Kolkata Court December 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.
Kartick Chandra Biswas and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal278
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This rule must be-discharged for the following reasons.2. This rule was issued by my learned brothers Mitter, J., and S.K. Ghose, J., on 30th September 1929, on the application of three persons, viz., Kartick Chandra biswas, Bisheswar Biswas and Bhubaneswar Biswas. The matter of the application on which that rule was issued came up before this Court on a previous occasion in a slightly different form and in order to understand and appreciate the order that we propose to make, it is necessary to set out briefly, the circumstances giving rise to the present application.3. In the year 1927 there were two criminal cases in which the petitioners or some of them were one of the parties and one Ramkrishna Saha or his men were the other party. These cases ended in a compromise and the result was that the proceedings in those cases terminated on 28th July 1927. In those proceedings a certified copy of a municipal plan had been filed on behalf of the said Ramkrishna Saha. This c...
Jabanullah and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal434
Suhrawardy, J.1. In this case the appellants who are 18 in number were tried along with another accused on various charges which are too numerous to mention. They were convicted by the unanimous verdict of the jury and sentenced to different terms of imprisonment by the Judge. The accused who has not appealed before us was sentenced to pay a fine which has been paid. There are various grounds taken before us on behalf of the appellants, but it is necessary to refer to a few of them in order to show that the trial has not been conducted in the way in which it should have been. The first is with regard be the changes framed against the accused. There were 11 charges framed in this case and each accused was charged with not less than eight of the offences covered by some of the charges. The charges were under Sections 304, 147, 148, 323, 324, 304/149, 304/109, 323/109, 324/109, 304/114 and 147/114. This impressive array of charges is enough to confuse any jury.2. The case for the prosecut...
Kajora Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1931Cal33
Graham, J.1. This rule was granted at the instances of the petitioner, the Kajora Coal Company, to show cause why a decree of the Small Cause Court Judge of Sealdah, directing payment by the said company of a sum Rs. 708-15-0, with costs to opposite party 1, the Secretary of State for India, being the amount of freight alleged to be due on account of certain consignments of coal, should not be set aside. The facts shortly stated are as follows:2. The Kajora Coal Company was in the habit of sending consignments of coal to the New Eastern Coal Agency, Ltd., at the latter's depot No. 20 at Sealdah Railway Station. It was not apparently disputed at the trial that nine such consignments were despatched, nor does it seem to have been seriously disputed that the freight was not paid. Where the parties joined issue was that the petitioner the Kajora Coal Company claimed that the coal was despatched under 'to pay' invoices, and that the freight was payable, not by that company, but by the consi...
Amrita Lal Baisya and ors. Vs. Pratap Chand Chakrabarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1931Cal144
1. So much of the pleadings as is necessary to be set out for the purpose of this appeal is given below,2. Fourteen annas share of village Chand-goan appertaining to estate No. 107 of the Collectorate of Mymensingh belonged to one Bilashi Debya, and on her death devolved on her two sons Parbati Sankar and Kali Sankar in equal shares. In batwara proceedings between the two brothers, a part of the said village was allotted to Kali Sankar as Taluk No. 13164 and the part that was allotted to Parbati Sankar became Taluk No. 13165. The two brothers got possession of their respective sahams on 28th March 1907. So far the parties are not in dispute as to the facts.3. The plaintiffs' case is that Kali Sankar while in separate possession of Taluk No. 13164 died in Jaistha 1316 B. S. (May 1909) leaving his widow the plain' tiff 1, Jagatrani, and . a minor son and also a daughter; that shortly thereafter the minor son died leaving plaintiff 1 as his heir; that plaintiff 1 lived a long way off from...
Jahar Lal Saha Vs. Sm. Lalita Sundari Dasi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal454
Rankin, C.J.1. In my judgment, this Rule must be discharged. The order complained of is an order refusing rateable distribution under Section 73 of the Code to the applicant decree-holder in the following circumstances. It appears that the applicant obtained a money decree against one Narrottam Dasi in respect of money which he had lent to Krishna Lal Mallik, her husband in his lifetime. Against the widow Narottam Dasi, he obtained his decree and, Narottam Dasi having died, the opposite party 1, Srimati Lalita Sundari Dasi was substituted as her legal representative in her place for purposes of execution in terms of Section 50, Civil P.C. It appears that the opposite party 2, Rajendra Nath Adhikari Mohanta got a rent decree in respect of certain homestead lands against Srimati Lalita Sundari Dasi. The lands in question appear not to be agricultural lands but lands on which there is a house and a tank within the municipal limits of Chinsura. A sale was held under each decree and the dec...
AllauddIn Ahmed Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Monoranjan Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal511
Guha, J.1. The questions raised before us in this appeal directed against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Dacca, and arising out of an application for setting aside a sale made under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., are whether notice was given to the judgment-debtors for the purpose of supplying details in the fresh sale proclamation issued by the Court on 14th September 1925, and whether there was substantial injury to the judgment-debtors owing to inadequacy of price fetched at the sale. This Court when the case came before it, at a previous stage, by an order passed on 19bh August 1925 directed that the Subordinate Judge was to consider whether in the fresh proclamation for sale further details should be given so that the public might be informed more accurately of the nature of the mortgages on the properties to be sold, and so be in a better position to judge of the value of those properties.2. When the case went back to the Subordinate Judge ...
Harbhorsha Mahommed and anr. Vs. Jhapuran Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal665
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This matter was argued before us on Friday last and has been argued today. We have had the advantage of hearing Mr. Satindra Nath Mukherjee on behalf of the Crown. But having examined the record we are of opinion that the ease against the accused is not a clear one. The matter really depends upon this : as to whether Jhapuran Bibi had lost her right to the lawful guardianship of her minor daughter Amiran Bibi. If she has lost her right then the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt and their conviction set aside. If however she has not lost her right then the conviction and sentence must remain. Now, Mr. Mukherjee has gone into the matter and has, with great candour, admitted before us that Jhapuran Bibi had married a person who was not related to the infant within the prohibited degrees as laid down under the Mahomedan law. In other words Mr. Mukherjee admits that Jhapuran Bibi had married a person who was an outsider so far as the family were concerned. It f...
Rev. M. Bonhiem Vs. Ka Trolimon
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1931Cal1,129Ind.Cas.576
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the husband, who appears to be a resident of Holland and who was married to a Khasi girl, was deported from this country by reason of the war. He has sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Khasi and Jaintia Hills an application for divorce, which has been treated as a petition, the ground being that the wife has been living with another man for a number of years. The petitioner produced no evidence in support of the petition. But the Deputy Commissioner of Khasi and Jaintia Hills issued summons upon the wife and upon the co-respondent. He appears to have examined them and they both say that they were living together for a certain number of years during the time when the husband ' had been repatriated. There appears to be no doubt about the facts;but the procedure, as the Deputy Commissioner himself acknowledges, is irregular, to say the least of it. No evidence having been given for the petitioner, it was unnecessary for the respondent or the co-respondent to g...
Nagendra Nath Saha Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal274
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The case against the appellant is that he has infringed two trade-marks belonging to the complainant Manilal Anandji, one a white deer on a red back ground and the other composed of figures 4 and 5 on a black ground in the shape of a star on a yellow label. Both the marks were used as trade marks on packets of 'biri' sold by the complainant. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate has found that in respect of the figures on the second trademark the complainant had no monopoly but as regards the rest of the device of the second trade-mark, and as regards the first trade-mark, the prosecution case has been established. He has accordingly convicted the appellant under Section 482, I.P.C., and sentenced, him to pay fine of Rs. 500 and of Rs. 200 respectively on the two counts and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and two months respectively. In this Court it is not disputed that the complainant did not have the trade-marks as alleged by him. The ...
Mani Krishna Sen Gupta Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal379
1. We have examined the record in this case and perused the explanation submitted by the Magistrate. It appears that a warrant for the arrest of this accused was applied for on 10th October 1926, and that he was arrested on 12th October 1929. There is, therefore, no ground whatsoever for the suggestion made by the trying. Magistrate in his explanation that this accused was absconding. In our opinion, such a suggestion ought never to have been made. Further, there is no warrant whatsover for the Magistrate suggesting in his explanation that this accused's brother is a zamindar's Naiab at Kabilpur and is already trying to secure false evidence of alibi on behalf of the accused. The trying Magistrate ought to have remembered that he is not entitled to make any suggestion or representation in the explanation which he may submit in any case to the High Court of anything which is not founded on the record before him. The Magistrate is not the prosecutor. He must hold the scales evenly and a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »