Kolkata Court June 1924 Judgments
Amarendra Nath Laha and anr. Vs. S. Banerjee and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1168,84Ind.Cas.1022
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application for an order on the garnishees, Messrs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co requiring them to pay to the Sheriff of Calcutta the sum of Rs. 10,000 attached in their hands by an order dated the 10th April, 1924. The application is opposed by the garnishees, and it is stated on their behalf that they are ready and willing to pay in such sum as was arrived at, on adjustment of accounts between themselves and the New Eastern Coal Agency Co. Ltd., being a company which is one of the partners of the defendant firm. The garnishees state that barring a sum of Rs. 1,295-6-5 no other sum is due and owing to the New Eastern Coal Agency Co,, Ltd., and that the plaintiffs are only entitled to an order as is prayed for is respect of the said sum of Rs. 1,295-6-5. The plaintiffs contend that on the date the attachment was effected, there was due and owing to the judgment-debtors a sum of more than Rs. 10,000 and that after the date of the attachment the garnishees were n...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Chandra De Sarkar Vs. Amiyabala De Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal61,84Ind.Cas.693
1. In this case the plaintiff-appellant before us sued the defendant No. 1, his great aunt (making two other ladies defendants) on the allegation that on the 11th January, 1919 she executed in his favour a bainapatra whereby she agreed to sell her interests in certain lands and in the ancestral house of both parties and took from him Rs. 200 advance out of the purchase price Rs. 500, but that on the 21st January she sold most of her interests in the said properties to the other two lady-defendants and refused to convey the properties to him. Defendant No. 1 pleaded that she was hard pressed to satisfy her debts and the plaintiff delayed the completion of the transaction and so on the advice of the husband of defendant No. 2, she sold her interest partly to defendant No. 2 and partly to another lady-defendants No. 3, a certain amount being kept back out of the purchase price to compensate the plaintiff for the breach of contract.2. Both defendants Nos. 2 and 3 denied the genuineness of ...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Chandra De Sarkar Vs. Amiya Bala De Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal121
Suhrawardy and Duval, JJ.1. In this case the plaintiff, appellant before us, sued the defendant No. 1, his great aunt (making two other ladies defendants) on the allegation that on the 11th January 1919-she executed in his favour a baina patra, whereby she agreed to sell her interests in certain lands and in the ancestral house of both parties and took from him Rs. 200 in advance out of the purchase price Rs. 500, but that on the 21st January, she sold most of her interest in the said properties to the other two lady-defendants and refused to convey the properties to him. Defendant No. 1 pleaded that she was hard pressed to satisfy her debts and the plaintiff delayed the completion of the transaction and so on the advice of the husband of defendant No. 2, she sold her interest partly to defendant No. 2 and partly to another lady-defendant No. 3, a certain amount being kept back out of the purchase price to compensate the plaintiff for the breach of contract.2. Both defendants Nos. 2 an...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagaban Chandra Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. AmIn Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.756
1. The suit out of which this application arises was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. The suit was transferred for hearing to the Additional District Judge who was then in the district. The suit was decreed by the Additional District Judge on compromise against some of the defendants who had signed the solenama and was dismissed as against those defendants who had not signed the solenama. The decree, however, was drawn up in such a way that it was passed not merely against those who signed the solenama but also against those who had not done so and against whom according to the true reading of the judgment of the Additional District, Judge the suit had been dismissed. Subsequently, when it was sought to execute the decree against the defendants who had not signed the solenama, an application became necessary to amend the decree so that it might accord with the judgment. An application was accordingly made to the District Judge as the Additional District Judge had by th...
Tag this Judgment!Bisseswar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1034,83Ind.Cas.911
1. This rule raises an interesting point on the question of jurisdiction. The facts, as found so far as they are necessary for dealing with this point, are as follows : The petitioner and others wore charged with conspiracy to commit theft and also offences punishable under Sections 411 and 414, I.P.C. They were also charged with specific offences punishable under the two last sections. Ultimately all the accused except the petitioner, were acquitted. The petitioner was also acquitted on the charge of conspiracy, but convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 411 and 414. The property which was found to be stolen property was abstracted from a consignment of goods on their way from the Howrah Station to the business premises of Messrs. Allen Brothers and Company. The important point in this connection is that during this transit the goods were always in the jurisdiction of either the Howrah Magistrate or the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta. The conspiracy between the a...
Tag this Judgment!Budhu Koiri Vs. King Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal538
1. This Rule must be made absolute. The learned Additional Presidency Magistrate, after the accused hag-pleaded not guilty, was not justified in convicting him on the report of the Court doctor without taking any evidence. The conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner are set aside and the fine, if paid, will be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!W.H. Da Costa Vs. J.P. Deefholts
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal605
1. The petitioner in this case has been summoned to answer a charge under Section 417, I.P.C. It appears from the petition of complaint which, for the purposes of this Rule, we must assume contains a true statement of the facts, that the Petitioner advertised in the Statesman, that he was willing to sell an almost new jazz set. The complainant Opposite Party answered the advertisement and after some correspondence paid Rs. 300 by cheque to the Petitioner. On receipt of the goods the complainant found that they were not of the quality he expected and also that certain articles mentioned in the list had not been sent to him. We hold that the allegations in the petition are insufficient to justify the prosecution of the Petitioner for a criminal offence. The case seems to come within the principle laid down in the leading English case, Regina v. Bryan [1857] D.B. 265. In that case it was decided that the giving of untrue praise of article did not come within the English statute. What appe...
Tag this Judgment!Umadasi Dasi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1031,(1925)ILR52Cal112,83Ind.Cas.491
Newbould and Ghose, JJ.1. The appellant Umadasi and one Nabani Dhar Mandal were committed for trial to the Court of the Sessions Judge at Birbhum on a charge that they committed murder by causing the death of Radha Raman Mondal. In the Sessions Court a charge was added against the appellant which was as follows: 'I, K. C. Nag, Sessions 'Judge of Birbhum, hereby charge you Umadasi as ' follows:---'That you, on or about the 30th day of 'August 1923, at Dechandra, police-station Shapur, 'being present, abatted the commission of the offence ' of murder of Radha Raman Mondal by Nabani Dhar 'Mondal, which was committed in consequence of your 'abetment, and thereby committed an offence punish 'able under Sections 302/109 of the Indian Penal Code, etc.''. The first trial of the accused persons commenced on the 26th November 1923, and continued till the 5th December 1923, when the jury were discharged, and a fresh trial ordered as one of them, was unable to attend owing to illness. The second t...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Panchkari Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal587
Mukerji, J.1. The confession of the prisoner Jibaiikrishna Sircar was recorded by the Honorary Presidency Magistrate, Rai Bahadur Dr. Haridhan Dutt on the 15th and the 16th December 1923. It was not retracted at any time during the commitment enquiry. In his statement before the Committing Magistrate at the close of the enquiry on the 10th April 1924, the prisoner said 'I have said whatever I had to say to Dr. Haridhan Dutt in my statement before him.' On the 19th May 1924 a petition, purporting to have been filed by the prisoner and bearing that date, was put up before me, retracting the confession.2. The confession of the prisoner Haripada Mookerjee was recorded by the Honorary Presidency Magistrate Mr. S.N. Roy on the 13th, 14th and 15th December 1923. On the 17th December 1923, the prisoner along with his co-accused was put up before a Stipendiary Magistrate with a charge sheet submitted on that day and the case was adjourned to the 27th December 1923. On the last mentioned day a p...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Panchkowri Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal67
Mukerji, J.1. The confession of the prisoner Jiban Krishna Sarkar was recorded, by the Honorary Presidency Magistrate, Hal Bahadur Hari Dhone Datt on the 15th and the 16th December 1923. It was not retracted, at any time daring the commitment enquiry. In his statement before the Committing Magistrate, at the close of the enquiry on the 10th April 1924, the prisoner said, 'I have said whatever I had to say to Dr. Hari Dhone Dutt in my statement before him.' On the 19th May 1924 a petition, purporting to have been filed by the prisoner and bearing that date, was put tip before me, retracting the confession.2. The confession of the prisoner Haripada Mukerjee was recorded by the Honorary Presidency Magistrate, Mr.N. Roy, on the 13th, 14th and 15th December 1923. On the 17th December 1923 the prisoner, along with, his co-accused, was put up before a Stipendiary Magistrate with a charge sheet submitted on that day, and. the case was adjourned to the 27th December 1923. On the last-mentioned ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »