Kolkata Court July 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.
Emperor Vs. Abinash Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal172
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Faridpur under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The case involved a charge of murder, and a conspiracy to murder, against three persons Abinash Bose, Abinash Sarkar and Kali Charan Barai. They were charged with having murdered one Abdul Aziz Khan.3. There is no doubt that a brutal murder way committed and that the decapitated body of Abdul Aziz was found on a piece of land overgrown more or less with jungle, called Roybagan, near the village Jhowkhola and that his head was found in another part of Roybagan.4. The case for the prosecution, shortly stated, was that Abdul Aziz and two of his relations who were Kabulis lived together carrying on a joint business in cloth. Abdul Aziz was an illiterate man: and, one Nerode used to act as a sort of clerk for him writing out his khatas making out his accounts, and he used to go with Aziz to collect the amounts due to him. After the collections had been made, Az...
Tara Chand Vs. Gobinda Chandra Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1928Cal271
1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover rent for the years 1322 to 1325 at the rate of Rs. 66-5-6 a year. The defendant contested the suit denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and contending that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. The learned Munsif found that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties and that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge found on both points against the finding of the Munsif and decreed the appeal. On the case coming up before us, the main point argued is that of res judicata. The plaintiff's case is that he holds a ganti settlement from the Talukdar Purna Chandra Bose and the jama in question was originally held by the defendant directly under Purna Chandra Bose. Purna Chandra Bose brought a Suit (No. 259 of 1915) against the defendant in respect of a jama and that suit was dismissed. The defendant's case is that that suit acts as res j...
Mohammed Abdus Samad and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal172,84Ind.Cas.457
Walmsley, J.1. This Rule was issued under rather peculiar circumstances. The petitioners were convicted under Section 147 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Suri. They then appealed to the Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Judge, in disposing of the appeal, upheld the contention of the petitioners that there had not been due compliance with the provisions of Section 342, Criminal P.C. The order which he passed then was in these terms:The learned lower Court will, therefore, now examine all the accused persons afresh under Section 342, Criminal P.C., and call upon them to adduce any defence evidence if they choose to give any, and after the examination and cross-examination of the defence witnesses, if any, he will re-submit the record to this Court with any observations that he may choose to make on the additional evidence, if any adduced before him within a month from the receipt of the record by him. The appeal will then be heard by ...
Surendra Lal Das and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal413,85Ind.Cas.147
Mukerji, J.1. The appellants who are five in number were tried along with another person named Abudas by the learned Sessions Judge of Sylhet with the aid of a jury. The charges on which the accused were tried were as follows: There was a charge against all the accused persons under Section 148, Indian Penal Code, and another charge under Section 304 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code for causing the death of one Bodhi Namasut. As against the appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, there was a further charge under Section 304 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and as against the appellant No. 5 there was also a charge under Section 201, Indian Penal Code. Against the appellant No. 4 there was a further charge under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, for causing grievous hurt to one Jnan Namasat.2. The jury were unanimous in their verdict. So far as Abudas was concerned, they unanimously found him not guilty of the offences with which he was charged and the learned Sessions Judge agreeing ...
Hem Chandra Sen and ors. Vs. Srimanta Chattopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal944
1. We do not think that we should interfere with the exorcise of its discretion by the Court below in allowing the amendment prayed for by the plaintiffs. The suit originally related to Kartick khal which is a portion of the bigger khal called Kaliakhati khal. The plaintiffs in their plaint stated that they ware the owners of this portion of the khal and the defendants having instituted proceedings under Section 133, Cr. P.C. they were obliged to come to court to have their title to the disputed portion established. They based their cause of action on the petition filed by the defendants under Section 133, Cr. P.C. Subsequently, they made on application for amending their plaint by including the whole of the Kaliakhati khal in the subject-matter of the suit on the allegation that the decision of the Magistrate has cast a cloud on their title to the whole of the khal. We have gone through the proceeding under Section 133, Cr. P.C. and we find that it related to whole of the Kaliakhati K...
Motaleb Khan Alias Montaj Khan and ors. Vs. Idris Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.750
1. The plaintiffs brought a suit for partition claiming 6-annas share in the properties in suit. The Munsif decreed the suit in respect of plot No. 1 declaring their share to be 5 annas and 6 pies and dismissed it in respect of Plot No. 2. On appeal by the defendants the learned Subordinate Judge ordered partition of both the plots Nos. 1 and 2 but held that the plaintiffs were entitled to only 3-annas share. The plaintiffs have appealed and the point raised is that the Subordinate Judge's decision with regard to the share of the plaintiffs is wrong and not supported by the evidence on the record. The lands belonged to one Dugu Khan and his brother Jalal Khan the predecessor-in-title of the defendants. Dugu had transferred his 8-annas share to his wife Atar Bibi, the plaintiff No. 1 who is the son-in-law of Atar Bibi alleged that in consideration of his paying off certain debts owed by Atar Bibi she verbally transferred 4-annas share of the land in suit together with other lands to him...
Satya Charan Manna Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal666,(1925)ILR52Cal223
Newbould and Mukerji, JJ.1. The two appellants before us and one other accused, Jahar Bhumij, were tried before the Sessions Judge of Hooghly and a jury on charges of having committed dacoity in the house of Balaram Mukerji on the 12th August last, and the two appellants were also charged under Section 412 with having dishonestly received and retained stolen property which they knew and had reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity. The jury found Jahar not guilty by a majority of three to two. They unanimously found the two appellants not guilty of dacoity, and by a majority of three to two found both of them guilty under Section 412 of the Penal Code. Under this Section the appellants were sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment.2. For the prosecution evidence has been given that the dacoity was committed on the 12th August last, at about 3 A.M., in the house of Balaram in Bhastara, The evidence in support of the charges on which the appellants h...
Motaleb Khan and ors. Vs. Idris Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Cal414
1. The plaintiff brought a suit for partition claiming 6 annas share in the properties in suit. The Munsif decreed the suit in respect of Plot No. 1 declaring their share to be 5 annas and 6 pies and dismissed it in respect of Plot No. 2. On appeal by the defendants the learned Subordinate Judge ordered partition of both the Plots Nos. 1 and 2, but held that the plaintiffs were entitled to only 3 annas share. The plaintiffs have appealed and the point raised is that the Subordinate Judge's decision with regard to the share of the plaintiffs is wrong and not supported by the evidence on the record. The lands belonged to one Dugu Khan and his brother Jalal Khan the predecessor-in-title of the defendants. Dugu had transferred his 8 annas share to his wife Atar Bibi. The Plaintiff No. 1 who is the son-in-law of Atar Bibi alleged that in consideration of his paying off certain debts owed by Atar Bibi she verbally transferred 4 annas share of the land in suit together with other lands to him...
AmiruddIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal217
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Rule granted by two of my learned brothers calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners Salimuddy Pramanik, Gani Pramanik and Kazem Pramanik under Section 342 read with Section 149 should not be set aside on the 7th ground stated in the petition.2. The 7th ground was that the order of separate sentence passed on the petitioners was illegal.3. The learned Vakil has stated that he cannot argue that the conviction should be set aside: and, he has confined his argument to the question whether the imposition of separate sentence under Section 342 read with Section 149 was illegal. We are of opinion that it was, by reason of the provisions of Section 71, I.P.C.4. Consequently, the Rule should be made absolute and the sentence of three weeks' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 342 and 149 must be set aside.5. We draw the attention of the Lower Court to the case of Alim Sheikh v. Shahazada Singh (1904...
Baldeodas Lohia Vs. Subkarandas Goenka
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal627,(1925)ILR52Cal179
Page, J.1. This is an application by the members of the defendant firm to set aside a decree in favour of the plaintiff which was obtained ex parte on the 15th April 1924. The plaint was filed on the 28th February 1924, and summary proceedings were taken under Order XXXVII. The defendants make this application pursuant to the provisions of Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and they will be entitled to have the ex parte decree against them set aside and the suit restored on such terms as the Court may deem to be fit if they satisfy the Court either that the summons was not duly served, or that they were prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. It is to be observed that the two branches of the rule are disjunctive, and the plaintiff, whatever his position may be in respect of one branch, is entitled to the benefit of the section if he has satisfied the Court that he has made good his contention under the other branch. Havin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »