Kolkata Court December 1928 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.
Kasim Ali (Molla) Vs. Mohammad Tafazzal HossaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal204
1. This rule relates to a case which arose out of an occurrence which, according to the police report and the case for the prosecution, took place in a certain Char called Char Gobindopur in the Sub-Division of Manickgunge in the District of Dacca. According to the defence the place of the alleged occurrence lies in Agsimulia which, the defence alleged, is within the District of Pabna. On the case being started in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer of Manickgunge an objection was taken on behalf of the defence to the jurisdiction of that Court. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate being of opinion that there was considerable uncertainty as to the local area where the alleged offence was committed made an order under Section 182(1), Criminal P.C., that the trial of the case be held at Manickgunge. The accused thereupon moved the Additional District Magistrate of Dacca who asked for a report from the Sub-Divisional Officer of Serajgunge within the District of Pabna as to whether th...
Durga Prasad Thakur Vs. Tarakeswar Moulik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal492
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant and arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of the lands described in the plaint about 13 1/2 cottas in area after establishment of their title to the same.2. The defence of the defendants was that the plaintiffs or their vendor Harinath had no title to the suit land which originally belonged to one Barani Bewa, defendants' grandfather's sister who made a verbal gift of the land to the defendant's father Jharu Mondal and that the defendant after inheriting the land from Jharu Mondal sold the land to Durga Prasad, who is the appellant before me. The Munsiff decreed the plaintiff's suit. Against this decision an appeal was taken by the defendants to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rajshahi and the learned Subordinate Judge after taking additional evidence at the appellate stage has affirmed the decision of the Munsiff.3. A second appeal has been taken to this Court by defendant 7 who has purchased t...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Darbesh Ali and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal174
Buckland, J.1. These are two appeals preferred by the Local Government against the acquittal on appeal of seven persons who had been convicted by the Sub-Divisional Officer at Feni of offences under Sections 147 and 225(B), I.P.C. and sentenced each to six months rigorous imprisonment three months under each section. The facts of the case, which I take from the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Officer, were that a police officer hid been entrusted with a warrant for the arrest of a witness. He found her in the house of a man named Yusab and he stated the object for which he had come. Yusab asked him to wait and after going away returned with the other accused persons and endeavoured to remove the witness. Then as she was being removed the police officer seized her. The accused persons thereupon assaulted him and rescued the person who was required as a witness from the custody of the police officer. The accused persons were put on their trial before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Feni ...
Babarali Sardar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal182
Rankin, C.J.1. In this there are 10 appellants who have been tried before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge of Faridpur and a jury who heard 27 witnesses for the prosecution and a large number of witnesses for the defence. The jury have unanimously found the 10 appellants guilty of the charges of which they stand convicted. The nature of the case is that the deceased one Nawabali Mathar was a member of certain society (Samaj) in the village and that for various reasons he became unpopular with some of his neighbours owing to social friction showing itself in various ways, extraordinary petty-ways to all appearance, but really important from the point of view of the accused and the deceased. The character of the crime alleged, shortly speaking, was this that at 6 o' clock in the morning of Sunday 5th February 1928, when the deceased and certain ploughmen were tilling the field the accused bent upon revenging their grudge came running up-armed with lathis and certain small spears to make ...
Abedali Fakir and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal728
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case eight accused persons were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Mymensingh and a jury of seven on charges under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The jury were not unanimous, four of them being in favour of a conviction and three in favour of an acquittal.2. On this appeal Mr. Suhrawardy takes the point that according to the order of the learned Judge himself the jury was empanelled in a manner which is contrary to law and which is entirely outside the scope of Sections 276 and 279, Criminal P.C. The learned Judge has recorded:The names of all the 14 jurors who were summoned for the case were called by lot one after another. Nine of them were found present of whom three being challenged by the pleader for the defence, were discharged. Six being unchallenged were elected to sit at the trial. Another person whose name was on the juror's special list was therefore requisitioned from the local school to sit as a juror and being unchallenged was a...
Abidali Fakir and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1928
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.569
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, 8 accused persons were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Mymensingh and a Jury of seven on charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Jury were not unanimous, 4 of them being in favour of a conviction and 3 in favour of an acquittal.2. On this appeal, Mr. Suhrawardy takes the point that, according to the order of the learned Judge himself, the Jury was empanelled in a manner which is contrary to law and which is entirely outside the scope of 68. 276, 279 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Judge has recorded: 'The names of all the 14 Jurors who were summoned for the case, were called by lot one after another. Nine of them were found present, of whom three, being challenged by the Pleader for the defence, were discharged. Six being unchallenged were elected to sit at the trial. Another person whose name was on the Jurors' special list was, therefore, requisitioned from the local school to sit as a Juror a...
Mohim Chandra Nath Bhowmick Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal172
Mukerji, J.1. The facts necessary to be stated for the purpose of this rule are these: One Naimuddin was the complainant in a case under Section 426, I.P.C., against one Hanif and others, which was tried by Maulvi Mir Hossain, a Magistrate of the Third Class. The accused persons pleaded that the land concerned had been purchased by them and that the complainant Naimuddin was himself an attesting witness to the deed of purchase. The petitioner Mohim Chandra Nath Bhowmik gave evidence in support of the defence proving the execution of the deed and the signature of Naimuddin therein. Naimuddin, while the trial was pending, denied his signature in the deed and applied to the trying Magistrate for the prosecution of all concerned in the forgery. The accused persons were acquitted, the trying Magistrate being doubtful as to the forgery. After the case was over Naimuddin pressed his aforesaid application. The trying Magistrate instead of dealing with the matter himself, as he should have done...
Sundermull and ors. Vs. John Carapiet Galstaun
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal387
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by Lort Williams, J., upon a motion brought pursuant to a notice dated the fifth day of June, 1928 in the course of a suit to enforce a mortgage. It appears that the mortgage security was created in or about 1919 and that a sum of 12 lacs was advanced upon the security.2. The suit in the course of which the order complained of is made was brought by the mortgagee Mr. Galstaun in June 1921 and that, as originally framed, was a suit against defendants 1 and 2-- the parties who had entered into the transaction with him. Defendant 3 was a puisne encumbrancer and at some stage of the suit certain other persons, some of whom were minors were made parties to the proceeding on the theory, that they might claim that they were interested in the mortgaged property being joint members of a Hindu Mitakshara family along with defendants 1 and 2.3. The suit did not come on in the ordinary way for trial because it appears that on 25th March 1925 it w...
Bengal National Bank, Ltd. Vs. Jatindra Nath Mazumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal714,121Ind.Cas.741
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this suit, the plaintiffs' claim against the defandants is for the balance of a current account. The defendants Amar Nath Banerjee and Hiralal Mukherjee do not contest the suit. It is admitted that the defendants carried on business in partnership under the firm name of Banerjee Mukherjee & Co., and opened an overdraft account with the plaintiff bank, which is now in liquidation and it was arranged that each partner should be eligible to sign cheques in the firm name, adding thereto his own initials, and that the bank would advance money to enable the defendants to purchase materials and on receipt of the bills given in payment for goods supplied by defendants to customers would collect these on commission and deduct the balance from the overdraft. The defendant Jatindra Nath, however, says that this partnership was dissolved in 1921, and that the plaintiffs had notice thereof. That thereupon he ceased to have any interest in the business, which was carried on by...
Manmatha Nath Dutt and ors. Vs. Matilal Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal719
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals are by the defendants against the final decree made by the Subordinate Judge of Khulna assessing the amount of mesne profits in two suits brought by the vendor of the present respondents. The suits were instituted in 1908 by one Nag for recovery of possession of certain lands and for mesne profits from Assar 1314 till the date of the suits and also subsequent mesne profits till the date of recovery of possession. The suits were originally brought in the Munsiff's Court: then they were refiled in the Court of the Subordinate Judge as the Munsif found that the value of the subject-matter of the suits was beyond his jurisdiction. During the pendency of the suits the original plaintiff executed a conveyance in favour of the present respondents on 10th December 1911 and the contesting respondents were substituted for the original plaintiff. They carried on the suits and obtained decrees in the trial Court. There were appeals to the District Judge and then ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »