Kolkata Court January 1925 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.
Sanatan Bhattacharya Vs. King Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal720
Newbould, J. 1. The question that arises in this rule is whether the provisions of Section 360. Criminal Procedure Code are applicable to proceedings under Section 117, Criminal Procedure Code when a person is called upon to show cause why he should not furnish security for good behaviour. 2. In Clause 2 of that section it is provided that such an enquiry shall be made in the manner hereinafter prescribed for conducting trials and recording evidence in warrant cases. Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code refers to evidence taken under Section 356 or 357. Though Section 356 does not expressly refer to warrant cases it refers to all oases other than summons oases and cases mentioned in Sub-section 1 of Section 260, Clauses "b" to "m." These clauses include some oases which are warrant cases, but only cases of minor offences. The Code does not prescribe a manner for recording evidence applicable to all warrant cases. I think that to give a reasonable meaning to the words in Section 117, Se...
Sanatan Bhattacharya Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal632
Newbould, J.1. The question that arises in this Rule is whether the provisions of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code are applicable to proceedings under Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code when a person is called upon to show cause why he should not furnish security for good behaviour.2. In Clause (2) of that section it is provided that such an enquiry shall be made in the manner hereinafter prescribed for conducting trials and recording evidence in warrant cases. Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code refers to evidence taken under Sections 356 or 357. Though Section 356 does not expressly refer to warrant cases, it refers to all cases other than summons cases, and cases mentioned in Sub-Section (1) of Section 260, Clauses (b) to (m). These clauses include some cases Which are warrant cases, but only cases of minor offences. The Code does not prescribe a manner for recording evidence applicable to all warrant cases. I think that, to give a reasonable meaning to the ...
FazaruddIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal105,90Ind.Cas.433
1. The appellants have been found guilty under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, by the unanimous verdict of the Jury and have been sentenced each to five years' rigorous imprisonment.2. It is contended that the trial has been vitiated by the exclusion of relevant evidence and also misdirection by the Judge in summing up to the Jury. It is suggested for the defence that the woman who has been found to be abducted, Bibijan, was actually missing in the evening and, therefore, could not have been, as alleged, abducted at midnight. The witness Nur Muhamad Munshi gave evidence that he had seen three women, who were sleeping in the same bari as the complainant and his wife that night, searching something at dusk. These women were not examined as witnesses and when the witness was asked what reply one of these women, who were searching for something, gave, he was not allowed to answer the question. We hold that the learned Sessions Judge was right in excluding this evidence. This alleged search...
Basanta Kumar Pal and anr. Vs. Harendra Nath Mukhopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal107,91Ind.Cas.796
Page, J.IN No. 122 OF 19221. The plaintiffs, who are the respondents in this appeal, in the suit but of which the appeal arises claimed a declaration that a sale by auction pursuant to a certificate granted under the Public Demands Recovery Act, III (B.C.) of 1913 was void as being obtained by fraud and also on the ground of certain irregularities in relation to the execution proceedings. The suit was decreed and the 4th and 5th, defendants prefer this appeal and contend that the suit was incompetent and was not maintainable having regard to the provisions of Section 37 of the Public Demands Recovery Act. At the auction sale, the property in question was purchased by the 2nd defendant who subsequently assigned his interest therein for value to the 4th and 5th defendants.2. Now, certain irregularities which were material and, therefore, would have justified an application to the certificate officer to set aside the sale were canvassed before us, the two main irregularities being that no...
Aswini Kumar Gupta and ors. Vs. Kamini Kumar De, Alias Manoo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1925
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.798
Suhrawardy, J.1. Defendants Nos. 3 to 5 appeal and take two exceptions to the decree as passed by the lower Appellate Court.2. The first is that that Court ought not to have modified the decree of the Munsif by giving the plaintiffs a decree for the lands in suit. The plaintiffs claimed the tank and its banks as belonging to Khatian No. 1296, whereas the defendants alleged that they belonged to their Khatian No. 1268. The learned Munsif found that the khatian as a matter of fact supported the plaintiff's case and that it showed that the tank and its banks belonged to Dag No. 1269. But in the Settlement, map the figure 1268 has been placed in such a way as may be said to cover one of the banks of the tank. He has, therefore, passed a decree in the following terms: 'Plaintiffs' rent-free raiyati right to Dag No. 1269 of the khatian (Ex. 5) will be declared and the plaintiffs will recover khas possession thereof.' He has not exactly found what lands Dag No. 1269, covers in but he has refe...
Aswini Kumar Gupta and ors. Vs. Kamini Kumar De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal337(1)
Suhrawardy, J.1. Defendants Nos. 3 to 5 appeal and take two exceptions to the decree as passed by the lower appellate Court.2. The first is that that Court ought not to have modified the decree of the Munsif by giving the plaintiffs a decree for the lands in suit. The plaintiffs claimed the tank and its banks as belonging to Khatian No. 1269, whereas the defendants alleged that they belonged to their Khatian No. 1268. The learned Munsif found that the Khatian as a matter of fact supported the plaintiff's case and that it showed that the tank and its banks belonged to Dag No. 1269. But in the Settlement map the figure 1268 has been placed in such a way as may be said to cover one of the banks of the tank. He has, therefore, passed a decree in the following terms: 'Plaintiffs' rent-free raiyati right to Dag No. 1269 of the Khatian (Ex. 5) will be declared and the plaintiffs will recover khas possession thereof.' He has not exactly found what lands Dag No. 1269 covers in but he has referr...
Nirmal Kumar Singh Nowlaksha Vs. the Secretary of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal890
Greaves, J.1. This is a Reference made to us by the Commissioner of Income Tax in accordance with a previous direction of this Court). The Respondent was called upon by the Income-Tax Officer of Murshidabad to forward a return under the provisions of Section 22 of Act XI of 1922. Considerable delay occurred in furnishing the return and extensions of time ware granted on several occasions. Ultimately, on the 11th October the return was filed and so far as I have been able to ascertain this return which was filed by the gomasthas or servants of the Respondent was examined on the 12th and the 13th of October in the presence of the gomasthas. On the 13th of October an assessment was made upon the Respondent). It appears that the Respondent's return of the profits of his six businesses was accepted, but that the Income-Tax Officer refused to accept the deductions which the Respondent sought to make in respect of the expenses of his business and made a percentage deduction from the profits t...
Albert Bonnan Vs. Imperial Tobacco Co. (India) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal757,94Ind.Cas.444
Pearson, J.1. This is a suit for damages arising out of certain acts of the defendant Company alleged to be wrongful and malicious. The defendant Company had been formed in 1910 to take over the business for importing and selling within the limits of India various cigarettes under the manufacturers' brand of W. D. and H.O. Wills including this Gold Flake brand. On the 1st September 1910 an agreement was executed with that object, the parties being the British-American Tobacco Co., Ltd., the British American Tobacco Co, (India), Ltd., and the defendant Company. No actual document of assignment or transfer was executed until the 11th April 1922. The shares in the defendant Company were owned to the extent of some 80 per cent. or 00 per cent. by the vendor Company, and from 1910 onwards the sale of these brands in India was entirely in the hands of the defendant Company acting under the agreement. At the termination of the war the Army Canteen Authorities found themselves in possession of...
Umesh NaraIn Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1157,87Ind.Cas.575
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration of the plaintiffs' title to certain lands and also a declaration that the said lands are not liable to assessment of revenue under the provisions of Act IX of 1847. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance. On appeal preferred by the defendant the lower appellate Court set aside the decreed passed by the Court of first instance in favour of the plaintiffs and made an order if remand which is questioned before us in the present appeal, which has been preferred by the plaintiffs.2. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondent to the effect that the order in question was not passed by the learned Judge under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 23 and that, therefore, no appeal lies to this Court from that order. As to this preliminary objection it will be observed that the learned Judge does not say anywhere in his judgment under what provisions of law he purported to pass the order and I am not...
Purna Chandra Thakur and ors. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Acharjya Chowdhury an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1218,87Ind.Cas.753
Suhrawardy, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the Receiver of the estate of Khitish Chandra, Acharjee Choudhury for ascertainment of fair and equitable rent under Section 157, Bengal Tenancy Act, in respect of lands in occupation of the defendants and for recovery of arrears of such rent from 1320 to the third quarter of 1393 B.S. with damages. The defence was that the land in suit did not belong to the plaintiffs taluk, but was a part of a neighbouring taluk owned by one Radharaman Nag and others, and that the Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 had taken patni settlement of it from the Nags in 1879. The main defence, therefore, was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants. The Court of first instance found that the land, as a matter of fact, belonged to the plaintiffs' taluks, but as the defendants had set up their right as tenure-holders adversely to the plaintiff for more than 12 years, they had acquired the limite...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »