Kolkata Court March 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.
Tarapada Biswas and ors. Vs. Kalipada Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.677
1. This Rule is directed against two orders of a District Magistrate, dated the 10th of November 1923 and 19th of November 1923 whereby he committed the four petitioners before us for trial to the Sessions in respect of charges of having forged certain) kabuliyats. In making his order the District Magistrate reversed the decision of the Deputy Magistrate who had dismissed the complaint disbelieving the evidence of the witnesses who were cited before him and holding that no motive for the forgery of the kabuliyats by the accused either of their own accord or at the instance of their master had been established. The learned District Magistrate in reversing the Deputy Magistrate's order states that he does so on relying on the judgments of two Civil Courts which suspected the genuineness of these kabuliyats and also on the ground that there was ample evidence of motive for forgery of, the kabuliyats. The reasons given by the District Magistrate are clearly wrong. He had no right, we think...
Hon'ble Raja Reshee Case Law Vs. Ambika Dassi and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.567
1. In these appeals the question raised is whether the appellant is entitled to enhancement of rent under Section 304 (b), Bengal Tenancy Act. He applied under Section. 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, for settlement of fair and equitable rent and claimed enhancement of the rent of the holdings to which these appeals relate on the ground of rise in the price of staple food crops. The Revenue Officer, as well as the Special Judge on appeal, have dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The Revenue Officer records his reason these words 'Serials 2, 14 and 28 consist of bastus, dobas, nalas, patits, &c.;, growing no agricultural crop. So in these cases no enhancement under Section 30 (&) is allowed at all.' The learned Special Judge on appeal observes, it appears, that all the above serials except 48 are homesteads, ditches, and nalas, patit, growing no agricultural crop. I think that he lower Court was right in disallowing tenhancement under Section 30(b). It has been decided in many cases in this Court...
Narendra Nath Chatterji and Rakhal Das Tarafdar Vs. Srinata Chatterji ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.351
1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Court below dated the 14th January, 1924 rejeoting an application made by the petitioner under Order IX, Rule 4, for restoration of an application which was dismissed for default. The original application was under Order XXI, Rule 90 for setting aside a sale on the ground of material irregularity in the publication of sale processes. On the date of hearing neither party appeared and the Court, having disallowed the partioner's prayer for further time, dismissed the application and confirmed the sale. The petitioner thereupon applied to the learned Subordinate Judge for its restoration. The learned Judge being of opinion that Order IX, Code of Civil Procedure, was not applicable to an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 dismissed the petition without entering into its merits.2. It is argued before us that the view taken by the Court below is wrong and that Order IX is applicable to an application under Order XXI, Rule 90. This question h...
Sailesh Chandra Guha Vs. Bechai Gope and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.124
1. This appeal is by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for enforcement of a mortgage by sale of the mortgaged properties. The mortgage-bond is dated the 4th June 1907 and was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of one Mathura Mohan Saha for Rs. 130 by which he mortgaged all his properties. The stipulated rate of interest was Rs. 5 per cent, per month with five monthly rests and the due date was in the Asswin following the date of the bond. Mathura Mohan died sometime, in June or July 1916 and his sons, pro forma defendants Nos. 29 to 33 succeeded, to his interest as his heirs. Plaintiff obtained an assignment of the bond from the pro forma defendants for a consideration of Rs. 900 by a deed dated the 26th September 1919 and brought this suit on the 27th October 1919. The mortgage-money due on that date is said to have amounted to Rs. 83,917-12 but considering that so much money cannot be realised from the mortgaged, property plaintiff has claimed only Rs. 9,999 and abandoned the...
Gaharali and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal266
1. This rule was obtained by the pensioners calling upon the District Magistrate of Backergunj to show cause why the appeal should not be re-hoard on the ground that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court did not discuss the evidence in the case for the defence and had not arrived at any finding with regard to the matters raised in the lower Court.2. In our judgment there is no doubt that this rule must be made absolute. The judgment of the learned Additional District Magistrate is not satisfactory. In the first place the judgment dealt with an alleged delay in lodging the complaint. After dealing with that matter the learned Magistrate said, 'I think the evidence as to the occurrence is satisfactory and the only confusion arises through (sic) the number of Hachan Ali who are mention-ed. I, therefore, reject the appeal.' The learned Magistrate rejected the appeal and then proceeded to discuss the question of sentence. It is to be noticed that it is not possible to ascertain from the...
Patit Paban Ray and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal580,84Ind.Cas.849
1. This Rule was granted on one ground only, namely, on the ground that the trial was bad and illegal in view of the fact that the two occurrences were entirely distinct and separate and did not form the same transaction. The petitioners before us are four in number and they have been convicted of offences under Sections 144, 143 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to various lines. They were charged in respect of the offences said to have been committed on the 27th and 28th days of November, with being members of an unlawful assembly the common object of which was to take away by force the paddy grown on the lands of Nazir, Nezamuddin and others. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the offences with which they were charged on the 27th and 28th November, did not arise out of the same transaction but that they were separate transactions and that consequently they could not have been tried under the provisions of the Cr. P.C. at that time in force. It is said that th...
Purosattam Vs. Ram Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1031,85Ind.Cas.705
Chotzner, J.1. This Rule was granted to the petitioner upon the first and the second grounds specified in his petition. The first ground was that the learned Magistrate had erred in rejecting the petition of complaint without hearing the witnesses of the complainant present in Court and the second ground was that the learned Magistrate had erred in holding that the facts, as disclosed in the petition, did not make out a case of cheating.2. The facts, as set forth in the petition, are somewhat peculiar. The petitioner charged certain persons under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code with having abducted his wife. While the case was still pending, Ram Das, the opposite party No. 1, approached him with the proposition to compromise the matter out of Court for a money consideration. The petitioner acquiesced in the proposal and filed a petition withdrawing the complaint whereupon the accused here discharged by the Magistrate. Subsequently the petitioner approached Ram Das with a request f...
Dulal Bachar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.940
Chotzner, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioner on the first ground specified in the petition which is that, on the findings of fact arrived at, the conviction is not sustainable in law.2. The facts of the case appear to be simple. One Bhim Bachar died leaving a Will and on the 13th December 1922, the petitioner who is his nephew and an executor under the Will applied to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Khulna for Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed. The learned Subordinate Judge directed citation to issue and fixed the 12th January 1923, for proof of service. In the meantime, on the 8th January, the petitioner proceeded to the house of the testator and removed an iron-safe from there which led to the institution of the present charge by Phul Mala the testator's widow on the 11th January. On the 12th January 1923, she appeared in the Court of the Subordinate Judge and entered a caveat. The Judge accordingly ordered the petition to be returned for pres...
Khitish Chandra Deb Roy Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal816
Greaves, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by a Presidency Magistrate of an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years. Section 406, under which the appellant was convicted, relates to criminal breach of trust and criminal breach of trust, as defined in Section 405, means dishonest misappropriation or conversion by some one of property entrusted to him or over which he has been given dominion.2. The facts of the present case are as follows. On the 31st of May last year the appellant called at Messrs. Boseck & Co., a jeweller in Chowringhee Road, and represented that he was a relation of the Raja of Naldanga, and stated that he wanted to buy some jewellery for his daughter's wedding and that he wanted the goods for approval as his daughter could not come out. According to the prosecution story the appellant selected some articles of jewellery and signed a receipt for them in the inspection book and took t...
Abdul Mannaf Vs. Sheikh Muslim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal426,79Ind.Cas.978
1. This appeal arises out of a rent suit brought by the plaintiff on the basis of a Kabuliyat executed by the defendant at a rate of rent fixed therein. The defence is that the area within the boundaries is less than what is mentioned in the Kabuliyat and therefore, the defendant is entitled to a reduction of rent. The Court of first instance held that what was leased out was the area within specified boundaries and that the defendant was not entitled to claim reduction of rent due to the area being found less than what is mentioned in the Kabuliyat. The lower Appellate Court has reversed that decision and has given effect to the defendant's plea on the ground that ' the jama being a variable one dependent on the area to be found on measurement, the test is not the boundaries within which the land is situate. In this particular case the area of the land is the principal matter to be taken into consideration.' The question on which the Courts below differed really turns upon the constru...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »