Kolkata Court January 1929 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.
Hem Chandra Chakravarti and ors. Vs. Sarabala Datta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal265,121Ind.Cas.747
Mallik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the order of the Collector of Backerganj, dated 1st November 1920, for refund of a certain amount of money deposited by the defendants as costs of the separation and partition of certain estates, is without jurisdiction, illegal and invalid and, therefore, liable to be set aside and also for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the said defendants from withdrawing the money from the Backerganj Collectorate.2. The allegations on which the plaintiffs brought the suit were briefly these : 5 estates, bearing touzi Nos. 1744, 1751, 3563, 5566, 6100 of the Backerganj Collectorate, originally belonged to two brothers, Radhakanta Sen and Krishnaram Sen. These estates have common lands. Radhakanta's share is known as 'Barha Hisya' and it comprises estates Nos. 1751, 3566 and eight annas of 6100, while the share of Krishnaram comprises estates Nos. 1744, 3563 and the remaining half of the estate No. 6100. Defendants ...
Satya Ranjan Bakshi and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal277,121Ind.Cas.749
Graham, J.1. The appellants, Satya Ranjan Bakshi and Pulin Bihari Dhar, Editor, and Printer of the newspaper 'Forward' which is printed in English and published in Calcutta, have been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta under Section 124-A, I.P.C., and sentenced to terms of six months and three months simple imprisonment respectively. They were prosecuted in connexion with an article entitled 'The Uninformed' which appeared in that paper on 1st December last. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate found that the article taken as a whole clearly refers to the Government established by law, that the words 'imperial bullies' occurring therein refer to that Government and not to the police, and that the entire article was clearly intended to be an attack upon Government, that it was calculated and intended to bring Government into hatred and contempt, and to excite disaffection towards it. He further found that it did not come within any of the exceptions to Section 1...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Biswambhar BrahmI ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal633
Suhrawardy, J.1. This rule has been issued on the application of the crown against an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta discharging the accused persons under Section 253, Criminal P.C. The facts are that on 10th January 1928 one Gulzari Mull Thakur laid a complaint before the Chief Presidency Magistrate against the accused in respect of offences under Sections 380, 411 and 403, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate ordered the Deputy Commissioner of the Detective Department for enquiry into the matter. On 10th February the police produced the two accused under arrest before the Magistrate who remanded them to hajut. On 13th February 1928 the police submitted charge-sheet against the two accused. It appears from the charge sheet that accused 1 was charged under Section 380 for stealing a deed of conveyance or in the alternative for dishonestly retaining it in his possession. The first accused was further charged with an offence under Section 471 for fraudulently and dishonest...
Abdur Rahman Bhuia and ors. Vs. Dinesh Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal328,122Ind.Cas.296
Suhrawardy, J.1. In this case a rule has been issued on two grounds:(1) that Clause 5 Section 145, Criminal P.C., has no application at that stage of the proceeding when both parties had filed their written statements and the learned Magistrate was enquiring into the question of possession ; (2) that the order complained of was illegal and without jurisdiction having been made behind the back of the petitioners and without giving them any opportunity of being heard and adducing their evidence.2. The Magistrate after starting proceedings under Section 145, dropped them subsequently as it appeared to him from police report that likelihood of the breach of the peace no longer existed.3. As regards the first ground it is argued that Cl (5) to Section 145, applies only to the stage of the proceeding before written statements are filed by parties and that, after they have been put in the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to stay his hand but that he is bound in law to decide the case on the que...
Abdur Rashid and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal343,122Ind.Cas.194
Suhrawardy, J.1. This rule has been issued on two grounds: (1) that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge discharging the jury and directing a fresh trial of the petitioners is wrong and should be set aside; and (2) why the case should not be transferred from Noakhali to Comilla.2. As regards the first ground the facts are that the trial went on for a long time and the argument on behalf of the defence was finished and while the Public Prosecutor was arguing on behalf of the Grown an application was filed by the Public Prosecutor for discharging the jury. The facts mentioned in the application were that one of the jurors had called at the house of the Public Prosecutor and that two others were seen talking to a person belonging to the accused party. The application was supported by affidavits and the learned Additional Sessions Judge thereupon examined the pleader Babu Ashutosh Mukherjee and a juror M. Abdul Khaleque. He did not institute a searching enquiry but after examining th...
In Re: Bilasroy Serowgee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal528,121Ind.Cas.635
Lort-Williams, J.1. In my opinion Section 132(1), Civil P.C. does not apply to examinations under Section 36(1), Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and that the Court in a suitable case may summon before it a purdanashin lady who is known or suspected to have in her possession any property belonging to the insolvent. Section 37 gives the Court power, if it thinks fit, instead of summoning such a purdanashin lady to Court, to issue commissions or letters of request. That power is discretionary. Further, I am of opinion that the correct meaning of Section 132(1), Civil P.C. that a lady who according to the customs and manners of this country ought not to be compelled to appear in public shall be exempt from personal appearance in Court that is, from being exposed to the public gaze, such a person is exempt not from attendance in Court but from appearance in Court. I think 'appearance' means that she shall not be compelled to come forth into view or become visible to the public gaze. A metho...
G.V. Raman Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal319,121Ind.Cas.678
Mitter, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate by which he allowed the Public Prosecutor to withdraw a criminal prosecution pending against Bijoy Bhusan Bose and further allowed him to be examined as a witness. The order discharging Bijoy was made under Section 494, Criminal P.C. It appears that the said Bijoy Bhusan Bose along with several others including Raman who is the petitioner before this Court was sent up to take his trial on a charge of conspiracy to cheat under Section 120-B read with Section 420, I.P.C. On 20th December 1928 before any evidence was gone into the Public Prosecutor wanted to withdraw the case against Bijoy and to examine him as a witness against the petitioner Raman. This prayer of the Public Prosecutor was allowed, Bijoy was discharged and he was subsequently examined for the prosecution.2. It is contended in this rule: (i) that the order of withdrawal is bad in law as no reasons have been given by the Chief Presidency...
Muhammad Gul Vs. Hazi Fazley Karim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal346,122Ind.Cas.205
Mukerji, J.1. The petitioner Mohammad Gul has been convicted by the third Presidency Magistrate, Northern Division, Calcutta, under Section 500, I.P.C, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, the fine to be paid to the complainant as compensation. The subject matter of the defamation was contained in a petition which the petitioner filed in the court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, on 22nd March 1928. It was a petition against four persons namely the opposite party Hazi Fazle Karim, one Golam Nabi, one Shamsuddin and one Abdur Rashid. It ran in these words:The petitioner is a merchant in a leather goods and is on inimical terms with the defendants above named over a landed property in their native District in Punjab. In order to bring your petitioner's party to terms the accused persons caused the petitioner to be implicated in several false cases:(1) A cocaine ease in Burdwan in which the petitioner was...
Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal230,121Ind.Cas.737
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society, Limited, which will henceforth be called the society, against the award made by the Tribunal under the Calcutta Improvement Act for acquisition of a plot of land, about 10 bighas 17 cottas in area, on account of the Trust. The society were claimants No. 1 and other persons were also parties as persons interested before the Collector. The declaration was made on 17th November 1920. The society, it appears, had acquired a tract of land about 162 bighas in area by several conveyances between the year 1917 and May 1919. They proposed to sell the land in small plots to different persons as building sites by driving roads through the land and make a profit by their scheme. A map was prepared by the society to show the manner in which the land should be disposed of. The Collector made an award of Rs. 32,000 odd plus the statutory allowance, and he made an apportionment by giving shares of the compensation to ...
(Shebait) Hari Prosanna Barman Vs. Nishapati Sai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal366
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has been preferred from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan affirming on appeal the decree passed by the Munsiff,, 4th Court, Burdwan. The appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The plaintiff instituted the suit for rent for recovery of paddy rent for two years, namely, 1330 and 1331 at the rate of two maps one sali of paddy per annum with cesses and damages. The suit was instituted on the allegation that the defendant's tenancy consisted of two plots of land. The defence set up was that of the two plots, -- Nos. 1 and 2 mentioned in the plaint, No. 2 did not form a part of the tenancy but a different plot of which the plaintiff was in possession of a part of it instead, and so the rent should be suspended. It was also pleaded on behalf of the defence that under an arrangement between the parties the defendant was in possession of plot 1 only for which he had to pay only half the rent. The trial Court held that plot 2 of the plaint did not appertain ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »