Kolkata Court February 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.
Kamini Kumar Chakravarty Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal390
Suhrawrady, J.1. This rule was issued on three grounds. The first is that the conviction is not sustainable in view of the fact that the evidence in respect of which the petitioner was prosecuted was not read over to him according to law. The facts are that the petitioner was a witness in a case and was examined-in-chief on 18th November 1927 and his deposition was read over to him by the Peshkar of the Sub-Deputy Magistrate before whom he gave his evidence while another witness was in the box. He was cross-examined on 9th December 1927 and the Magistrate read over the whole of the deposition including his examination-in-chief on that day. There is a note recorded under the deposition of both days that it was read over to the petitioner and admitted by him. The petitioner was charged with making contradictory statements in examination-in-chief and in cross-examination. The objection on the ground that the examination-in-chief of the petitioner was read over to him by the Peshkar on 18t...
Kamini Kumar Chuckerbutty Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.209
Zahhadur Rah Zahid Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule was issued on three grounds. The first is that the conviction is not sustainable in view of the fact that the evidence in respect of which the petitioner was prosecuted was not read over to him according to law. The facts are that the petitioner was a witness in a case and was examined-in-chief on the 18th November, 1927, and his deposition was read over to him by the peshkar of the Sub-Deputy Magistrate before whom he gave his evidence while another witness was in the box, He was cross-examined on the 9th December, 1929, and the Magistrate read over the whole of the deposition including his examination in-chief on that day. There is a note recorded under the deposition of both days that it was 'read over to the petitioner and admitted by him.' The petitioner was charged with making contradictory statements in examination-in-chief and in cross-examination. The objection on the ground that the examination-in-chief of the petitioner was read ...
Hamid Ali Haldar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal320
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case when the trial had proceeded to the end of the learned Judge's charge to the jury, the jury considered their verdict. There were eleven accused and the foreman read out the names of those eleven people and said that the jury found them all guilty under Section 147, I.P.C. So far as the learned Judge is concerned, the foreman was then heard to read out the names of five of those accused and to say that the jury found them guilty under Section 364 and to go on to say that the others were not guilty under that section. Thereupon, the learned Judge recorded that as their verdict. He typed out a little judgment and sentence on that basis and he read it out in Court, when, to his astonishment, the foreman said:No that is not what we said. What we said was that these five people were guilty under Section 364, but we gave them the benefit of the doubt.2. Thereupon, the learned Judge has, 1 think, exercised a most admirable discretion. He recharged the jury, telling ...
Sitanath Bhadra Vs. Jatindra Nath Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal347
B.B. Ghose, J.1. In this case, the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal decided quite rightly that the suit was properly brought in the Court of Gopalganj, within the jurisdiction of which the defendant had a permanent residence. This is in accordance with Expln. 1, Section 20, Civil P.C. The mere fact that he carries on a business in Calcutta and lives there with his family does not oust the jurisdiction of the Gopalganj Court. This rule must, therefore, be discharged with costs: one gold mohur....
Kali Kumar Poddar Banikya Vs. Pranballav Banikya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal432
B.B. Ghose, J.1. In this case, it seems, mat the rule was granted on the ground that the defendant himself in his deposition stated that he paid Rs. 25 in liquidation of his debt in 1332 B.S. If the. period of limitation counts from that date, the suit would be within time.. The learned Judge, however, stated in his judgment that the plaintiff's son's-marriage took place in Jaistha 1331 when the sum of Rs. 25 was paid. There is nothing in the recorded evidence of the defendant to that effect. But it must have been stated by the defendant that the money was paid at the time of his son's marriage. In taking down the deposition, the learned Judge probably made a mistake in writing 1332 in place of 1331. But that does not appear to be material now. The principal point argued on behalf of the opposite party is that no stipulation for interest was made in the hatchitta. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 25 must have been paid in the part-payment of the principal. That being so, limitation cannot run...
Adaitya Dass Vs. Prem Chand Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal369
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This rule was granted at the instance of the defendant who has been made liable for Rs. 37 and odd as damages for what has been called a breach of contract. The ease is somewhat peculiar. The plaintiff's allegation was that he asked the defendant to bring a Thakur to his house on a certain date for a festival. He had made arrangements for Bhog and feeding of guests. The defendant promised to bring the Thakur to his house on that date but failed to do so. Thereupon, the guests who had arrived did not partake of the food prepared by the plaintiff and went away. This caused loss to the plaintiff and the plaintiff, therefore, sued the defendant for damages The learned Small Cause Court Judge allowed half of the claim made by the plaintiff, because he thought that no satisfactory evidence had been given as to the amount of the loss incurred by him on account of the defendant's failure to bring the Thakur. It is not necessary for the purpose of.this case to decide who the re...
Mahendra Nath Das and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal428
Suhrawardy, J.1. This rule has been obtained for setting aside an order passed by the Magistrate committing the accused to the Sessions to take their trial for various offences mentioned in the order. The Magistrate took cognizance of the ease of a complaint by the Munsiff of Contain under Section 476, Criminal P.C. It appears that on the application of the opposite party the Munsiff made an order under Section 476, Criminal P.C. Against that order an appeal was taken by the petitioner to the District Judge under Section 476-B and the learned Judge by his order dated 28th May 1928, held that the order made by the Munsif under Section 476 was otherwise good except that it was vague inasmuch as it cantained a few sections of the Penal Code and 'any other section of that Code found applicable.' He accordingly sent the case back to the Munsif and directed him to specify all the sections of the Penal Code in his complaint under Section 476, Criminal P. C, The Munsif accordingly made a compl...
Khitish Chandra Chatterjee and anr. Vs. Nagendra Nath Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal513
B.B. Ghose, J.1. In this case the learned Munsif has clearly refused jurisdiction in not entertaining the application for review under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C, and in holding that the petition was not maintainable. The application was made for review of the order on the ground that fraud was praatised upon the petitioner. It has been held in the case of Aushootosh Chandra v. Tara Prasanna Roy [1884] 10 Cal. 612 that in such a case as this:there are two available modes of prcedure for setting aside a decree on the ground of fraud; (1) by suit and (2) by a review of the judgment sought to be set aside, and the latter is the more regular mode of procedure.2. That was laid down in 1881 by Mr. Justice Wilson. This case has been followed by Chief Justice Maclean in 1905 in the case of Ram Gopal Mazumdar v. Prasanna Kumar Sanyal [1905] 2 C.L.J. 508. The law as understood by this Court has been uniform during all these years. Of course, if the plaintiff pursued one remedy, he cannot, being...
Kshitish Chandra Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Nagendra Nath Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.371
B.B. Ghose, J.1. In this case the learned Munsif has clearly refused jurisdiction in not entertaining the application for review under Order XLVII, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, and in holding that the petition was not maintainable. The application was made for review of the order on the ground that fraud was practised upon the petitioner. It has been held in the case of Aushootosh Chandra v. Prasanna Roy 10 C. 612 that in such a case as this 'there are two available modes of procedure for setting aside a decree on the ground of fraud: (1) by suit, and (2) by a review of the judgment sought to beset aside and the latter is the more regular mode of procedure.' That was laid down in 1834 by Mr. Justice Wilson. This case has been followed by Chief Justice Maclean in 1905 in the case of Ram Gopal Mazumdar v. Prasanna Kumar Sanyal 2 C.L.J. 508 : 10 C.W.N. 529. The law understood by this Court has been uniform during all these years. Of course if the plaintiff pursued one remedy, he cannot b...
Kalikumar Poddar Banikya Vs. Pranballav Banikya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.294
B.B. Ghose, J.1. In this case, it seems that the Rule was granted on the ground that the defendant himself in his deposition stated that he paid Rs. 25 in liquidation of his debt in 1332 B.S. If the period of limitation counts from that date, the suit would be within time. The learned Judge, however, stated in his judgment that the plaintiff's son's marriage took place in Jaistha, 1331, when the sum of Rs. 25 was paid. There is nothing in the recorded evidence of the defendant to that effect. But it must have been stated by the defendant that the money was paid at the time of his son's marriage. In taking down the deposition, the learned Judge probably made a mistake in writing 1332 in place of 1331. But that does not appear to be material now. The principal point argued on behalf of the opposite party is that no stipulation for interest was made in the hatchitta. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 25 must have been paid in the part payment of the principal. That being so, limitation cannot run...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »