Kolkata Court March 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.
JamiraddIn Vs. Khadejanessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal685,114Ind.Cas.407
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiffs who are dar-ijaradars of a mahal instituted this suit for recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 38 6-6 for the years 1327 to 1330 B.S. for a certain holding. The defendant alleged that the rent was Rs. 26 and was recorded as such in the settlement khatian and that as a result of proceedings under Section 105, Ben. Ten, Act, the said rent was enhanced to Rs. 2910-6 the enhancement operating from 1328. There was also a plea of deduction which, however, was given up The Munsif decreed the suit at the rate of Rs. 38-6-6 for the year 1327 B.S. and at the rate of Rs. 29-10-6 for the years 1328 to 1330 B. S. The Subordinate Judge on appeal by the plaintiffs gave them a decree for all the years at the rate of Es 38-6-6. The defendants have then appealed to this Court.2. The Subordinate Judge has found the following facts : The mahal in which the holding in suit is situate is in the hands of a receiver who lets it out in ijara for terms, and the ijaradar in...
Kali Kumar Das Vs. Nawabali Dhali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal160
Cuming, J.1. The present petitioner Kali Kumar Das was tried jointly with one Rahimuddi on the following charges: first of all that they conspired to commit criminal breach of trust with regard to a certain sum of money about Rs. 2,000 odd and thereby committed an offence punish-able under Section 408 read with Section 120-B; and secondly that they misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2,000 odd and so committed an offence under Section 403, I.P.C. Against the present petitioner there was also a further charge that he committed criminal breach of trust as a servant with regard to the same sum of money Rs. 2,000 odd. These charges were drawn up on 30th July 1927. On 13th September 1927 the Magistrate added what he has described as alternative charges, namely, three oharges against the present petitioner of falsifying the accounts, each of these charges dealt with one specific item in the account and also against the other accused Rahimuddi of abetting the same falsification of accounts.2. It is ...
Kali Kumar Das Vs. Nawab Ali Dhali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1928
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.369
Cuming, J.1. The present petitioner Kali Kumar Das was tried jointly with one Rahimuddi on the following charges first of all that they conspired to commit criminal breach of trust with regard to a certain sum of money about Rs. 2,000 odd and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 408 read with Section 120 B; and secondly, that they misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2,00 odd and so committed an offence under Section 403, Indian Penal Code, Against the present petitioner there was also a further charge that he committed criminal breach of trust as a servant with regard to the same sum of money Rs. 2,000 odd. These charges were drawn up on 30th July, 1927. On 13th September, 1927, the Magistrate added what he has described as alternative charges, namely, three charges against the present petitioner of falsifying the accounts. Each of these charges dealt with one specific item in the account and also against the other accused Rihimuddi of abetting the same falsification of accou...
Ojamshee Purushottamdas and Co. Vs. Abdul Rahim Oosman and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal705
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff firm brought a suit on 5th April 1921 to have it declared that seven different awards were not binding upon the plaintiff firm. It appears that by seven contracts all dated 10th November 1920 the defendant firm sold to the plaintiff firm a quantity of 187 1/2 tons of white Java sugar at Rs. 26 per maund to be shipped by S.S. 'Rajput' on certain terms particularized in the contracts. The contracts contain an arbitration clause being Clause 15 upon the terms of which, if any difference should arise regarding the contract or any matter connected therewith, it was to be optional 1929 C/89 & 90 to the sellers to require buyers to submit the matter in difference to arbitration in one or other of the two ways. The way which matters for the purposes of the present case is:the arbitration of two European merchants in Calcutta (one to be appointed by the sellers and one by the buyers).2. There is a provision that if the buyers should fail to appoint an a...
Radha Kishan Vs. Chairman of the Gauhati Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal357
ORDERMukerjee, J.1. This rule has been issued to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Section 221, Sub-section (1), Clause (e) read with Sub-section (3), Assam Municipal Act (1 of 1923), and the sentence of a fine of Rs. 100 passed on him under that section should not be set aside on grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the petition. Ground 1 is to the effect that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the casa against the petitioner inasmuch as the complaint that was originally made and on the basis of which the case was started was not a complaint made against the petitioner, but was a complaint against the petitioner's gomastha, Gajananda Das and that the Deputy Commissioner had given his consent to the institution of proceedings against Gajananda Das and not against the petitioner. Ground 2 is much to the same effect as ground 1. Ground 3 purports to challenge the validity of the order or consent of the Municipal Board in respect of the prosecutions that is required by Sectio...
Raj Kumar Dutta Vs. Jadu Nath Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal159,116Ind.Cas.172
ORDERC.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case, the plaintiff sued to enforce specific performance of a contract to execute a conveyance in respect of the free-hold of the property mentioned in the plaint. Such a suit was and is a suit for enforcement of a contract for an interest in immovable property. There cannot be any doubt that such a suit must be brought in a forum within whose jurisdiction the property in question is situate. Ex consesis, the Sealdah Court has no jurisdiction, in this view of the matter, to try a suit for specific performance of a contract for a conveyance of the free-hold in a property which is situate outside the jurisdiction of that Court. It follows, therefore, that the Sealdah Court by deciding that it has jurisdiction cannot give itself jurisdiction to try the suit. It further follows that there has been an exercise of jurisdiction by the Sealdah Court where it has no such jurisdiction. The question then arises whether this Court should interfere in the matter. It is...
Giribala Dasi Vs. Kedar Nath Naskar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal454,117Ind.Cas.534
Mitter, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits brought by, the plaintiff, now appellant, under Section 149, Clause (3), Ben. Ten. Act, in which she wanted a declaration that she was entitled to rent deposited by the tenant-defendants in each of the two cases and she claimed that she purchased the tenure which originally belonged to Ishan Chandra Maity in 1910 and that she has been in possession thereof since then. The suit was resisted by defendant 1 who claimed to have purchased the property at a sale under the Public Demands Recovery Act in the year 1914. It is admitted that the plaint lands appertained to khas mahal Estate No. 2835 and were comprised in a chak of 172 bighas. The original owner of this tenure was one Gopal Chandra Chatterjee, whose interest was sold in execution of a mortgage decree against him and purchased by one Tapaswiram. Ishan and defendant 1 purchased this interest in the tenure from Tapaswiram. Ishan's interest was one-third and that of defendant 1 was...
Haripada Datta Vs. Sashi Bhusan Basu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal668,114Ind.Cas.792
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder against an order dismissing his application for execution of a decree on the ground that it was barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 48, Civil P.C. The decree holder-brought a suit on a mortgage. That suit was compromised between the parties. The mortgaged properties had actually been sold before the date of compromise in execution of a rent decree. By the compromise a certain sum was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-decree Holder which was payable in instalments, and it was provided that if two; successive kists were not paid all the instalments would be, considered as defaulted and the whole amount would at once be realized by means of execution of the decree with interest at 12 annas per cent per mensem. At the end of the decree it was statedthat the mortgaged properties in suit being sold in auction for arrears of rent in rent execution case No. 46 of 1908 the properties mentioned in the solenama will remain ...
Rameswar Khiroriwalla Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal367,114Ind.Cas.132; AIR1928Cal367
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case Rameswar Khiroriwalla Has obtained a rule calling upon the Commissioner of Police and the Superintendent of the Presidency Jail to show cause why the petitioner should not be brought up before the Court under the provisions of S, 491, Criminal P.C.2. The applicant was committed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate for trial by the High Court at Sessions in its ordinary original criminal jurisdiction upon charges under several sections of the Indian Penal Code. Each of the charges relates to an offence described as bailable in Schedule 2, Criminal P.C. On 24th January 1928, the applicant was released on bail by the order of Mr. Justice Page. Thereafter an application was made to Mr. Justice Buckland on behalf of the Crown for an order cancelling such bail upon the ground that, on 13th, 14th and 15th February 1928, the applicant had approached certain witnesses for the purpose of influencing their evidence at the trial. Mr. Justice Buckland, on 24th February 192...
Kadira Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal466
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is a reference under Section 374, Criminal P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge of Chittagong in a case in which the appellant before us named Kadira alias Abdul Kadir was tried along with five others before him and a jury under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Kadira was charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B/302 I.P.C. The five other persons who were tried along with the present appellant and who were acquitted by the jury were charged under Sections 302/102-B and 302/109 I.P.C. As regards the appellant, the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty under Sections 302 and 302/102-B and a verdict of guilty by 4 to 3 under Sections 302/109, I.P.C. The learned Judge accepted the verdict of the majority of the jury under Sections 302/109, I.P.C. and sentenced the appellant to death. In his letter of reference to this Court the learned Judge states that in his opinion the evidence on the record is sufficient...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »