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.
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Jnanendra Nath Gh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal747
Mukerji, J.1. Accused 1 Jnanendra Nath Ghosh alias Jnan Ghosh was convicted under Section 493, I.P.C., and sentenced to be detained till the rising of of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and accused 2 was convicted under Sections 493/ 109, I. P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. They were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid by an Additional Sessions Judge of the 24-Parganas on 5th June 1928. The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs then moved this Court for enhancement of the sentences passed upon the said two accused persons and originally the rule was issued as against both of them to show cause why their sentences should not be enhanced. Subsequently it was mentioned to the Court that accused 2 could not be found and upon that the rule as against accused 1 only was allowed to be proceeded with. It has now been heard by us in so far ...
Radha Krishna Gupta Vs. Jamunadas Fatepuria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1929
Reported in: 120Ind.Cas.250
Mukerji, J.(January 7, 1929).1. The petitioner Radha Krishna Gupta alias Radha Krishna Byas was tried by the 3rd Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta along with another person for offences under Sections 381 and 411, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate acquitted him of the said offences but convicted him under Section 54-A. of the Calcutta Police Act IV (B. C.) of 1866 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. He has also made an order that a fixed deposit receipt and a cash certificate which were found in the possession of the petitioner be made over to the complainant.2. The prosecution case was that the petitioner was a writer of accounts in the complainant's firm, that the petitioner had abstracted a blank but signed cheque form from the cheque book of the firm, filled it up for Rs. 9,500, and cashed it and misappropriated the money. The charges frame against the petitioner were the following:First. A charge under Section 381, Indian Penal Code, in respect...
Sashi Bhusan Choudhury and ors. Vs. Debendra Gati Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal59
Suhrawardy, J.1. This rule has been issued on the ground that Section 145, Criminal P.C., does not apply in this case. The dispute is with regard to a complete bund on the south west of the Rainagar Bil measuring about 40 feet in length with a top of about 4 cubits. Mr. Sanyal on behalf of the petitioners argues that the right claimed by his clients (the first party) is a right of easement or a right in the nature of an easement. The first party, he says, admits the land under the bund belongs to the second party but they claimed the right to put up a bund over the land of the second party to avoid overflow of water into, their land. The case as it was tried before the Deputy Magistrate was not what it is now attempted to be. The subject matter of the dispute there was a complete bund then in existence.2. The first party claimed that the bund was theirs and that they had the right to repair it from time'immemorial. The-second party's case was that the bund was recently erected on their...
Chowdhury T.C. and Bros. Vs. Girindra Mohan Neogi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal10
Page, J.1. I have taken time to consider this case which is not free from difficulty. In May 1927, defendant 1 purchased from the plaintiffs a quantity of corrugated iron sheets for the sum of Rs. 6,689-11-6. The defendant Neogi forthwith paid Rs. 250, part of the price, and instructed the plaintiffs to forward the goods by rail to Khulna. The goods were duly sent to Khulna in two consignments: on 1st June and 8th June 1.927. On 6th June, the plaintiffs, by letter, gave the following instructions to the defendant bank in respect of the first consignment:No. 1883.Calcutta, 6th June 1027.ToThe Manager,National Bank of India Ltd.,Calcutta.Dear Sir,We beg to request you to be good enough to realize the amount of Rs. 2,675-10-6 from our dealer Mr. G.M. Neogi of Khulna through the Khulna Union Bank, Limited, as advised by him, against railway receipt No. 171 of 1st June 1927, as usual.We are enclosing herewith the abovementioned railway receipt, our bill No. 5342 in duplicate and demand draf...
Harasit Golder and ors. Vs. Jaladhar Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal15,121Ind.Cas.407
Mitter, J.1. The relevant facts necessary for deciding the question of. limitation which falls for determination in this appeal may be briefly stated thus : Rati Kanta (the predecessor-in-interest of defendants 1 to 5) and Shambhu (the predecessor-in-interest of defendants 7 to 11) mortgaged the disputed lands to the father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the year 1300 B.S. Rati Kanta and Budhai executed another mortgage in favour of plaintiff 1 in the year 1304 B.S. Plaintiff's father brought a suit on the first mortgage on 12th April 1906 obtained a decree on 24th June 1907 and purchased the mortgaged property on 18th July 1907 in execution of the decree. The sale was confirmed on 7th October 1909 and there was formal delivery of possession on 19th July 1910. During the pendency of the suit on the mortgage Rati Kanta and Budhai executed a mortgage in favour of defendants 12 to 14 and the mortgagees defendants 12 to 14 entered into possession. This mortgage of 1313 was fully paid off. The pl...
Khondkar Mahomed Saleh and ors. Vs. Chandra Kumar Mukerji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal34
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the original defendant mortgagor in a suit brought on a mortgage which was executed in 1902 in favour of the father of the present respondent one Aswini Kumar Mukerji. The due date under 'the bond for payment of the mortgage money was 12th April 1904. The original mortgagee died in December 1905, leaving his son the present respondent his only heir who was then a minor. A suit was brought on the mortgage in 1906 and a preliminary decree was passed on 30th November 1906. An order absolute was made under the repealed provisions of the Transfer of Property Act on 7th January 1907. In the suit the plaintiff who was represented by his guardian ad litem prayed, amongst other things, that in case the entire amount of the mortgage be not fully satisfied by the sale of the mortgaged properties, then the balance might be realized from the defendant's other moveables and immovables as well as from his person. According to the usual practice then prevailing, t...
Tota Meah Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal298
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case ten persons were put upon their trial in connexion with a riot of a familiar type. The complainant Nidon Nath makes the case that on 6th November, 1927, he and certain relations went to cut paddy from plot 273 when the accused armed with lathis (except Mahatab who had a pointed mooli and accused 1 Tota Meah Chowdhury who was carrying a stick) came and objected to the cutting of the paddy. The case is that after the accused Yakub had seized the sickle from Nidon and Moizuddin had seized the sickle from another person of the complainant's party they began beating Nidon ; that one Pachikul Huq or Pachu came up and reproved the accused ; whereupon Tota Meah Chowdhury, accused 1. who was coming up from the rear ordered his son Mahatab, accused 2, to kill Pachu ; and that thereupon Mahatab drove the mooli he held into the stomach of Pachu near the navel, in consequence of which injury the man afterwards died.2. It appears that there had been litigation between the...
Shyama Charan Chattopadhaya Vs. Sricharan Chattopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal337
Mitter, J.1. The substantial question of law raised by this appeal is whether under the Bengal School of Hindu Law a person who has inherited the property of his father on the latter's death is divested of that inheritance by his being subsequently adopted by his paternal uncle. The appellant contends that he is so divested, on the other hand the respondent contends that the is not. Both the Courts below have given effect to the contention of the respondent. The question in this appeal is whether those decisions are right.2. The relevant facts on which the question of law depends are not now in dispute. They may briefly be stated thus : Govinda Chatterjee and Prosanna Chatterjee were two brothers' governed by the Bengal School of Hindu law. Govinda granted a lease to his brother of certain lands which constituted a tenure. These lands belonged exclusively in proprietary right to Govinda who died in the year 1883. Govinda left behind him two sons Shyamacharan (plaintiff, now appellant) ...
Suruj Mian Vs. D. Tullock
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal632
Graham, J.1. This rule was issued in connexion with certain proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C. in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer of Habiganj in the District of Sylhet. Those proceedings related to a large tract of land comprising about 11000 acres, part of which consisted of tea gardens and part of forest lands. Two parties claimed possession of these lands, namely, the Baraoora Tea Co. through Mr D, Tullock of Rashidpur Tea Estate, first party, and one Suruj Mean alias Abdul Rahaman Choudhury and 27 other persons being the second party. Included among the second party there were some Tipras and the present rule was issued in the interest of five of those tipras. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate made a very elaborate and careful enquiry and on a consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that the first party was in possession of the disputed land and made an order accordingly. Thereafter some of the second party moved the Sessions Ju...
Bodardoja and ors. Vs. AjijuddIn Sircar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal651
1. This appeal has arisen out of suit which was instituted by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession on ejectment of the defendants. The trial Court decreed the suit on contest as against some of the defendants and ex parte against the others. It declared the plaintiffs' title to the land and directed that they would recover khas possession on evicting the defendants therefrom. The defendants thereupon preferred an appeal. The learned Subordinate Judge who dealt with that appeal dismissed the plaintiffs' claim holding, that although he found in favour of the plaintiffs on the merits, the decree of the trial Court was to be reversed and the suit dismissed on the ground that notices under Section 106, T.P. Act, were neither sufficient nor properly served.2. The plaintiffs have then preferred this second appeal and on their behalf the findings of the Subordinate Judge, both on the question of sufficiency of the notices as also on the question of their service, have been challenged in t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »