Kolkata Court January 1924 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.
Rampado Sarkar and ors. Vs. Atore Dome
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal202
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould in a suit for ejectment.2. The trial Court decreed the claim. That judgment was reversed on appeal by the District Judge and the decision of the District Judge has been affirmed by Mr. Justice Newbould. The substantial question in controversy is, whether the status of the defendant is to be determined by reference to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, or the Bengal Tenancy Act. Upon this matter, the Courts below were divided in opinion; while the Court of first instance holds that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act were applicable, the District; Judge has held that the provisions of the. Bengal Tenancy Act govern the case. The answer to the question depends upon the previous history of the land in suit.3. It is not disputed that the tenancy of one Patal Sheik, who held an area of 10 cottahs under the superior landlords, was purchased by the father o...
Bishan Singh Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal714
1. The question that arises in this appeal is whether certain articles that have been imported by the accused from Germany are 'arms,' within the meaning of Section 5 of the Indian Arms Act, as defined by Section 4 of that Act. The articles in question were sent by the accused's brother from Germany on his own initiative. There was apparently some doubt at the Custom House whether they am 'arms' within the meaning of the Arms Act of 1878, and the question was referred to the appraisers there for their decision. In the result the appraisers held that the articles fell within the definition of cutlery, and that they are not 'arms' within the meaning of the Indian Arms Act of 1878. On behalf of the accused, evidence was called of Mr. Brown, who is a partner in Messrs. Manton & Co., and also of an employee in the firm of Messrs. Lyon and Lyon, and of other witnesses connected with firms which sell hunting; knives and such like articles Mr. Brown distinctly stated in his evidence that in hi...
Krishna Chandra Banik and ors. Vs. Har Kishore Madak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal154
1. The petitioners have been convicted of criminal breach of trust, and the first petitioner has been fined Rs. 200 and the other two petitioners Rs. 50 each. The conviction was upheld on appeal by the learned Additional District Magistrate of Dacca. The judgment of the appellate Court is unsatisfactory. He has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the lower Court was right in disbelieving the defence set up by the petitioner. We have read through the judgment of both the lower Courts and we are unable to ascertain from either of them how the acts done by the petitioners amounted to the offence of criminal misappropriation. Shortly, what is found is that the first petitioner, who is a partner of two other persons, removed from the shop some of the properties belonging to the three partners. That clearly alone was not criminal misappropriation.2. It is suggested on behalf of the opposite party that the principal accused was a sleeping partner. But we can find no facts in either judgme...
Bishan Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal573
Greaves and Panton, JJ.1. The question that arises in this appeal is whether certain articles that have been imported by the accused from Germany are 'arms', within the meaning of Section 5 of the Indian Arms Act, as defined by Section 4 of that Act. The articles in question were sent by the accused's brother from Germany on his own initiative. There was apparently some doubt at the Custom House whether they are 'arms' within the meaning of the Arms Act of 1878, and the question was referred to the appraisers there for their decision. In the result the appraisers held that the articles fell within the definition of cutlery, and that they were not 'arms' within the meaning of the Indian Arms Act of 1878. On behalf of the accused, evidence was called of Mr. Brown, who is a partner in Messrs. Manton & Co., and also of an employee in the firm of Messrs. Lyon and Lyon, and of other witnesses connected with firms which sell hunting knives and such like articles. Mr. Brown distinctly stated i...
Dhirendra Nath Roy Vs. Kamini Kumar Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal495
Suhrawardy, J.1. This rule raises an important question, viz., whether an attaching creditor, as such, is entitled to maintain an application under Order XXI, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. The facts of this case are that the opposite party and the petitioner are two rival decree-holders having obtained decree against the same judgment-debtor. The petitioner at first attached the judgment-debtor's property in execution of his own decree. Thereafter the opposite party executed his decree, attached the property and brought it to sale. Thereupon the petitioner applied to the Munsif in whose Court the decree was being executed to have the property resold on the ground that it was sold for a very inadequate price. He further applied to have the assets distributed, rateably under Section 73, Civil Procedure Code, and also for such distribution of the assets after the resale. The Court having intimated its intention to reject his application he withdrew it. The effect of this withdrawal was t...
Dhirendra Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Kamini Kumar Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.119
Suhrawardy, J.1. Tins Rule raises an important question, viz., whether an attaching creditor, as such, is entitled to maintain an application under OrderXXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. The facts of this case are that the opposite party and the petitioner are two rival decree-holders having obtained decrees against the same judgment-debtor. The petitioner at first attached the judgment debtor's property in execution of his own decree. Thereafter the opposite party executed, his decree attached the property and brought it to sale. Thereupon the petitioner applied to the Munsif in whose Court the decree was being executed to have the property re-sold on the ground that it was sold for a very inadequate price. He further applied to have the assets distributed rateably under Section 73, C.P.C, and also for such distribution of the assets after the resale. The Court having intimated its intention to reject his application he withdrew it. The effect of this withdrawal was that he gave up his right to th...
Debir-ud-dIn Vs. Amina Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal475
Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif of Uluberia on the 30th November, 1922, according to the award filed in the suit. Two substantial objections are taken to the decree passed by the lower Court. First, that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to pass a decree in accordance with an award filed after the time fixed by the Court for the filing of it, and, secondly, that the agreement to refer the matter to arbitration was entered into on behalf of a minor plaintiff by his mother without the sanction of the Court. The award, therefore, is not valid in law and should not be enforced.2. A preliminary objection has been taken to the effect that no petition in revision lies against a judgment and decree passed in accordance with an award filed in the suit following the arbitration proceedings under Schedule II to the Civil Procedure Code; and in support of this submission reference has been made to the case of Ghulam Khan v. Mahomed Hassan [1...
Shaikh Debir-ud-dIn Vs. Sm. Amina Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.335
Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif of Uluberia on the 30th November 1922 according to the award filed in the suit. Two substantial objections are taken to the decree passed by the lower Court. First, that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to pass a decree in accordance with an award filed after the time fixed by the Court for the filing of it, and, secondly, that the agreement to refer the matter to arbitration was entered into on behalf of a minor plaintiff by his mother without the sanction of the Court. The award, therefore, is not valid in law and should not be enforced.2. A preliminary objection has been taken to the affect that no petition in revision lies against a judgment and decree passed in accordance with an award filed in the suit following the arbitration proceedings under Schedule II to the Civil Procedure Code ; and in support of this submission reference has been made to the case of Gholam Khan v. Mohamad Hassan 29 ...
Chaito Kalwar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1928Cal240
Panton, J.1. This rule is directed against the petitioner's conviction tinder Section 54-A, Calcutta Police Act. The police charged him and other persons under Sections 407, 411 and 414, I.P.C. There was also a charge against him under the section just mentioned. An Honorary Presidency Magistrate tried these persons on 3rd May last and on that date recorded an order:There is no good evidence against the accused. They are discharged under Section 253, Criminal P.C.2. It appears that the petitioner was then again placed before the Honorary Magistrate to be tried for the offence under Section 54-A, whereupon the Magistrate made the following orderPut up before the Chief Presidency Magistrate. I do not wish to try this case as I have tried the connected case and this may be sent to some other Magistrate.3. On this Mr. Wajid Ali, exercising apparently the powers of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, recorded the order 'To my file' and adjourned the hearing to 16th May. On that date the petiti...
Probhat Chandra Barua Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal668
Rankin, J.1. This is a Reference made by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Assam, under Section 66, Sub-section (2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act (XI of 1922) for the opinion of the Court. The question for determination is stated thus:Whether the following classes of income derived from permanently settled estates are liable to income-tax:(1) Income from fisheries.(2) Income from land used for stacking: timber.(3) Income from pasturage.2. The question as regards income from pasturage is not now in dispute, and I agree with the Commissioner and the learned Vakil who appears for the Crown in thinking it to be reasonably plain that income from pasturage is derived from land which is used for 'agricultural purposes,' and is, therefore, in the case of a permanently settled estate, within the exemption given by Section 4, Sub-section (3), Clause (viii) of the Act to 'agricultural income' as defined by Section 2, Sub-section (1), Clause (a). In the circumstance that such income is derived from f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »