Kolkata Court September 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.
Kazi Bazlur Rahman Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal1
C.C. Ghose, J.1. The accused in this case was charged under Section 302, I.P.C., with having committed the murder of Mr. G.H.W. Davies, I.C.S., District Magistrate and Collector of Chittagong, on 20th April 1928, and was tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Chittagong Mr. A.E. Porter and a jury.2. It was urged on behalf of the accused in the Committing Magistrate's Court and also in the Sessions Court that at the time when it was alleged that he had committed the murder in question he was of unsound mind and that, in the circumstances, he was not responsible for what he did. The jury unanimously found the accused guilty under Section 302, I.P.C., and further that the accused could not claim any exemption under the provisions of Section 84, I.P.C. In answer to a question put by the learned Sessions Judge, whether the jury were of opinion that the accused was of unsound mind at all, six of the jurors were of opinion that he was not but the remaining three thought that he...
Naresh Chandra Basu Vs. Hayder Sheikh Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal28
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for a declaration of his tenancy right in the disputed land and for recovery of possession of the same.2. The facts of the case lie within a short compass. The defendants who are two in number and their cosharers had an occupancy holding which carried an annual rental of Rs. 10-4-0 under Nityamani Dasya who sued the defendants Erfen Bibi, Asirennessa Bibi, Chandjan Bibi who are her tenants and whose names are alleged to be recorded in the sherista of Nityamani for arrears of rent in respect of the said holding, obtained a decree in that rent suit (No. 1217 of 1919) and executed the same in Rent Execution Case No. 474 of 1922; the plaintiff purchased the holding in execution of the said decree on 12th September 1922; the defendants were living on the disputed land by the erection of huts and in Falgun 1329 the plaintiff called on them to give up possession of the land by removing the huts therefrom but the defendan...
Khatemannessa Bibi Vs. Upendra Chandra Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal804
B.B. Ghose, J.1. In this appeal a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondents that no appeal lies as the order of the Subordinate Judge was an interlocutory one. This question is settled by the decision of the Privy Council in Bhup Indar Bahadur Singh v. Bijai Bahadur Singh [1901] 23 All. 152, where their Lordships held that an order limiting the right of the decree-holder to recover mesne profits for a certain period is of the nature of a final decree as defined in Section 2, Civil P.C., and is appealable, as such. A second, preliminary objection has been taken that after the order of the Subordinate Judge and subsequent to the appeal of the decree-holder preferred to this Court the Subordinate Judge required the decree-holder to put in the commissioner's fees for making enquiry according to the terms of his order. The decree-holder tailed to put in the money and, therefore, the execution case was dismissed. As, the execution case has been dismissed this appeal is inc...
Sambhu Nath Bandopadhya Vs. Gopi Lal Seal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal734,121Ind.Cas.367
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an application that a memorandum of appeal be accepted and registered, the memorandum having been rejected by the office as being out of time. It appears that the decree was pronounced on 16th May 1928 in favour of the plaintiff. Now, on the next day, the plaintiff filed a requisition for drawing up the decree, so that the appellant defendant never became entitled or obliged to exercise the right of putting in another requisition for drawing up the decree. The right accrues to him only if the plaintiff for four days omits to file the requisition for drawing up the decree. The requisition for drawing up the decree having been filed on 17th May the drawing up of the decree proceeded in the ordinary course, with this exception that although the draft decree was issued on 22nd May 1928, the appellant did not return it approved until 5th June 1928. On 5th June, the defendant, for the first time, filed a requisition for obtaining an office copy of the decree. As to tha...
Bhairab Chandra Sinha Vs. Kalidhan Roy Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal736
ORDERMitter, J.1. The petitioner in these two rules applied to set aside two sales of certain properties under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. In one of the rules the property in question was sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent, obtained by decree-holder opposite party for Rs. 73 and odd. The value of this property was found by the Munsif to be As. 1,600. The decree-holder was the auction purchaser. The property in question in the other rule was sold for As. 32 and odd and the value of the said property was found by the Munsif to be Rs. 386 and odd. The purchaser in this case also was the decree-holder in a suit for arrears of rent. The petitioner alleged non-service of sale proclamation and suppression of all processes in connexion with the same and fraud and material irregularity in conducting and publishing the sales. The petitioner applied within 30 days from the date on which he first came to know of the sales. The Munsif held that there was no evidence worth the name ...
Chhatto Lal Misser and Co. Vs. Naraindas Baijnath Prasad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Cal53
Remfry, J.1. This is a proceeding under Order 21, Rule 50(2), in which the plaintiff firm, having obtained a decree against a firm in its firm name, seeks to make one Bhagwatdas liable under that decree, on the allegation that he is a partner in the said firm.2. Bhagwatdas was served with a summons in the suit and entered appearance under protest, stating that lie was not a partner in the firm and was a ward under the Court of Wards of the United Provinces. The decree was made in his absence, for, according to the practice of this Court, he could not appear to contest the liability of the firm unless he admitted that he was a partner.3. He now seeks to defend this proceeding on two grounds, first, that he is a ward under the United Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1912, and that this Court is not competent to hear a case against him, or to decree it unless the provisions of that Act have been observed, and, secondly, that he was not a partner in the defendant firm.4. A preliminary objecti...
Nil Kanta Ghosal Vs. Ram Chand Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal835,114Ind.Cas.495
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by one Nilkanta Ghosal who sought to execute a decree against the respondents which was obtained by his deceased wife Kanchan Barani Debi. The lady brought the suit against the respondents in which the decree was obtained, and it appears that the respondents took the plea that the lady was the benamidar of the present appellant. In that suit the appellant evidently for the purpose of preventing the suit being dismissed on the ground of its being brought by a benamidar (as the law then understood was that a benamidar could not sue for recovery of possession of landed property) gave evidence that the lady was the real owner. Kanchan Barani died after having left a will and in her will she stated that the property in question was her husband's property and as she had no interest in it her heirs would not succeed to it. After her death her husband as executor of the will of Kanchan Barani took out probate. He applied for execution of the decree on the all...
Emperor Vs. Kisori Mohan Chaudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal853,114Ind.Cas.96
1. In this matter three pleaders of Rajshahi Judge's Court have been called upon under Section 13, Legal Practitioners Act to show cause why they should not be dealt with under Section 14 of the Act. We have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and Mr. A.N. Choudhury, counsel, who appeared on behalf of the pleaders. In the present case we do not propose to pass any sentence or take any action under Section 11, Lagal Practitioners Act, our reasons being first, that no untoward result followed from the act of the pleaders as has been admitted by the learned District Magistrate. The work of the Court was not hampered and it appears that the notice or manifesto signed by the pleaders did not have any appreciable effect in the locality. The learned Magistrate was willing to drop the proceedings if the pleaders admitted that their action had been wrong and he has referred this matter to us for the purpose of vindicating the principle involved; secondly, there is no evidence of the pub...
Chhattoo Lal Misser and Company Vs. Naraindas Baijnath Prasad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1928
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.403
Remfry, J.1. This is a proceeding under Order XXI, Rule 50 (2), in which the plaintiff firm, having obtained a decree against a firm in its firm name, seeks to make one Bhagwatdas liable under that decree, on the allegation that he is a partner in the said firm.2. Bhagwatdas was served with a summons in the suit and entered appearance under protest, seating that he was not a partner in the firm and was a ward under the Court of Wards of the United Provinces. The decree was made in hia absence, for, according to the practice of this Court, he could not appear to contest the liability of the firm unless he admitted that he was a partner.3. He now seeks to defend this proceeding on two grounds, first that he is a ward under the United Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1912, and that this Court is not competent to hear a case against him or to decree it unless the provisions of that Act have been observed and, secondly, that he was not a partner in the defendant firm.4. A preliminary objection...
Etraj Mandal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal879
ORDER1. The complaint that is made in this case is that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of adducing evidence under Section 137, Criminal P.C. We have examined the record and it appears to us that the position was this. A conditional order was made under Section 133, Criminal P.C. The opposite party, who is represented by Mr. Chatterji, appeared before the Magistrate and denied the existence of any public right in respect of the water course in question. Thereupon the Magistrate directed him to adduce evidence in support of his case. The petitioner urges that he understood that he was to adduce evidence in support 0f his case relevant to an enquiry under Section 137-A and that not until the enquir under Section 139 A was concluded could he be expected or required to produce evidence relevant to an enquiry under Section 137. As far as the sections go, the petitoner would seem to be right in his conetention. In that view of the matter, inasmuch as no specific opportunity wa...