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.
Mujaffar Ahmed Vs. Karim Baksh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal306
Mukerji, J.1. The only question which arises in this rule is whether the plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation.2. The learned Munsif has held that the suit is barred under Articles 30 or 31, Schedule 1, Lim. Act, having been instituted more than one year after the date when the loss or injury took place or when the goods ought to have been delivered.3. Shortly stated the facts which have not been controverted are that the plaintiff put the goods on the defendant's ferry boat for conveyance and himself got on to it. Other passengers with their goods also did so. The plaintiff found that the boat was being overloaded and feeling it unsafe to travel on it, he got down and wanted to take down his goods but the defendants refused to allow him to do so. Notwithstanding the plaintiff's protest the boat started on its journey with his goods and capsized on the way and the goods were lost. The claim is for recovery of price of the goods.4. To give rise to those special privileges or liabili...
Mangal Chand Bagmall Vs. River Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal490,108Ind.Cas.591
Mukerji, J.1. This rule relates to a suit for recovery of Rs. 78-1 on account of compensation. The plaintiffs' case was that a consignment of 10 bags of T.B. Nuts was dispatched to them from the Hajigungeghat Steamer Station to Dibrugarh Bazar Station on the Dibru Sadia Railway, that of this consignment only nine bags were delivered to them, and that one bag containing one mauad 22 seers was not delivered and 27 seers out of live amongst the nine bags that were delivered were short. The suit was tried by the Court of Small Causes at Dibrugarh and the Munsif dismissed it. The plaintiffs then moved this Court and obtained the present rule.2. The defendants in the suit are the River Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. and the Indian General Navigation and Railway Co., Ltd., carrying on the joint steamer service through which the goods were dispatched. In carrying the goods to their destination the last part of the journey had to be made by rail, the place of destination being a station on the Dirbu...
B.N. Ry. Co. Ltd. Vs. Tara Prosad Maity
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal504,108Ind.Cas.37
Mukerji, J.1. This Rule relates to a decree for damages which the plaintiff has obtained against the defendant company for having knocked down and killed a bullock belonging to the plaintiff. The incident happened on the 3rd February 1911, at about 11 a.m., when a light engine belonging to the defendant company and run by one of the company's drivers was proceeding up the railway line from Danton to Lakhannath Road, bumped against the bullock which at that particular moment happened to be on the railway line, and as a result the bullock was thrown down the embankment, sustaining injuries which resulted in its death.2. The negligence upon which the action was founded in the plaint was set out in para. 5 thereof which ran in these words:That due to the negligence of the defendant company in not fencing the railway line, and in driving the locomotive to the utter disregard of public safety, life and property, and the company's servants in charge of the aforesaid engine not taking proper p...
Emperor Vs. Ram Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal732
Cuming, J.1. This is the case of three persons, Ram Chandra Roy, Kala Chand Roy and Maniruddin Mondal, which has been referred to us under Section 307 by the learned Sessions Judge of Murshidabad. These three persons were tried on three charges : one under Section 395, I.P.C., one under Section 147, I.P.C., and one under Section 342, I.P.C. The jury unanimously found them not guilty under all the three sections. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the verdict of the jury so far as Section 395, I.P.C., was concerned. He, however, disagreed with the jury so far as their verdict under Sections 147 and 342, I.P.C., was concerned. He was of opinion that all the three accused persons were guilty under Section 147, I.P.C., of rioting and that one of them, Ram Chandra Roy, was guilty under Section 342, I.P.C., of unlawful confinement. The facts of the case are briefly these : One Shashi Bhusan Chowdhury who was the proprietor of the Nadhai estate died some time in 1918 leaving as his heirs two...
Umesh Chandra Manna Vs. Amar Nath Jana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1929Cal158,114Ind.Cas.672
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case which was a suit for recovery of mesne-profits, an order was made by the learned Subordinate Judge on 9th July 1925 by which he directed that the suit should stand dismissed 'for the present without adjudication.' Thereafter, there was an application under Order. 47, Rule 1 and Section 151, Civil P.C. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C., had no application but that the suit which had been dismissed on 9th July 1925 could be restored under the provisions of Section 151, Civil P.C. It is against that order that the present rule has been obtained. Now, if as a matter of fact the suit had not come to a termination by reason of the order of 9th July 1925, then no application was entertain-able under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C. But the application under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C., was entertained and disposed of on its merits, the learned Subordinate Judge coming to the conclusion that, on the facts. Order 47...
Kedar Nath Mahato and ors., Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.577
George Claus Rankin, C.J.1. I have had an opportunity of reading the judgment which, is going to be delivered by Mr. Justice Buckland, with which I agree.Philip Lindley Buckland, J.2. Under Chap. VII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, the three Appeals Nos. 377, 468 and 302 of 1927 have been referred to a Full Bench for the purposes of a final determination of the construction to be put upon the second proviso to Section 276 of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. So far as the facts of these cases relate to the manner in which the Juries were empanelled, they are set out in the order of reference as follows:In Appeal No. 377, the accused were charged under Section 147 and under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Ten persons were summoned to serve on the Jury. Of these ten, six persons attended. Of these six, it was ascertained that one was serving in the office of a society of which the Public Prosecutor was the President. An objection being taken to this individual...
Mujaffar Ahmed Vs. Karim Buksha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.723
Mukerji, J.1. The only question which arises in this Rule is whether the plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation.2. The learned Munsif has held that the suit is barred under Article 30 or 31 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act having been instituted more than one year after the date when the loss or injury took place or when the goods ought to have been delivered.3. Shortly stated the facts which have not been controverted are that the plaintiff put the goods on the defendants' ferry boat for conveyance and himself got on to it. Other passengers with their goods also did so. The plaintiff found that the boat was being overloaded and feeling it unsafe to travel on it, he got down and wanted to take down his goods but the defendants refused to allow him to do so. Notwithstanding the plaintiff's protest the boat started on its journey with his goods and capsized on the way and the goods were lost. The claim is for recovery of price of the goods.4. To give rise to those special p...
Karma Urang Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal238,114Ind.Cas.159
Rankin, C.J.1. The appellant in this case has been tried for the murder of his father on the 12th December 1926 in the morning before 8 o'clock. He has been convicted and sentenced to transportation for life and the real question in this appeal is whether or not he ought to be dealt with under the provisions of the law which apply to a person who, at the time of doing the act, by reason of un-soundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. That is the test laid down by Section 84, I.P.C.2. The story is a most extraordinary one. The appellant, his brother and his father were living together and the appellant and his father have been proved to have been on the best of terms. The brother's story is that on the morning in question when he woke up his father and his brother had gone out and it seems clear that soon after leaving the house the appellant with a dao cut off his father's head. He thereupon picked ...
Khenta Kamini Dutt Vs. Aswini Kumar Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal424
Mukerji, J.1. The only ground on which this rule has been issued is that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of Article 31, Schedule 2, to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.2. There were two defendants in the suit, defendant 1 being the principal defendant and defendant 2 the pro forma defendant.3. The plaintiffs claimed to recover Rs. 170 as house rent, together with Rs. 10 for compensation, against defendant 1 who was the tenant in the house. The claim against defendant 2 was worded thus in the plaint:If it appears and is legally proved that defendant 1 has in good faith paid to defendant 2 the rent claimed or the rent for any month, then a decree may be passed against defendant 2 for such amount as may be so found to have been paid.4. In the course of the trial the plaintiffs appear to have reduced their claim to two-thirds share of the rent, defendant 2 being entitled to the remaining one-third. Defendant 2 having admitted to have realized the rent...
Satya NaraIn Mohata Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal675
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the appellant Satya Narain Mohata was put upon his trial jointly with one Nanda lal Banerjee at the High Court Sessions before Costello, J., and a jury. The facts out of which the case arose were alleged to be that Messrs. Bird and Company had a contract to supply labour to Messrs Kilburn and Company in connexion with the managing agency of the latter firm for the India General Steam Navigation Company Limited. It appears that there was an office at a certain ghat. It appears that Messrs. Bird and Company gave a sub-contract for the supply of this labour to the appellant. The appellant was to be paid at a flat rate based upon the number of maunds actually handled or transhipped by the coolies whom he supplied. The rate was not quite the same for all articles but it was a system of payment which depended upon the number of maunds that had been handled. The first accused, Nandalal Banerjee was a clerk or servant of Messrs. Bird and Company and the system as re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »