Kolkata Court June 1926 Judgments
Alfred Laird Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal224
Chotzner, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the order made by him sentencing the petitioner, Alfred Laird, to seven days simple imprisonment under Section 103(4) of the Indian Merchants Shipping Act 11 of 1923, should not be set aside on the first and second grounds specified in the petition. These grounds are; first, that the petitioner had already been convicted upon the same facts, and consequently his subsequent trial and conviction was bad in law; and secondly, that the conviction of the petitioner under two different enactments for the same act was illegal.2. There is no dispute about the facts. The petitioner was the Third Officer of the steamship 'City of Newcastle' and he was sent up on the 26th April 1926 upon a charge of having assaulted the Captain of the ship, Daniel Jenkins. According to the evidence the petitioner was drunk and used abusive language and assaulted the Captain with the result that the Captain was somewhat se...
Tag this Judgment!Dulichand Samsukh Vs. Dunbar Mills. Co. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal947
Buckland, J.1. This suit has arisen out of the alleged loss of 25 shares in the Dunbar Mills, Ltd. The reliefs prayed for cannot be comprehensively stated, and I will proceed to narrate the facts.2. The registered holder of the shares in question which were Nos. 2025 to 2049 inclusive, was the defendant Durga Prosad Singhania, whose name still stands on the books of the company as the registered holder to this day. In the month of February 1920, they were sold by him to Messrs. Tezpal Makunlal. This transfer has not been proved with the exactitude with which the later transfers have been proved, but in the circumstances I do not think there can be any doubt that these shares were among those sold at or about that time by Singhania to Tezpal Makunlal according to the evidence of the witness Tezpal Jhoon Jhoonwalla.3. Evidence has been called tracing the subsequent dealings in these shares. Tezpal Makunlal sold them to Jwalaprosad Shroff who in his turn sold them to Magniram Bungar. On t...
Tag this Judgment!Ramratandas Bagri Vs. Dwijendra Nath Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1033,97Ind.Cas.294
Charu Chunder Ghose, J.1. The question raised on this summons is whether the Official Assignee of Calcutta as assignee of the estate and effects of one Dwijendra Nath Sen is entitled to retain a sum of Rs. 185-1-11, as and by way of commission in the circumstances stated below.2. It appears that the said Dwijendra Nath. Sen executed three deeds of hypothecation, one dated the 21st March, 1925, in favour of Ramratandas Bagri and two others dated the 15th February, 1924, and 14th January, 1925, in favour of Nandaram Mathuradas. The property mentioned in the deeds of hypothecation consisted of goods which were the stock-in-trade in the business carried on by Dwijendra Nath Sen. It appears that Ramratandas Bagri instituted a suit, in this Court on the 6th June, 1925, being Suit No. 1660 of 1925, against the said Dwijendra Nath Sen for the purpose of enforcing the deed of hypothecation executed by him in favour of the plaintiff. It is said that at the time of the institution of the suit it ...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Khemka Vs. Haribux Fateh Puria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1097
Sanderson, C.J.1. This in an appeal by Sitaram Khemka against an order made by my learned brother Mr. Justice Buckland, sitting on the Original Side in Insolvency on the 8th of June of this year, whereby he decided that Sitaram Khemka, son of the insolvent Khemkarandas Khemka, had been guilty of contempt of Court for having wilfully failed to comply with an order, dated the 19th March last and where by it was ordered that Sitaram Khemka should stand committed to the civil side of the Presidency Jail. It was further ordered that a writ should issue to the Sheriff to attach the person of Sitaram Khemka and to deliver him to the Superintendent of the Presidency Jail.2. It appears that the respondent Haribux Fatehpuria obtained a decree against Khemkarandas Khemka in August 1924. On the 17th of March 1925 Khemkarandas was adjudicated insolvent. On the 29th July 1925 an order was made for the examination of Sitaram, the appellant. This order no doubt was made in pursuance of Section 36, Sub...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ganesh Das Aurora
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1056,97Ind.Cas.247
Charu Chunder Ghose, J.1. This is an application for an order that the death of one Ganesh Das Aurora may be presumed and that the petitioner may be at liberty to declare and state in her intended petition for grant of Letters of Administration to her of the property and credits of the said Ganesh Das Aurora deceased, that the death of the said Ganesh Das Aurora occurred on or since the 23th August, 1918, and she may beat liberty to verify such statement in her intended petition.2. The circumstances under which this application has been made, briefly stated, are as follows: The applicant is the wife of the said Ganesh Das Aurora. It is stated that the applicant's husband disappeared on or about the 29th August, 1918, and has not been heard of since by her or any other member of his family or any relations or friends or by any one to the applicant's knowledge. It is further stated that diligent enquiries and searches to find out the where-abouts of the said Ganesh Das Aurora in various ...
Tag this Judgment!Brojendra Kishore Roy Chaudhuri Vs. Mohim Chandra Bhattacharji and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal1
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent of this Court from a decision of my learned brother Mr. Justice Cuming. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for assessment of rent and. for the recovery of arrears. The learned Munsif, who tried the case, decided that the plaintiff was entitled to recover rent for the period in suit at the rate of Rs. 4-6-8 pies with usual cesses and damages therein and that he should recover enhancement at the progressive rate mentioned in the judgment. The defendants appealed and the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. He held that the lands is suit were not liable to be assessed with rent.2. At the hearing of the appeal in the High Court, my learned brother, Mr. Justice Cuming was of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed and my learned brother Mr. Justice Mukerji was of the opinion that the matter should be remanded to the lower appellate Court in order that the appeal might be reheard and disposed ...
Tag this Judgment!Gallagher and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal307,101Ind.Cas.657
Sanderson, C.J.1. These are two applications by Mandelli and Gallagher, who are prisoners in the Alipore Jail, for leave to appeal. The two convicted men were tried at the High Court Criminal Sessions by my learned brother Mr. Justice Chotzner and a jury.2. Mandelli was charged with dishonestly using as genuine a forged document, knowing the same to be forged, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and other charges which I need not enumerate; and Gallagher was charged with abetment of the same. They were both convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment on the 3rd of December 1925. I propose to deal with the application of Gallagher in the first instance.3. The learned advocate, who appeared at the request of the Court for him and to whom we are much obliged for the assistance which he has given, relied upon Section 449(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section was enacted by Act 12 of 1923 and under that section it is necessary for the Court to be satisfied that if thi...
Tag this Judgment!Baijnath Kamani Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.246
Charu Chunder Ghose, J.1. This is an application for revision under Section 115, C.P.C., and the short point that I have got to decide in this case is whether the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to entertain this suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council No leave under Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act had been taken prior to the institution of this suit and it is, therefore, contended on behalf of the Secretary of State that inasmuch as the cause of action arose wholly outside the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, this suit against the Secretary of State is not maintainable, having regard to the decisions of this Court in Doya Narain Tewary v. Secretary of State 114 C. 256 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 170 and Rodricks v. Secretary of State 21 Ind. Cas. 1 : 40 C. 308.2. On behalf of the plaintiff it has been contended that the Secretary of State carries on business, i.e., conducts the management of the Eastern Bengal Railway in the Head Office thereof...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaj Bahadur Singh of Baluchar Vs. Raja Bhupendra Narayan Singh and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1233
Mukerji, J.1. The litigation which has given rise to this appeal was commenced in the year 1905. The predecessor of the appellant, a patnidar, instituted a suit against the predecessor of the respondent, a zamindar, and certain other persons for recovery of possession of certain lands about 82 bighas in area on the allegation that they were Chaukidari Chakran lands included in the Patni mehal, that they had been resumed by the Government and thereafter settled with the zemindar and that the zemindar in his turn had settled the same with those other persons. The trial Court in that suit passed a decree on the 10th January 1906, declaring that the plaintiff in that suit would get possession of the disputed lands on the same terms on which the Government had settled the same as resumed Chaukidari Chakran lands with the zemindar and that the plaintiff would get mesne profits for three years from before the institution of the suit up to the date of his getting possession of the lands--such ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Mary Reberio Vs. V.S. Reberio
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1014
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a case which has been referred to the High Court by the learned District Judge for confirmation of a decree which the learned Judge made in favour of the petitioner dissolving her marriage with the respondent.2. The learned Judge found that the husband bad deserted the petitioner for nearly six years and had not maintained her and her child and that he had been guilty of habitual cruelty and adultery. The learned Judge then said that prima facie the petitioner was entitled to the relief asked for. It appears, however, that the petitioner admitted that she had given birth to a child about a year ago and that the child was not her husband's. The question, therefore, arises, under the proviso to Section 14 of the Divorce Act, whether the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, should have granted a decree. The proviso to this section is similar to the proviso to Section 31 of the Matrimonial Causes Act. In respect of that proviso, it has been held in several ca...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »