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.
Rajab Lochan Dhar Vs. Jogesh Chandra Das Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal983
Greaves, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate of Mymensingh, recommending that the case may be ordered to be committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.2. The complainant supports the reference and. the accused opposes it.3. The case commenced in February, 1923, in the Court of the Deputy Magistrate of Tangail and involved charges against the accused under Sections 408 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code.4. At the time the case commenced, the charges under Section 477-A were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Since the amended Code of Criminal Procedure came into force charges under Section 477-A are triable by a Magistrate with first class powers. One of the grounds for the reference is that the Additional District Magistrate desires a decision as to whether the amended provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, authorising a Magistrate with first class powers to try offences under Section 477-A, applies to cases commenced before the amending Ac...
Narendra Nath Sen Vs. East Indian Railway Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal115,(1924)ILR51Cal929,84Ind.Cas.239
Page, J.1. This is a suit brought to recover damages for the non-delivery of certain cases of medicine consigned by the plaintiff on the defendant railway from Calcutta to Benares. Five cases of medicine were delivered to the Railway Company at Calcutta on the 25th April 1921, and three cases, arrived at Benares on the 11th May 1921. Two of the eases, however, were found to be missing.2. The material facts are few, and can be ascertained without difficulty. It is agreed that the two cases did not arrive at Benares, that they were lost during transit; and that no declaration was made or increased duty paid as provided by Section 75 of the Railways Act (IX of 1880).3. The defence of the Railway Company is that, as the plaintiff did not comply with the provisions of Section 75, the Railway Company is exempted from all liability, because the defendant Company alleges that the two cases in question contained gold, silver and pearls. Having regard to the larger number of cases containing med...
Surendra Krishna Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Abbas Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1237,85Ind.Cas.760
JUDGEMENTSuhrawardy, J.1. [After stating facts His Lordship continued as follows]:This Rule was issued on the ground that the Court of appeal below had no jurisdiction to interfere with the decree of the First Court inasmuch as the learned Munsif, who had decided the case originally was empowered under Section 153 (b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act to try rent suits of the value of Rs. 50 or less with final jurisdiction. This allegation of fact is not disputed by the opposite parties. But it is contended on their behalf that the decree of the lower appellate Court has now become merged in the decree passed by this Court dismissing the appeal and that, therefore, we have no jurisdiction to revise a decree of this Court. In my opinion there is no substance in this contention. The appeal do this Court was dismissed on the ground that no appeal lay to this Court; and the result of that decision is that the decree of the lower appellate Court stands good as between the parties and it is the only...
Ambika Charan Barua Vs. Nareswari Dasi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal145,85Ind.Cas.525
Chakravarti, J.1. This is a second appeal against a judgment of the learned District Judge of the Assam Valley Districts, setting aside the judgment of the learned Munsif who by his judgment granted probate to the petitioner, who is the appellant before us. The petitioner's case was that one Juddharam Kakoti executed a Will on the 23rd of June 1919 which is marked Ex.A in these proceedings, and then on the 28th of June in the same year executed another Will which is marked Ex. I in the present proceedings; and the Petitioner asked for probate of the last Will of the testator who died on the 3rd of July 1919. The present proceedings were instituted on the 28th of November 1919.2. The proceedings were contested by Nareswari, the testator's widow, and Someswari, one of his daughters.3. The learned Munsif who tried this case in the first instance, as it was possible under the rules prevailing in Assam, went fully into the evidence adduced in the case, and pointed out that the Will under co...
Sarat Chandra Chakravarti Vs. Tarak Chandra Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal916
Newbould and Ghose, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by four persons as plaintiffs against defendants Nos. 1 to 5, who are stated to be acting as directors of the Company which was joined as defendant No. 6 on the ground that one of the plaintiffs has been prevented from acting as director. The facts shortly stated are that at a meeting of the shareholders of the Company, which was held on the 32nd Ashar 1329, the plaintiff No. 2 and defendants Nos 1, 2 and 3 were elected directors. The meeting was subsequently adjourned and the adjourned meeting was held on the 7th Sravan following. On that date on account of certain proceedings; which we need not state in detail, the election of the directors held on the previous date was reconsidered and a new election took place the result of which was that defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were elected directors and plain| tiff No. 2 was not elected. There was also some other alteration as regards the election of the Assistant Managing D...
Sarat Chandra Chuckerbutty and anr. Vs. Tarak Chandra Chatterjee and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.405
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by four persons as plaintiffs against defendants Nos. 1 to 5. who are stated to be acting as Directors of the Company which was joined as defendant No. 6 on the ground that one of the plaintiffs hud been prevented from acting as Director. The facts shortly stated are that at a meeting of the shareholders of the Company which was held on the 32nd Ashar 1329, the plaintiff No. 2 and defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were elected Directors. The meeting was subsequently adjourned and the adjourned meeting was held on the 7th Sraban following. On that date on account of certain proceedings which we need not state in detail the election of the Directors held on the previous date was re-considered and a new election took place, the result of which was that defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were elected Directors and plaintiff No. 2 was not elected. There was also some other alteration as regards the election of the Assistant Managing Director. Several issues w...
Rajib Lochan Shaw Vs. Jogesh Chandra Das Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.705
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is a Reference by the Additional District Magistrate of Mymen-singh recommending that the case may be ordered to be committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.2. The complainant supports the Reference and the accused opposes it.3. The case commenced in February 1923 in the Court of the Deputy Magistrate of Tangail and involved charges against the accused under Sections 408 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code.4. At the time the case commenced the charges under s, 477-A were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Since the amended Cr. P.C., came into force charges under Section 477-A are triable by a Magistrate with First Class powers. One of the grounds for the Reference is that the Additional District Magistrate desires a decision as to whether the amended provision of the Cr. P.C, authorising a Magistrate with First Class powers to try offences under Section 477A, applies to cases commenced before the amending Act came into force. Another ground for th...
(Maharaj) Bahadur Singh Dugar Vs. BasiruddIn Ahmmad and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1135
1. The appellant is the decree-holder in a mortgage suit. The suit was originally dismissed by the lower Court. There was an appeal to this Court by the appellant which was allowed, and the order passed by this Court in respect of costs was in these terms: ' The appellants are entitled to costs of this Court. We assess the hearing fee at Rs. 300. The costs of the lower Court-will be dealt with by that Court, The decree was prepared in pursuance of the ordering portion of the judgment in which the direction as to the payment of costs is thus given: 'It is ordered and decreed that the defendants respondents (respondents in the previous appeal are the present respondents along with some others) do pay to the plaintiff-appellant the sum of Rs. 1,121-9-7 (as per details below), being the amount of costs incurred by him in this Court with interest thereon. ' The suit was sent back to the first Court for re-trial on the other issues and was ultimately decreed. In the decree passed by the firs...
Surendra Lal Shaha Vs. Isamaddi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal480,(1924)ILR51Cal933,84Ind.Cas.325
Greaves and Duval, JJ.1. We make the Rule absolute on the ground on which it was granted, namely, that there was no examination of the accused in accordance With the provisions of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal procedure. This examination must take place at the close of the prosecution case and before the accused have entered on their defence and it is no compliance with the section if the examination takes place at a later stage.2. The result is that the conviction and sentence are set aside, and the trial must be taken up from the close of the prosecution case and the accused must be examined in accordance with the provisions of Section 342 before they have entered on their defence....
Lal Ghose and ors. Vs. Nilkantha Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal340
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment wherein the plaintiffs were unsuccessful in the Court of first instance in getting a decree of khas possession against the defendant, and only succeeded in getting a decree for rent for three years at a certain rate. This decree was set aside on appeal by the plaintiffs, the learned Subordinate Judge having allowed the plaintiff's claim in full and given them khas possession by eviction of the defendants. The defendants are the appellants in this Court.2. The question which arises for consideration in the present appeal is what are the respective status of the plaintiffs and the defendants in this case; with regard to a question of this description, decided cases afford us very little assistance. There are certain principles which are applicable to such cases and they are well settled. In a case where the origin of the tenancy is unknown or where the document creating the tenancy is equivocal or ambiguous in its terms, one has...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »