Kolkata Court December 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.
indra Mohan Roy Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal410,110Ind.Cas.326
Mukerji, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of a motor bus which was on a certain day driven by a person who had no license to drive. The petitioner has thereupon been convicted under Section 16. Motor Vehicles Act (8 of 1914) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15 and an order has been made under Section 18 of the Act canceling his license for a period of six months. This rule is directed against the said conviction, sentence and order.2. The petitioner's defence was that seven or eight days before the date of the occurrence he had left for home leaving the bus in charge of his licensed driver and that ha was not liable if any unlicensed person drove the bus during his absence and without his knowledge. There was a further defence that the licensed driver was on the bus but it has been disbelieved. The licensed driver Krishna was examined as a Court witness. He said' that on the day in question, he went away to take his meals asking one Shyam Lal Das to act as driver but as a matter of f...
In Re: K.C. Bonnerjee, Official Receiver
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.738
Zahhadur Rahim Zahid Suhrawardy, J.1. This application in revision is by the Official Receiver of this Court against an order of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal by which the learned President refused to make over certain Government promissory notes held in his Court to the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case there is no opposite party and we had to hear this matter ex parte. We have given our earnest consideration to the facts of this ease and to the observation made by the learned President in his judgment. The facts are that a portion of the premises No. 28, Giri Babu's Lane, in Calcutta belonging to the debutter estate of certain idols was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the compensation thereof was deposited with the Calcutta Improvement' Tribunal under Section 31 of the Act. Thereafter some of the shebaits of the said idols instituted a suit in the Original Side of this Court against certain persons for a certain declaration which will be mo...
Hara Chandra Mandal and ors. Vs. Mohananda Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal299
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of certain piece of land said to have been purchased by him from defendants 3, 4 and 5. The plaintiff's case was that the land belonged to three brothers Raj Mohan, Nanda Mohan and Deba Mandal. After the death of Raj Mohan and Deba Mandal their shares were inherited by defendants 3 and 4 - defendant 5 being one of the brothers. The defence of the principal defendants was that the property belonged to Raj mohan alone and that he had transferred it to the defendants before his death. During the progress of the suit in the trial Court the plaintiff added an alternative prayer to his plaint, namely, that if it was found that his vendors had no interest in the property the price paid by him to them might be decreed against them. The defence of the vendor-defendants was that the land belonged to the three brothers and that Rajmohan did not sell the land to defendants 1 and 2 as alleged by them, but ...
Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta Vs. Suraj Mull Jalan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal464
1. This case raises an important question of principle, namely, whether the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta cannot be restrained by injunction by a civil Court from proceeding with a certain criminal prosecution instituted by them against the respondents under Section 84, Calcutta Port Act (Act 3 of 1890 B.C.) for contravention by the respondents of the provisions of Section 83 of the said Act.2. The facts, shortly stated, are as follows : The plaintiffs who are the respondents before us are the lessees of certain lands on the west side of the river Hooghly near Ghuseri. They started construction of a jute mill on a portion of the sairl lands and it appears that during the construction of the mill they put up am earthen bund on the bank of the river nearest to their land to facilitate the landing of building materials intended for constructing the said mill. On or about 11th May 1927, the Port Commissioners wrote a letter to the plaintiffs enclosing a coloured plan depicting the...
Jyotish Chandra Sen Vs. Har Chandra Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal234
Page, J.1. The decree in this suit cannot stand. The dispute has arisen in this way. The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for money against one Uma Charan who was the owner of the property in dispute and before judgment obtained an order for attaching the property on 31st August 1915. On 11th November 1915 he obtained an ex-parte decree against Uma Charan. It is common ground, however, that between the date of attachment and the date of the decree Uma Charan died, the result being that as against him the decree was a nullity. As an application was not made for substituting the heirs within the time limited by law, the suit abated and died. In August 1916, after the suit had come to an end, Uma Charan's heirs sold the property in dispute to defendant 1 who alone contested the suit, the other defendants being impleaded merely as pro forma defendants. Subsequently, on 5th January 1918, an application was made on behalf of the plaintiff to set aside the heirs in place of Uma Charan. Thi...
Ram Gopal Goenka Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal207
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case it would appear that it is alleged by the Corporation of Calcutta that the present applicant at his house No. 7, Bysack Street, had certain additions and alterations made without any necessary sanction being obtained from the Corporation in that behalf. It would seem that these additions and alterations were made at some time prior to 1923 and it would seem that after the new Municipal Act of 1923 came into force proceedings were taken to get a demolition order from a Magistrate in respect of the erections complained of. Those proceedings were apparently brought without taking the necessary preliminary steps prescribed by Sections 363 and 364, Calcutta Municipal Act 1923 and it was pointed out at the time that even if those proceedings were regarded as proceedings under the old Act of 1899 they again were incurably defective by reasons that there had been no preliminary sanction given by the General Committee as required by the old Act. Accordingly those pro...
Doat Ali Alias Sheik Deoat Ali Sarkar and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal230
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case it appears that there were two separate cases in each of which the accused were convicted by the trial Court. An appeal was brought in each case by the convicted persons and they came before the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Dacca. His procedure was this : He tried the two appeals together as one case and made up his mind that there were two contradictory stories. Having found which of the two stories was true and having found that the other was untrue, he allowed one of the appeals and dismissed the other. It seems reasonably plain that the duty of the learned Judge was to keep each appeal absolutely separate and to deal with it on its merits confining himself to the evidence given in that case and in that alone. As one of these appeals has been allowed and the persons have been acquitted that matter is not before us; but as regards the parties whose appeal has been dismissed this application is brought. In our opinion, the rule should be made absolu...
Nripendra Nath Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal321,110Ind.Cas.97
1. This rule has been granted on ground 3 of the petition which 1 runs as follows:For from the terms of the kabuliyat it would appear that no criminal offence could be said to have been committed by the accused even if he failed to credit the amount realized by him.2. The fact would appear to be these: The petitioner had executed a kabuliyat in favour of the Government of Assam as a collector of grazing fees. He collected three sums Rs. 28, Rs. 24 and Rs. 24 which he did not remit to the Treasury. On this finding he has been convicted on three counts under Section 409. He argues now that even if he failed to pay in these amounts to the treasury he cannot be held criminally liable. All that the Government can do if he fails to pay into the treasury the amount be has realized is to proceed against him and his sureties by the procedure prescribed for the realization of arrears of rent. The relevant portions of the kabuliyat are as follows:I shall realize the grass rent of the Mouzah payab...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Jalajbasini Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal450
Cuming, J.1. The 'facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are these : The respondent Srimati Jalaja Bashini Devi is the owner of premises No. 125, Harish Mukerjee Road. The Corporation of Calcutta in March 1924 assessed the land with the premises thereon to consolidated taxes. In arriving at the assessment the Chief Executive Officer valued the land at Rs. 2,750 a cotta and the house on it at Rs. 20,365. Under Section 141, Calcutta Municipal Act, the assessee appealed to the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah. She objected both to the value of the house and value of the land. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court held the value of the building was Rs. 18,123 and the value of the land was Rs. 2,200. Against this decision the Calcutta Corporation have appealed to this Court under Section 142(3), Calcutta Municipal Act.2. There is also a cross-objection by the respondent. Her contention is that the burden of proof has wrongly been placed on her and that it was for the Cor...
In Re: Howrah Amta Ligh Ry. Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal579
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the Commissioner of Income-tax has been ordered to state and has stated three points for the opinion of the Court. The first question is-whether the assessment is in order. I do not understand that there is any meaning in particular in that passage, but the assessment is plainly in order. The second and the only point is this:whether the whole or any part of the amount paid to the District Board is or is not an allowable item of expenditure under Section 10 of the Act.2. The third question which apparently he was ordered by a Rule issued by this Court to state is not a question at all. It is as follows:The legal relation subsisting between your petitioners and the District Board and the character of the payment by your petitioners to the District Board.3. The Commissioner of Income-tax has in the end said that what it appears to him that it is not his place to define the legal relationship subsisting between the petitioner company and the District Board. I r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »