Kolkata Court April 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.
Mohini Mohan Roy Vs. Punam Chand Sethia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal911
1. On the 13th November last the Secretary of the Nawab of Murshidabad complained to the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate of Criminal breach of trust by one Punam Chand Sethia in respect of certain jewellery.2. The Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate took cognisance of the offence and after examining the complainant directed the Police to enquire and report.3. On the matter coming back to the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, a judicial enquiry was asked for by the complainant and the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate thereupon transferred the case for disposal to the fourth Presidency Magistrate. This Magistrate after examining witnesses ordered the issue of summons against Punam Chand Sethia on the 19th January, 1924. On the 28th January Punam Chand applied to the Chief Presidency Magistrate asking, on the ground of jurisdiction, that the case should be recalled to his file and that the trial should take place in his Court. The Chief Presidency Magistrate, having ...
Varaj Lall Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal985
Greaves, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of motor lorry No. 630. He was prosecuted on the ground that he allowed the driver of the motor lorry to drive it at an excessive speed at 5-30 in the evening of the 23rd October last on Lower Circular Road and thereby committed an offence under Rule 16 of part II of the Rules regulating the use of motor vehicles in Calcutta framed under Section 11 of Act No. VIII of 1914, the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1914.2. The petitioner was not in the motor lorry at the time of the alleged offence, and had cautioned the driver not to exceed the regulation speed and to drive with due care and caution.3. The petitioner was convicted on the 17th January last by the Additional Presidency Magistrate and fined Rs. 15, the driver of the motor lorry admitting that he drove at an excessive speed.4. The Magistrate in his explanation relies on the provisions of Rule 3 of part II and refers to Thornton v. The Emperor (1911) 38 Cal. 415.5. The Rule was granted on the ...
Varaj Lall Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal948
Greaves, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of motor lorry No. 630. He was prosecuted on the ground that he allowed the driver of the motor lorry to drive it at an excessive speed at 5-30 in the evening of the 23rd October last on Lower Circular Road, and thereby committed an offence under Rule 16 of Part II of the Rules regulating the use of motor vehicles in Calcutta, framed under Section 11 of Act VIII of 1914, the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1914.2. The petitioner was not in the motor lorry at the time of the alleged offence, and had cautioned the driver not to exceed the regulation speed, and to drive with due care and caution.3. The petitioner was convicted, on the 17th January last, by the Additional Presidency Magistrate, and fined Rs. 15: the driver of the motor lorry admitting that he drove at an excessive speed.4. The Magistrate in his Explanation relies on the provisions of Rule 3 of Part II, and refers to Thornton v. The Emperor (1911) I.L.R. 38 Calc. 415. The Rule was grante...
imperial Tobacco Company Ltd. Vs. Atlantic Tobacco Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal220,84Ind.Cas.1014
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the plaintiff Company for an injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from advertising, offering for sale, selling or otherwise dealing in cigarettes contained in the packet or envelope of which annexure B to the plaint is a specimen, or in any packet, envelope or other receptacle which is a colourable imitation of the packet; or envelope owned and used by the plaintiff Company of which annexure A to the plaint is a specimen and from using the name Padri in connection with cigarettes sold by the defendants. The facts are as follows: The plaintiff Company state that they have manufactured and sold since 1910 a brand of cigarettes called Pedro cigarettes, which is put up for sale and sold in packets or envelopes of a special and distinctive design, colour and get-up. They also state that they are entitled to the exclusive right of user of the said name Pedro in connection with the cigarettes in question. They st...
Jitendra Nath Samanta Vs. Asutosh Dey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal354,82Ind.Cas.240
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder against an order of the Court below dismissing the execution case as against the judgment-debtor No. 2 Asutosh Dey. The facts are rather complicated but they may be briefly stated thus: The property which was a Colliery belonged originally to one Satish Chandra Mittra, Mr. J. G. Galstaun obtained a decree against him and attached this Colliery on the 20th April 1919. On the 11th September, 1919, Satish mortgaged this property to the present appellant. The respondent to this appeal (the judgment-debtor No. 2 Asutosh Dey) took out several executions and attached this property. It was sold on the 4th July 1919 for Rs. 1,11,500 in Galstaun's execution case. On the 23rd July 1921, the appellant brought a money suit in the Asansole Court and caused attachment before judgment to be levied on the balance that might be left over after payment of Galstaun's dues. On the 30th July, 1921, the appellant brought a suit (No. 172 of 1921) on the ...
Abdul Jabbar Munshi and ors. Vs. Mafizuddi Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal980
Greaves, J.1. This Rule was granted at the instance of the second party in Section 145 proceedings on three grounds, first, that the provisions of the Bengal Alluvial Lands Act (Act V of 1920) governed the matter and that there was no jurisdiction in the Sub-divisional Magistrate to deal with the matter under Section 145; secondly, on the ground that the Magistrate, having discarded as unreliable the only evidence on the record, erred in making the order which he did finding possession with the first party only on surmise, and on the allegation of the first party which was not supported by reliable evidence; thirdly, on the ground that the Magistrate erred in law in examining the Amin as a Court witness after the close of both parties' case and after arguments had been submitted to him. The dispute in question was with regard to a char, char Kashim, to the south of which lay another chat', char Umed, which was submerged-both chars lying in the Meghna river. It appears that there has be...
Safar Ali Mia Vs. Abdul Rasid Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1012,84Ind.Cas.28
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the principal defendant No. 1. It arises from a suit instituted for the purpose of recovering possession of a piece of land within the Municipal limits of Noakhali.2. The plaintiff's case is that his predecessor in interest Mahommed Israil, as owner of the superior interest, described as raiyati interest, created an Osat raiyati in respect of the land in favour of Ramjan Ali and Asraf Ali in the year 1287; that defendants 2-6 are the descendants of Ramjan, and defendant 7 of Asraf Ali, that defendant 1 bought the rights of Ramjan's heirs and defendant 8 the rights of Asraf's heir, that defendants 2 to 8 have abandoned and that the first defendant, now the appellant, the purchaser from Ramjan's descendants is in possession. The plaintiff further alleges that the Osat raiyati was created for the purpose of habitation, and that the Kabuliat executed by the original lessees Ramjan Ali and Asraf Ali contained a stipulation to the effect that the le...
Dhanpat Singh Kuthari and ors. Vs. Hari Charan Agarwala and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal284,82Ind.Cas.683
Walmsley, J.1. The plaintiffs who are the appellants sued the defendants for a sum of Rs. 663 as due on Arat accounts for business done by them as agents for the defendants.2. It is common ground that the plaintiffs were employed by the defendants as agents for buying various goods.3. The dispute has arisen between them because a fire broke out after some goods had been bought for the defendants by the plaintiffs, and practically the question is whether the plaintiffs or the defendants are to bear the loss. The decision of the lower Court is that it is the plaintiffs who must bear the loss, and it is against that decision that the plaintiffs appeal.4. It appears to me that both the Courts below have fallen into error in their conception of the agent's position. Both take the view that there is a time at which the property in the goods bought by the agent for the principal vests in the agent. The learned Judge speaks of the plaintiffs as commission agents who re-sell the goods to the de...
Bachoo Mia Vs. Anwar Nabi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal576,84Ind.Cas.449
Duval, J.1. In this matter one Anwar Nabi made a complaint before the District Magistrate of Howrah against three per-sons under Sections 474 and 204 read with Sections 109 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code on the 17th September last. It appears he had previously brought a civil suit against Bachu accused No. 1 in respect of the price of certain skins and his suit had been dismissed. His allegation in his complaint was that the present accused had kept hack the genuine books of account in that suit and had used in the defence of the same fabricated books. He therefore made this complaint and applied for a search warrant. A search warrant was issued and certain books seized; but on the 3rd October, the Magistrate after examining the complainant on oath and hearing the parties dismissed the complaint under Section 203, Cr. P.C. Anwar Nabi then moved the Sessions Judge against the order of dismissal and on the 24th November last the Sessions Judge after hearing Counsel set aside the order ...
Official Trustee of Bengal Vs. Benode Behari Ghose Mal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal114,84Ind.Cas.147
1. In this appeal a prelim-inary objection has been taken that no appeal lies. The appeal was at first summarily dismissed under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil P.C. Then on an application for review made by the appellant the same Bench cancelled that order dismissing the appeal summarily and directed that the appeal should be heard. This order was passed ex parte, and it is contended that it should be therefore treated as null and void. The point now raised has been considered by this Court in the case of Abdul Hakim Chowdhury v. Hem Chandra Das [1914] 42 Cal. 433 and also in the case of Janaki Nath Hore v. Prabhasini Dasee [1916] 43 Cal. 178. The latter decision dissents from the former and we have no hesitation in following the latter. We agree that the procedure which has been followed in numerous cases in this Court for over 40 years should not be changed although it was departed from in one or two solitary instances.2. As regards the merits of the appeal the question that arises is one ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »