Kolkata Court March 1929 Judgments
Kamal Krishna Sanyal and ors. Vs. Madhusudan Choudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal240
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of an action brought by him for damages for misappropriation of a mohua tree which stood on the land of defendant 2 and which the plaintiff had foiled for his own use. The defence of defendant 2 was that the mohua stood on his mokarari mourasi jote under the plaintiff's zamindari and he was entitled to the timber of the tree both under law and under a local custom. The Munsiff held that defendant 1 was an occupancy raiyat and was not entitled to appropriate trees without the landlord's permission and that there was no custom-overriding the general law in favour of Madhusudan and he decreed the plaintiff landlord's suit. Against this decision an appeal was taken to the Court of the Subordinate Judge Rajshahi with the result that the appeal was allowed and plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. A second appeal has been, taken to this Court by the plaintiffs.2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned vakil for the respo...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: a Pleader
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal513
Jack, J.1. By this rule under Section 12, Legal Practitioners Act, S pleader, has been directed to show cause why he should not be suspended or dismissed, on the ground that he has been convicted of two offences of breach of trust and abetment of the same, implying a defect of character unfitting him to be a pleader. He does not dispute the accuracy of the recitals of the two judgments of the Chief Presidency Magistrate in the cases in which he was convicted.2. From these, we find that G his co-accused in one of these cases, was previously prosecuted for embezzlement and had been declared an insolvent and prohibited by the Court from withdrawing money on behalf of clients from the Court. Knowing all this, 8 withdrew, in each of these cases, a large sum on ac count of a client of C by virtue of a power-of-attorney, in which his name was entered, unknown to the client. These sums were not paid to the clients and hence his conviction in these two cases. Further, it appears, that when aske...
Tag this Judgment!Muktal HosseIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal767
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a case which has had reference to the abduction from her home of a minor girl and the accused Muktal, it is clear, wanted to marry her. There were eight persons put on their trial of whom we are concerned with four only. Muktal has been given five year's rigorous imprisonment and Imamuddin has been given two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 366, I.P.C., that is, abducting a woman to compel her to marry. The other two Tobdul and Sundar Ali have been fined Rs. 200 each upon a conviction under Section 368 read with Section 109, I.P.C. and the charge against them was that they were ongaged with Muktal and Imamuddin in a conspiracy wrongfully to conceal Jobeda Khatun--an abducted girl--knowing her to have been abducted in pursuance of which conspiracy she was actually wrongfully concealed. All the accused were charged under Section 342, I.P.C. (wrongful confinement) and all were expressly acquitted under that section2. Mr. Chatterji on behalf of Tobdul and S...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S, a Pleader
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal771
Jack, J.1. By this rule under Section 12, Legal Practitioners' Act, S, a Pleader, has been directed to show cause why he should not be suspended or dismissed on the ground that he has been convicted of two offences of breach of trust and abetment of the same implying a defect of character unfitting him to be a pleader.2. He does not dispute the accuracy of the recitals of the two judgments of the Chief Presidency Magistrate in the cases in which he was convicted.3. From these we find that Babu A.C. Chundra his co-accused in one of these cases was previously prosecuted for embezzlement and had been declared an insolvent and prohibited by the Court from withdrawing money on behalf of clients from the Court. Knowing all this S withdrew in each of these cases a large sum on account of a client of Babu A.C. Chunder by virtue of a power of attorney in which his name was entered unknown to the client. These sums were not paid to the clients and hence his conviction in these two cases4. Furthe...
Tag this Judgment!Todbul HossaIn and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1929
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.326
George Claus Rankin, C.J.1. This is a case which has had reference to the abduction from her home of a minor girl and the accused Muktul, it is clear, wanted to marry her. There were eight persons put oh their trial of whom we are concerned with four only. Muktul has been given five years' rigorous imprisonment and Imamuddin has been given two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, that is, abducting a woman to compel her to marry. The other two--Todbul and Sundar Ali have been fined Rs. 200 each upon a conviction under Section 368 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code, (2 times)and the charge against them was that they were engaged with Muktul and Imamuddin in a conspiracy wrongfully to conceal Jobeda Khatum--an abducted girl--knowing her to have been abducted in pursuance of which conspiracy she was actually wrongfully concealed. All the accused were charged under Section 342, Indian Penal Code, (wrongful confinement) and all were expressly acquitted un...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Girija Bhusan Sirkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.243
Jack, J.1. By this Rule under Section 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Babu G. B. Sircar, Pleader, has been directed to show cause why he should not be suspended or dismissed on the ground that he has been convicted of two offences of breach of trust and abetment of the same implying a defect of character unfitting him to be a Pleader.2. He does not dispute the accuracy of the recitals of the judgments of the Chief Presidency Magistrate in the cases in which he was convicted.3. From these we find that Babu A.C. Chundra his co-accused in one of these cases was previously prosecuted for embezzlement and bad been declared an insolvent and prohibited by the Court from withdrawing money on behalf of clients from the Court. Knowing all this Babu G. B. Sircar withdrew in each of these cases a large sum on account of a client of Babu A. C Chundra by virtue of a power-of-attorney in which his name was entered unknown to the client. These sums were not paid to the clients and hence his convict...
Tag this Judgment!Debidas Karmakar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal61,121Ind.Cas.401
Graham, J.1. This rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate of Burdwan to show cause why an order of the Sessions Judge of Burdwan directing that the petitioners should be committed for trial to the Court of Sessions on a charge of murder should not be set aside. The main ground upon which the order has been assailed is that inasmuch as the learned Sessions Judge had already at a previous stage rejected an application for setting aside an order dicharging the petitioners under Section 409, Criminal P.C. he had exhausted his revisional power, and could not make the order now complained of under Section 437, Criminal P.C. the contention being that that order is, practically speaking, a review of his previous order, and therefore not sustainable in law. In my opinion there, is no substance in this contention. The ' facts are shortly these:2. The two petitioners and a woman named Tarubala were sent up for inquiry before Mr. A. Hossain, Deputy Magistrate of Burdwan under Sections...
Tag this Judgment!Hazarimull Vs. Monohar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal151
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 7 which arises out of a suit to enforce a charge by the plaintiff on certain properties under the following circumstances: Defendant 7 had a usufructuary mortgage of the properties in question which belonged to defendants 1 to 6. The mortgage was made by some of them and the predecessors of others. These properties with other properties were subsequently mortgaged to the plaintiff by a deed dated 30th January 1905. Subsequent to that the mortgagors executed several other mortgages in favour of defendant 7. The plaintiff brought a suit on his mortgage which was No. 90 of 1918 and obtained a final decree on 6th January 1920. He put the decree in execution under Execution case No. 253 of 1922 but did not proceed to sell the properties mortgaged. The mortgaged properties included two revenue paying estates. There were separate accounts opened with regard to the estates for the shares belonging to the mortgagors. There was default in payment o...
Tag this Judgment!imperial Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Bengal National Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal536
Costello, J.1. In this suit the Imperial Bank of India is claiming against the Bengal National Bank Ltd., which is now in liquidation, a declaration that two debentures dated, respectively, 4th May 1923, and 1st August, 1923, constitute charges upon all the undertakings, property and assets including the uncalled capital of the defendant bank. The plaintiffs are also claiming an account of what is due to them as the holders of those debentures for principal, interest and costs, and further that the debentures may be enforced by the sale of the property and the assets of the defendant bank.2. The claim has been resisted by the defendants upon the ground that the issue and the acceptance of the debentures in question were ultra vires the memorandum of the defendant bank, and were illegal and unauthorized or at any rate ultra vires so far as the Imperial Bank of India is concerned by reason of certain provisions in the Imperial Bank of India Act, which is Act 47 of 1920.3. Two further poi...
Tag this Judgment!Prahlad Barman and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal447
Suhrawardy, J.1. This rule has been issued on the ground that the evidence is legally insufficient for a conviction under Section 498, I.P.C. The complainant belongs to a low caste Hindu sect known as Rajbangshi. His case is that he had married the woman said to have been enticed away in the form which is known among them as nika marriage, that is, marriage with a widow. The point that has been urged before us is that there is not sufficient evidence on the record of legal marriage. It is not necessary to consider the circumstances under which the witnesses for the prosecution were not cross-examined by the defence because on the evidence as it stands, the marriage between the complainant and the woman has not been proved. The only evidence of marriage that has been adduced in this case is that the complainant put vermilion on the forehead of the woman and that there was a feast of the caste people. There is no evidence that any mantra was recited or whether there was any priest who of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »