Kolkata Court January 1927 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.
Ramgopal Ghose Vs. Dhirendra Nath Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal376,101Ind.Cas.573
Page, J.1. The decision in this suit depends upon whether the karta of a a Hindu joint family, who for family purposes signs a promissory note in his own name, thereby binds the other members of the family or the property belonging to the joint family. The plaintiff claims Rs. 2,026-13-4 as the balance due under two promissory notes drawn in his own favour, one for Rs. 1,500 and the other for Rs. 500, dated respectively 15th November 1916 and 23rd November 1921. Each of these promissory notes purports to have been signed by Norendro Nath Sen and the defendant Dhirendra Nath Sen.2. It is not disputed that certain sums were paid to the plaintiff by Noren in reduction of liability under the said notes. The last payment in respect of each note was made on the 12th February 1923.3. In 1916 Noren was thirty years of age and at all material times was the karta of an undivided Hindu family living joint in estate and commensality under the Dayabhaga Law. The other coparceners were his brothers ...
Krishen Doyal Jalan Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal509
1. In this matter the petitioner has been ordered by the Municipal Magistrate to demolish certain sheds in a house abutting on the Central Avenue. The present Rule has been obtained by him on the ground that the Magistrate was wrong in administering oath to the petitioner, examining him as a witness and subjecting him to cross-examination. Before proceeding further with regard to the merits of the question raised by the ground on which the Rule was issued, it is necessary to observe that there is nothing in the record to show that the Magistrate put the petitioner into the box and forced him to take oath and subjected him to cross-examination. From the judgment passed by the Magistrate in this case it may be presumed that the petitioner himself went to the box to support his case, namely, that the projections were of long standing. In one part of his judgment the Magistrate says:The defendant gave evidence but did not any anything about this shed or the verandah though the defence witn...
BasiruddIn and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal931a,101Ind.Cas.660
1. In this case the petitioners have been convicted under Section 117, I.P.C. and sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment. They have also been convicted under Section 325 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment each the sentences to run consecutively. The separate sentences under these two sections are clearly illegal in view of the provisions of Section 71, I.P.C. Kiamuddi Karikar v. Emperor : AIR1924Cal771 . We accordingly set aside the sentences passed under Section 147, I.P.C. The petitioners will serve out the sentence of nine months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 325, 149, I.P.C. The order under Section 106, Criminal P.C. upon the accused is maintained....
Krishan Doyal Jalan Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1927
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.183
1. In this matter the petitioner has been ordered by the Municipal Magistrate to demolish certain sheds in a house abutting on the Central Avenue. The present Rule has been obtained by him on the ground that the Magistrate was wrong in administering oath to the petitioner, examining him as a witness and subjecting him to cross-examination. Before proceeding further with regard to the merits of the question raised by the ground on which the Rule was issued, it is necessary to observe that there is nothing in the record to show that the Magistrate put the petitioner into the box and forced him to take oath and subjected him to cross examination. From the judgment passed by the Magistrate in this case it may be presumed that the petitioner himself went to the box to support his case, namely, that the projections were of long standing. In one part of his judgment the 'Magistrate says' the defendant gave evidence but did not say anything about this shed or the verandah though the defence wi...
Satis Chandra Bandopadhya and ors. Vs. Hashem Ali Kazi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal488,103Ind.Cas.124
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a difference of opinion arising at the hearing of a Second Appeal before my learned brothers Mr. Justice Cuming and Mr. Justice Page.2. I agree with the view of Mr. Justice Page that the plaintiffs' suit must be dismissed on the ground that it is out of time by reason of Article 3 of Schedule 3 to the Bengal Tenancy Act; and in this view the other considerations which might have arisen for our attention do not require to be argued at the bar.3. The facts of the case are not in dispute between the trial Court and the District Court. The position shortly is that there was a rent suit against the plaintiffs and also Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 brought by Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the 30th of May 1914. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were landlords of a holding of which the plaintiffs were co-sharer tenants. The rent suit was brought and was decreed on the 10th of November 1914 ex-parte. In that rent suit it appears that the Court without obtaining ...
Dibakar (Bene) Vs. Saktidhar Kabiraj
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal520
1. The accused in this case was convicted by the trial Magistrate of an offence under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60. On appeal the District Magistrate set aside the conviction under Section 379, but convicted the accused under Section 143, Indian Penal Code, maintaining the sentence. This Rule has been obtained on the ground that the procedure followed by the District Magistrate is not correct in law and the petitioner having been convicted under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, on the findings arrived at by the appellate Court, he should have been acquitted. The view that where a person is charged under one offence and convicted of a different offence by the appellate Court with which he was not charged, it is beyond the power of an appellate Court under Section 423(b)(2), has long prevailed in this Court. A case which is exactly in point is the case of Jatu Singh v. Mahabir Singh [1900] 27 Cal. 660. There too the accused were convicted of theft ...
Dibakar Das (Bene) Vs. Saktidhar Kabiraj
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1927
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.180
1. The accused in this case was convicted by the trial Magistrate of an offence under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60. On appeal the District Magistrate set aside the conviction under Section 379 but convicted the accused under Section 143, Indian Penal Code, maintaining the sentence. This Rule has been obtained on the ground that the procedure followed by the District Magistrate is not correct in law and the petitioner having been convicted under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, on the findings arrived at by the Appellate Court he should have been acquitted. The view that where a person is charged under one offence and convicted of a different offence by the Appellate Court with which he was not charged it is beyond the power of an Appellate Court under Section 423(6)(2), has long prevailed in this Court. A case which is exactly in point is the case of Jatu Singh v. Mahabir Singh 27 C. 660 : 14 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 433. There too the accused were convi...
Debendra Nath Bagchi and ors. Vs. Surendra Nath Sur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal345
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs are the owners of certain premises known as No. 43, Bagh Bazar Street in the town of Calcutta and the defendant ii the owner of the neighbouring premises on the west which is No. 42 of the same street. The street is on the north of both the premises, and No. 42 is on the west of No. 43. Between the two premises is a wall, a more particular description of which will become necessary in connexion with certain points in the case. The plaintiffs sue for a declaration that that wall is a boundary wall belonging to them. They complain that on the 17th of October 1921 the defendant raised this wall flush against the western wall of the plaintiffs' premises to a height which may be roughly described as the top of the second storey. They say, first, that the wall belongs to the plaintiffs, and, secondly, that if that be not so, the windows and openings to the west of the plaintiffs' building are windows and openings to which the plaintiffs have prescri...
Hari Narayan Chandra and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal27
Cammiade, J.1. These four appeals are against a judgment of commissioners appointed under Sub-sections (1) and (2) Section 4, Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1925. Nine persons were convicted by this judgment; and out of these one has undergone sentence of death passed on him in connexion with the Alipore Jail murder. There remain eight persons. Five of them, namely Hari Narayan Chandra, Rajendra Lal Lahiri, Birendra Kumar Banerjee, Dhrubesh Chandra Chatterjee and Rakhal Chandra De are the appellants in appeal No. 89; Nikhil Bandhu Banerjee is the appellant in appeal No. 90; Debi Prasad Chatterjee is the appellant in appeal No. 91; and Shibaram Chatterjee is the appellant in appeal No. 99. Two of the appellants in the first of these appeals, namely Dhrubesh Chandra Chatterjee and Rakhal Chandra De, have been sentenced to transportation for life in connexion with the Alipore Jail murder; and the learned vakil who appears for them has moved us to exercise the powers vested in us by Se...
Srinath Roy Vs. Taraprasanna Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal375
Mitter, J.1. This Rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why the decree of the Small Cause Court Judge of Barisal, dated the 23rd August 1926 should not be set aside. This Rule lias been obtained by the defendant and the main ground on which it is contended that the decree of the lower Court should be set aside, is that the suit was not cognizable by the Court of Small Causes. The suit to which this Rule relates was commenced by the plaintiffs for realizing the profits of homestead land in which there were a number of fruit trees and other trees, which had been taken by the defendant. The allegation in the plaintiff's plaint is that there was a previous suit between them and the present defendant for declaration of title and joint possession. The plaintiffs purchased the interest of an 8 annas co-sharer in the homestead and the other Hannas share belongs to the defendant. The Court which tried the title suit, gave a decree in their favour for a declaration of title to a ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »