Kolkata Court November 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.
Meherulla Vs. Sariatulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal596
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The plaintiff opposite party brought a suit against the petitioner in the 3rd Court of the Munsif at Habiganj, exercising Small Cause Court powers, for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 100 with damages. The plaintiff's case was that he had executed a bail bond for Rs. 100 for the release of the petitioner from custody in a criminal case in which the latter was an accused and that the plaintiff had to pay the amount as the bail bond was forfeited on account of the laches of the petitioner. The defence inter alia was that the plaintiff was not legally entitled to recover the amount. The trial Court decreed the suit. Against that order the petitioner has obtained the present rule.2. The trial Court has proceeded upon the view that there was an implied contract by the defendant to indemnify the plaintiff upon the bail bond. It is pointed out on the other side that the bail bond itself is not on the record. But I take it that it was properly proved, otherwise it takes away th...
Mahammad Mahmud Choudhry and ors. Vs. Behary Lal Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal463,129Ind.Cas.408
1. This appeal has been preferred from an order of remand passed by the First Additional District Judge of Sylhet. The fasts necessary to be set out for the purposes of the present appeal are these:The appellants were the plaintiffs in a suit for money in which there were originally three defendants. The defendants filed a joint defence taking various objections to the claim, one of them being that the amount claimed by the plaintiff's had been already paid back to them. When the suit was pending in the trial Court one of these defendants died leaving two minor sons as his heirs and thereupon the said two minors were substituted as defendants in the place of their deceased father and a pleader of the Court was appointed as their, guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem appointed a3 aforesaid entered appearance in this suit and filed a petition on 22nd June 1928 adopting the original defence of the defendants as the defence of the minors who had been substituted. On the same day after ...
Emperor Vs. Dinbandhu Ooriya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal199
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by Dinabandhu Uriya who has been convicted of murder under Section 302, I.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge of the 24 Parganas in agreement with the unanimous verdict of nine gentlemen of the jury for causing the death of a Brahmin youth named Kartik Chunder Mukerjee, aged about 25/26 years. He has also been convicted under Section 326, I.P.C. of causing grievous hurt by a sharp cutting weapon on one Rajabala a woman of the suburbs of Behala. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the sentence of death on -him on the charge under Section 302. He has further sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years under Section 326 which is to be operative until the sentence of death passed by him is confirmed by this Court. The-matter has also come before us by way of reference by the Additional Sessions; Judge under Section 374, Criminal P.C.2. On behalf of the prisoner it does not appear that any very serious criticizm has been ma...
Emperor Vs. Dinabandhu Ooriya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1929
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.818
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by Dinabandhu Uriya who has been convicted of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, by the Additional Sessions Judge of the 24-Parganas in agreement with the unanimous verdict of nine gentlemen of the Jury for causing the death of a Brahmin youth named Kartik Chunder Mukerji, aged about 25-26 years. He has also been convicted under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, of causing grievous hurt by a sharp cutting weapon on one Rajabala a woman of the suburbs of Behala. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the sentence of death on him on the charge under Section 302. He has further sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years under Section 326 which is to be operative until the sentence of death passed by him is confirmed by this Court. The matter has also come before us by way of reference by the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 374, Criminal Procedure Code.2. On behalf of the prisoner it does not appear that any ve...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›