dismissed by the Court below. With regard to the claim for loss of two tins the Court below has given a decree to the plaintiff for Rs. 71-14-0 and costs. The goods were consigned under Risk Note in form B. The learned Small Cause Court Judge had held that, under Section 76 of the Railways Act, 1890, the burden of proof as to whether the loss was not due to wilful negligence and how the loss occurred, was upon the Railway Company; and as it did not adduce any evidence on the point he decreed the plaintiff's suit. This is clearly wrong. Section 76 of the Bail-ways Act does not apply to contracts limiting the liability of the Railway Company under Section 72 of the Act. According to the Risk Note B, the plaintiff has to prove that the loss was due to wilful negli...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Bahatar Vs. Nobadali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal634,83Ind.Cas.625
1. We think the learned District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the order which he did on the 15th November, 1923. If he was of opinion that such an order was necessary in the interest of justice, his proper course was to make a reference to this Court under the provisions of Section 438, Cr.P.C. We accordingly accept this part of the Reference made by the learned Sessions Judge and set aside the said order of the learned District Magistrate.2. With reference to the other recommendation made by the learned Sessions Judge, viz., that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, dated the 5th November, 1923 be restored, we are not prepared to accept his recommendation. He has referred to two cases in his letter of Reference in support of the recommendation that he has made, viz., (i) Bachu Molla v. Sia Ram Singh (1886) 14 Cal. 358 and (ii) Judhisthir Gope v. Sheikh Samir A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 644. The decision in the latter case rested on its special features, viz., that the two cases ...
Tag this Judgment!Shib Das Kundu Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal713
1. The accused in this case is a boy of 16, and he was charged with having committed rape. It is not suggested that he was of unsound mi ad at the time the offence was committed, but a petition was put in on his behalf showing that since his apprehension he had become a person of unsound mind. Accordingly, under the provisions of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a jury were empanelled for the purpose of trying the fact of his unsoundness of mind and incapacity to make his defence. The only witness examined before the jury was Lt.-Col. A.C. Mc Gilchrist of the Indian Medical Service who was the Civil Surgeon at Howrah. He was examined as a witness on behalf of the accused, and he stated that he did not think that the accused was in a fit state to understand the proceedings in Court or to stand his trial. He was cross-examined, and stated that he considered the accused mentally unsound, and that his actions were those of a person of unsound mind. The jury, after hearing the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »