Kolkata Court May 1926 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.
The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. G.C. Wilson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.270
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an appeal by the Crown against the order of acquittal of the respondent in respect of a charge under Section 304, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story is that the respondent, who is the manager of a tea estate known as Madhabpur Tea Estate in the District of Sylhet in Assam, went out on a round of inspection of the garden in the forenoon of the 30th June 192a. He was not satisfied with the work of the deceased cooly Dasarath Gowala. He called the cooly to his presence and ordered him to proceed with the work of hoeing, but being, dissatisfied with the manner of his work, seized the deceased by the neck and struck him with his clenched fist and the deceased fell down, whereupon the accused kicked him. The deceased expired shortly after the assault. On these allegations the accused was placed before the Committing Magistrate charged with an offence under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, and was subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions on that charge. In...
Sheikh Abdulla Vs. Mohammad Muslim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1205,96Ind.Cas.1056
1. The only point that arises in this appeal for consideration is whether the defendant has forfeited the tenancy by denial of the title of the plaintiff. The facts have not been given very clearly in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court which reverses the judgment of the trial Court. What we understand from the statements of the learned gentlemen appearing for the parties is this: The defendant took settlement of the land from one Nabu. After the death of Nabu, his title devolved by succession upon two persons Newar Bibi and Sabu. The title of Newar Bibi was acquired by the plaintiff at an execution Kale and the title of Sabu was purchased by the plaintiff by a kobala. The plaintiff brought a suit for rent against the defendant on the basis of the purchase and set up a kabuliyat which the defendant bad executed in favour of Nabu. In that suit, the defendant denied the plaintiff's right by purchase of the landlord's interest and also denied execution of the kabuliyat in favour of ...
Emperor Vs. G.C. Wilson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal895
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an appeal by the Crown against the order of acquittal of the respondent in respect of a charge under Section 304, I.P.C. The prosecution story is that the respondent, who is the manager of a tea estate, known as Madhabpur Tea Estate in the district of Sylhet in Assam, went out on a round of inspection of the garden in the forenoon of the 30th June 1925. He was not satisfied with the work of the deceased cooly Dasarath Gowala. He called the cooly to his presence and ordered him to proceed with the work of hoeing, but being dissatisfied with the manner of his work, seized the deceased by the neck and struck him with his clenched first and the deceased fell down, whereupon the accused kicked him. The deceased expired shortly after the assault. On these allegations the accused was placed before the committing Magistrate charged with an offence under Section 304, I.P.C., and was subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions on that charge.2. In the Court of Sessio...
Rajendra Kumar Das Vs. Sarat Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1181,96Ind.Cas.586
B.B. Ghose, J.1. Tins appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain lands on the ground that the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were co-sharers with regard to a mirash right and that by a partition the lands in suit have been assigned to the share of the plaintiff. The plaintiffis, therefore, entitled to recover khas. possession of these lands. He was resisted by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and by another set of defendants Nos. 4 to 6. The plea of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 was that they were occupancy raiyats on the lands in dispute from before they had acquired any interest in the mirash and that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover khas possession of the lands in suit. The defendants Nos. 4 to 6 alleged that some of the plots in suit, were in their possession by virtue of a mortgage executed in their favour by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and that if the plaintiff sought to recover possession as against them, he was bound to redeem the mortgage.2. The Cou...
Harendra Kumar Ghosh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal409,101Ind.Cas.597
1. The rule was obtained by the petitioner Harendra Kumar Ghosh who was the Tax Daroga and cashier of Mymensingh Municipality against his conviction under Section 409 and concurrent sentence of 1 year's rigorous imprisonment under each of the three heads contained in the charge and fine of Rs. 1,000 under the first two counts on four grounds. The first is that the elements constituting an offence under Section 409, I.P.C., were not proved or found. The Courts below have found that the petitioner was a tax daroga and cashier of the Municipality, that the amounts which he is said to have embezzled were received by him and he failed to account for them. These being the findings we think that all the elements constituting an offence under Section 409, I.P.C., have been found and this ground must fail.2. The second ground on which the rule was issued was that the burden of proof was wrongly placed upon the petitioner. There is no substance in this ground either. The Courts below have found ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›