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.
BepIn Chandra Mandal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal444
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case six appellants were tried on a charge under Section 201, I.P.C. before the Additional Sessions Judge of the 24-Pargannas sitting with a jury. The jury by a majority of 4 to 3 found them guilty and the learned Judge accepted the majority verdict of the jury and convicted the appellants and sentenced them to four years' rigorous imprisonment each. He stated in his order:While this is a case in which there are certain doubtful factors I hesitate not to accept the majority verdict of the jury as this is the second time the accused have been tried by a special jury and a second time a verdict of guilty has been returned by the majority. It was essentially a case in which the jury must decide and I therefore accept their decision while not agreeing with it. I shall be glad if the accused get relief in the appellate Court.2. Now, the general character of the case was this that one Chintamoni left his home to go to Maibibirhat and never returned. His dead body was f...
Manab Shaikh Vs. Mahammad Golam Nabi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal488,113Ind.Cas.32
S.C. Mallik, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for a declaration that defendant 1 had no right of easement to draw water from the plaintiffs' tank Kalipuskarini by excavating any irrigation pit either on the bank or in the bed of that tank for the purpose of irrigating his land and also for a declaration that the solenama filed in a criminal Court between defendant 1 and the plaintiffs' co-sharer, defendant 2 was not binding on the plaintiffs. The first Court decreed the suit in part. It declared that defendant 1 had no right to irrigate his land with the water of Kalipuskarini by digging any pit in the bed or on the banks of the tank. The first Court declared also that defendant 1 had a right to irrigate his land with the water that accumulates upon the southern bank of the tank and which water is drawn through the pahura lying partly in the defendant's land and partly in the southern bank of the tank. The trial Court also held that the solenama was not binding on ...
Narayan Chandra Borah Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal324
Mukerji, J.1. This rule has been issued to show cause why the conviction of and the sentence passed on the petitioner should not be set aside or such other or further orders should not be passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper on grounds Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the petition.2. The petitioner is a salesman in a licensed opium shop. On a surprise visit being paid to the shop by an Inspector of Excise two irregularities appear to have been noticed; 1st, that the petitioner had sold a short weight of opium to a customer, and 2nd, a quantity of opium 27 tolas 9 as in weight was found in excess of the quantity shown in the took register, and if; was found hidden in the premises. On these irregularities charges under Clauses (c) and (f), Section 9, Opium Act, were laid against the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate convicted the petitioner under both the clauses. The owner of the shop was jointly tried with the petitioner and was acquitted; and with him we are no longer occurred. A...
Brajeshwary Dasi Vs. Nityananda Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal365
Mitter, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of 24 Parganas, dated 28th November 1925, which reversed the decision of the Munsif of Alipur, dated 1st July 1924. The plaintiff commenced the suit for the removal of a verandah and a wall which Obstructed her windows. The case stated in the plaint is that premises No. 91, Kansaripara Road, Bhawanipur, which is at present numbered as 570 of the said road, belonged to the plaintiff's father. Kakhal Chandra Das. The plaintiff purchased a part of this premises from her father on 20th February 1906 and has been in possession of it since her purchase. There is a verandah on the north of the purchased land which she, the plaintiff, claims, passed to her by the conveyance of 20th February but the land underneath the verandah remained with the vendor, her father. There was a stipulation in the deed of sale of 1906 that, if the plaintiff required, the verandah will be removed by the plaintiff's father in ca...
Brajeshwari Dasi Vs. Nityananda Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.720
This is a plaintiffs appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of 24-Perganas, dated the 28th November, 1925, which reversed the decision of the Munsif of Alipur, dated the 1st July 1924. The plaintitf commenced the suit for the removal of a verandah and a wall which obstructed her widows. The case Stated in the plaint is that premises No. 91, Kansaripara Road, Bhowanipur, which is at present numbered as 57 C of the said road belonged to the plaintiff's father, Rakhal Chandra Das. The plaintiff purchased a part of this premises from her father on the 20th February, 1906, and has been in possession of it since her purchase. There is a verandah on the north of the purchased laad which she, the plaintiff, claims, passed to her by the conveyance of the 20th February, but the land underneath the verandah remained with the vendor, her father. There was a stipulation in the deed of sale of 1906 that, if the plaintiff required, the verandah will be removed by the plaintiff's father ...
Garao Sangma Vs. Rangji Mechik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal276,117Ind.Cas.837
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the Deputy Commissioner of the Garo Hills has pronounced a decree for dissolution of marriage, subject to confirmation by this Court, upon a husband's petition. The petition appears to make the wife the defendant and does not appear to have been framed so as to include the co-respondent as a party. It would appear from the judgment of the Deputy Com-missioner that summonses were issued upon the wife and the co-respondent, but neither the wife nor the co-respondent could be found in the village. Accordingly, without making any order dispensing with the service, the Deputy Commissioner has proceeded ex parte, and has pronounced a decree for divorce. The case made by the petitioner is that the wife left the village with the co-respondent and neither has been seen or heard of since. The summons to the wife was apparently accepted by her father on her behalf, she being absent. In these circumstances, it does not appear to me that the Deputy Commissioner has proce...
Daulat Ali Molla Vs. Hedail Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal703,117Ind.Cas.600
1. This rule was granted to show cause why the order of the Magistrate attaching certain property under Section 146, Criminal P.C., should not be vacated on the ground that the case was called on for hearing before 11 a.m. which was the time fixed by the Court for its sitting and, therefore, the parties were unable to attend the Court. The learned Additional District Magistrate in his ex-planation says:2. There is nothing on the record to show that 'the case was called on for hearing before 11 a.m. The Court generally sits at 11 a. m. or after but not before 11 a.m. It was also not stated before roe that the casa was taken up by the trying Magistrate before 11 a.m. Prima facie, therefore, this ground has little weight. But it appears to us, on a perusal of the record, that the order complained of cannot be maintained on another ground. Section 146, Criminal P.C., presupposes an enquiry by the Magistrate on the evidence recorded and the object of Section 146 is to give the Magistrate ju...
Secy. of State Vs. Sati Prasad Garga and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal197
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State who was the defendant in the suit out of which this appeal arises against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge of Midnapore affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge. The suit was for a declaration that the assessment of cesses under the Bengal cess Act on the property of the plaintiffs on the basis of realizations on account of hats within the estates of the plaintiffs was ultra vires and for refund of the amount of cesses paid under protest. The learned Judge below held that on the authority of certain cases decided by this Court the assessment of cesses on the income derived from the hats was ultra vires and made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for refund of the money paid by the plaintiffs.2. The learned Government Pleader contends that the decision of the Courts below is erroneous having regard to the terms of the agreement in the kabuliyats accepted by the plaintiffs with regard to the hat...
Secretary of State for India Vs. Sati Prasad Garga and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.185
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State who was the defendant in the suit out of which this appeal arises against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge of Midnapore affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge. The suit was for a declaration that the assessment of cesses under the Bengal Cess Act on the property of the plaintiffs on the basis of realisations on account of hats within the estate of the plaintiffs was ultra vires and for refund of the amount of cesses paid under protest. The learned Judge below held that on the authority of certain cases decided by this Court, the assessment of cesses on the income derived from the hats was ultra vires and made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for refund of the money paid by the plaintiffs.2. The learned Government Pleader contends that the decision of the Courts below is erroneous having regard to the terms of the agreement in the kabuliyats accepted by the plaintiffs with regard to the hat...
Ayetonnessa Bibi Vs. Amjed Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal717
Suhrawardy, J.1. These appeals arise out of suits for rent for the year 1326 to 1329 B.S. The defendants held a jama under the miras ijara of the plaintiffs. The Government thereafter claimed a portion of the land included in the jama as accretion and started dearah proceedings under Act 31 of 1853 in respect of it. In those proceedings the dearah officer purported to settle separate rent is respect of that portion of the land which he found to have been alluvial accretion. In 1917 the plaintiffs brought suits for rent as settled by the dearah officer. One Asmat Ali, one of the defendants in those suits and who is also a defendant in the present suits and who seems to be the most prominent figure in this fight, appeared and contested the suits on the ground that the dearah officer had no authority under the law to split the jama and assess rents thereupon. In spite of the contest the suits were decreed by the Munsif. Shortly after the decrees were passed, a petition was filed on behalf...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›