Kolkata Court February 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.
Taser Mondal Vs. Prokash Chandra Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal31
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiff to recover arrears of rent for the years 1325 to 328. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants held 8 bighas 2 kottas of land under them at an annual rental of 14 aris of paddy. He alleged that rent for the period covered by the suit had not been delivered notwithstanding demands and, therefore, he prayed for recovery of Rs. 360 being the total amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 5 per ari of paddy together with cesses and damages. The defendants contended that the rent of the holding was Rs. 21 and that in any case the plaintiff was not entitled to recover at a rate in excess of the said rate of Rs. 21 as that was the rate mentioned in the Road Cess Return which the plaintiff had filed under the provisions of the Cess Act 9 of 1880. The trial Court decreed the suit at the annual jama, of Rs. 21 only together with cesses and damages at the rate of 25 per cent. The learned Subordinate Judge on appe...
Hemendra Nath Sen Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal192,114Ind.Cas.800
1. This rule was granted on the ground that the learned Magistrate, Mr. S.N. Dutt, not having any jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(c), Criminal P.C., the proceedings instituted against the petitioner are bad in law and should be quashed.2. There is no dispute about the facts, which are that one Jaduram was summoned by Mr. Bhowmie, Deputy Magistrate of Dinajur, under Section 420, I.P.C., on the ground that he induced the complainant Kali Charan Deshi, to pay him Rs. 550 on the falsa representation that money was to be-paid to the present petitioner, Hemendra Nath Sen, a Sub-Inspector of Police, in order to secure the release of one Bindha, who had been arrested in connexion with an investigation in a case of murder. The-case was subsequently transferred under the orders of this Court by the District. Magistrate from the file of Mr. Bhowmic to the file of Mr. S.N. Dutt, another Deputy Magistrate, for trial. The Magistrate after recording the evidence found...
Manir Ahamed Chowdhury Vs. Jogesh Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal195
1. This rule was granted on the first ground stated in the petition, namely, that the order of the learned Judge directing the Subordinate Judge to file a complaint against the petitioner is illegal and without jurisdiction. The proceeding under Section 476, Criminal P.C., was begun at the instance of the opposite party before the Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, and the learned Judge was invited to formulate a complaint against the petitioner under that section. This the learned Judge for reasons recorded in his judgment refused to do. An appeal was taken from that decision to the Court of the District Judge of Chittagong and the learned District Judge after stating the facts said as follows;In the circumstances, I am of opinion that there is sufficient justification for placing the opposite party (that is the present petitioner) on trial for forgery under Section 471, I.P.C. The Magistrate after hearing the whole evidence will be in a position to decide whether a charge should be fra...
Bhola Nath Bose Vs. Mt. Nagendra Bala Chaudhurani and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal810,110Ind.Cas.571
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued for a declaration of her title and recovery of khas possession with mesne profits of two plots of land in area some nine bighas. Her case was that these two plots of land originally formed two chakran holdings. These chakran holdings were resumed in the year 1905 and on resumption were settled with one Badal Roy. It may be here noted that the plaintiff herself purchased the mehal in 1908. Badal Roy was unable to get possession with the result that the plaintiff brought two suit's with regard to these plots of land Nos. 645 and 646 of 1911 and obtained in these two suits two ex-parte decrees. According to her she then took possession and settled some of the land with defendant 1. Thereafter further trouble arose and in proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C., decisions were given which were against the plaintiff. Hence this suit.2. The defence was that the plaintiff had no title, and that the defendants...
Baikuntha Nath Das Vs. Sheik Azidulla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal870
Rankin, C.J.1. These are four appeal from a judgment and decree of my learned brother Roy, J., sitting on second appeal. The plaintiff on 3rd December 1921 brought a number of suits asking for ejectment of the several defendants in respect of 8 annas share from certain plots. Five of the suits were decreed and from that appeals were taken by the several defendants to the lower appellate Court who dismissed the appeals. In this Court Roy, J., remanded the cases to the lower appellate Court with a direction that that Court should allow the parties an opportunity to produce further evidence on certain points and should rehear the cases. It appears that the plots in question belonged in equal shares to two taluks one of which is numbered 54720. This taluk was sold to one Prokas Chandra Shaha on 22nd September 1909 for default of payment of revenue under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations (Regn. 1 of 1886). The 60th day after that date was 21st November 1909. But the sale certificat dat...
Ambica Charan Kundu and ors. Vs. Kumud Mohun Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal893,110Ind.Cas.521
Mukherji, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for establishment of plaintiffs' nishkar right to and for possession of 4 1/2 bighas of land which is described in Sch. Ka to the plaint. The plaintiffs' case was that the land in suit was their ancestral nishkar, that they and predecessors possessed the same for more than 100 years in nishkar right as well as right by adverse possession, that they and their predecessors had paid road-cess and submitted road-cess returns to the Bankura Colteetorate till 1905, when the Collector directed them to pay the cesses to the zemindars, but the latter refused to take the cesses only and insisted on the plaintiffs taking a jamai settlement and that the plaintiffs refused to do so. The defendants resisted the claim by alleging that they had been holding the lands from the time of their father for a period of over 25 years as tenants under the said zemindars and on payment of rent to them.2. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but the lower appell...
Aroth Vs. Craig Jute Mills Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal481
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a reference under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Act 8 of 1923) made by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Bengal, under the power conferred on him by Section 27 of the Act, which is as follows:The Commissioner may, if he thinks fit, submit any question of law for the decision of the High Court, and if he does so shall decide the question in conformity with such decision.2. The question of law referred to us has reference to the true construction of Sub-section (6), Section 11 of the Act, and arises upon the following facts which have been found by the Commissioner. The applicant alleged that while joining threads in a beaming machine his right hand was caught between the drum and steam heated cylinder and was smashed. The employer contended that the hand was not smashed but only scalded and that owing to the applicant's disregard of the medical officer's instruction to keep his hand in bandages it became septic. The Commissioner has found that the employ...
SamiuddIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal500
1. These three appeals arise out of the same trial and are now disposed of together. Appeal No. 509 is by the three accused persons Samiuddin, Bakshu Mia and Eunoch Mia; Appeal No. 550 is by the accused Nezamat Ali and Appeal No. 621 by the accused Naju Mia. The trial was held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Chittagong with the aid of a jury. The jury unanimously found the accused Samiuddin, Bakshu Mia, Eunoch Mia and Naju Mia guilty of an offence under Section 395, I.P.C. and they by a majority of 4 to 1 found the accused Nijamat Ali guilty of the some offence. As against Naju Mia, there was an additional charge under Section 75, I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge agreeing with and accepting the verdict of the jury as aforesaid convicted all these accused under Section 395, I.P.C., and sentenced Naju Mia to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and the remainder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. At the hearing before us, Naju Mia and Nizamat ...
Sourindra Nath Basu and ors. Vs. Nirmal Chandra Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal882,117Ind.Cas.693
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for establishment of title and recovery of khas possession of five plots of Ian' A B C D and E described in the plaint said to be appertaining to the plaintiff's tenancy of 2 1/2 bighas bearing a rental of Rs. 2-8-0 under the defendants and standing in the name of Ram Sona Dassi. Both the Courts below have allowed the plaintiff's claim with reference to four plots A C D and B and dismissed the suit so far as it related to plot B. The present appeal by the plaintiffs is accordingly confined to plot B which is a cutcheri bari. The plaintiff's case is that all the five plots in suit were purchased by Ram Sona Dassi (the plaintiff's predecessor) from Bagdi, the original holder of the tenancy, in 1261 B.S. Under the defendant who is the zemindar there was a putnidar by the name of Sristidhar Mondal who took a lease from the plaintiff's predecessor of plot B and had his cutchery bari. Thereafter Sristidhar's successor-in-interest in the putni Rama Nath Bur...
Akhoy Kumar Dey and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal495,114Ind.Cas.131
1. There is no dispute about the faces of these cases which are that the National Bank of India sells gold bars in the Calcutta markets bearing a stamp showing the name of the bank in English and Guzrati with the words '100 touch' in Guzrati and the name3 of the bullion brokers, whoever they may be, in English. On 10th and 19th March 1926, certain men employed by the bank bought on each occasion one gold bar from the shop of the petitioner Akshoy Kumar De and these bars bore the counterfeit mark of the National Bank upon them. Further, the police searched the petitioners' shop on 22nd March and found several other gold bars bearing this mark and some dies for stamping the mark upon them. The defence taken was that the gold bars sold are composed of what is known in the market as bator gold and that the petitioners had sold bars of this make under this particular mark in the open market for years past. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate found that, though it was true that the firm ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »