Kolkata Court April 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.
Benoy Kumar Sen Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal635
ORDERMukerji, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted under Section 13, Press Act 25 of 1867. Section 13 runs thus:Whoever shall keep in his possession any such press as aforesaid without making such a declaration as is required by Section 4 of this Act shall etc. 2. To understand what is meant by any such press' reference has to be made to Section 4 which says:No person in British India shall keep in his possession any press for the printing of books or papers etc. 3. It is clear, therefore, that the press that is referred to in Section 13 is a press for the printing of books and papers, in other words, to sustain a conviction under Section 13 it is necessary to find that the press was in a sufficiently fit condition to enable the printing of books or papers thereby. The trial Magistrate in the explanation which he has submitted is quite right in referring to his own findings in his judgment which are to the effect that there was printing of certain invitation cards in the...
In Re: Regent Park Syndicate Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal521
Buckland, J.1. This is an application by Mr. L.N. Bird, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, for an order giving him liberty to inspect, through one of his subordinate officers or any other person, the records of an examination under Section 195, Companies Act, of Ray Bahadur Dwarkanath Chakravarti and of Gopalchandra Chakravarti, also for certified copies of their depositions.2. In his petition, Mr. Bird says that on an application by one Khirodemohan Goswami, the manager of the estate of the minor sons of the widow of the late Kadhikamohan Ray of No. 45, Lansdowne Road, against certain persons to the effect that they entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit a criminal breach of trust in respect of the sum of a lakh of rupees belonging to the estate, he ordered an investigation into the matter to be conducted by Inspector Pulinkumar Chatterji of the Detective Department. He states that the investigation so far has disclosed a prima facie case of an offence of conspiracy to com...
Lakshan Chandra Naskar Vs. Ramdas Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal374,118Ind.Cas.857
Rankin, C.J.1. The plaintiff in 1909 obtained a money decree against the defendant and his brother for Rs. 27-8-0. After much contest it has been found by the lower appellate Court that in 1913 the defendant and his brother transferred to the plaintiff 10 cottahs of land in satisfaction of all debts on whatever account due to the plaintiff and that thus the decretal amount was discharged. It is clear, however, that this adjustment of the decree was not certified by the plaintiff under Order 21, Rule 2 and that the judgment-debtors failed to apply to the Court within the ninety days prescribed by Article 174, Schedule 1, Lim. Act 1908, to have the adjustment recorded. Clause 3 of the rule took effect accordingly; the adjustment 'shall not be recognized by any Court executing the decree.' In this state of things the plaintiff in 1914 sought to have execution of the decree; the defendant set up the adjustment as an objection in the execution case: but this objection being clearly unsustai...
Gopiram Bhotica Vs. Biraj Mohan Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal576
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the creditor against the order of final discharge of an insolvent under Section 41, Prov. Ins. Act. This insolvent, it is stated was indebted to a sum of over eight lacs of rupees and it is also stated that his assets amounted almost to nothing. The receiver made a report objecting to the final discharge. An objection was also made by a creditor. The learned Judge has observed that the objections to discharge put forward by the creditor and the receiver do not appear to me to have any weight and I do not see that any good purpose would be served by the postponement of the order of discharge. The learned Judge, however, has not taken into consideration the facts which are necessary for him to be satisfied about before he makes an order of final discharge. Those are to be found in Section 42, Prov. Ins. Act. The insolvent has not at all been examined. One of the creditors stated that he had got properties in the benami of third persons. Those facts s...
Manmohan Chowdhury Vs. Turner, Morrison and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal69
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Chittagong, dated 14th February 1927, dismissing his suit in ejectment against the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that touzi No. 61 of the Chittagong Collectorato was purchased by the executor of the will of his father on behalf of his estate on 19th May 1913. The name of the executor was Jogendra Lal Choudhuri who is now dead. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to khas possession of the plots of land mentioned in the plaint by ejectment of the defendants under the provisions of Section 37, Revenue Sale Law as these did not fall within the exceptions mentioned under that section. The lands in suit were comprised in several dags of the Record-of-Rights the numbers of which are given in the plaint. The total area of these dags, according to the Record-of-Rights. would be 5.08 kanis. The estate No. 61 at one time belonged to two persons Paresh Mukherjee and...
Monmohan Chowdhury Vs. Turner, Morrison and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1929
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.167
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge First Court, Chittagong, dated the 14th February, 1927, dismissing his suit, in ejectment against the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that Touzi No. 61 of the Chittagong Collectorate was purchased by the executor of the Will of his father on behalf of his estate on the 19th May, 1913. The name of the executor was Jogendra Lal Chaudhuri who is now dead. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to khas possession of the plots of land mentioned in the plaint by ejectment of the defendants under the provisions of the Section 37 of the Revenue Sale Law as these did not fall within the exceptions mentioned under that section. The lands in suit were comprised in several dags of the Record of Rights, the numbers of which are given in the plaint. The total area of these dags according to the Record of Rights, would be 508 koniisu. The estate No. 61 at one time belonged to two person...
Chartered Bank of India Vs. Imperial Bank of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal534
Lort-Williams, J.1. On 14th October 1927 the plaintiffs wrote to the defendants, claiming certain goods lying in Messrs. Kerr Tarruck's godown in the Bengal Bonded Warehouse, on which the defendants had placed their name. The defendants replied on the following day saying that all the goods in the said godown had been pledged to them by Messrs. Kerr Tarruck in accordance with an arrangement for advances against goods pledged, which had been in existence between them and the said firm for some 15 years, and they gave to the plaintiffs full particulars about the character of the pledge and of their possession and control of the said goods, showing that they had been validly pledged to them by the said firm.2. Seven months after, viz., on 11th May 1928, the plaintiffs issued their plaint. Therein they stated that they were holders for value of certain bills of exchange drawn by British shippers on Messrs. Kerr Tarruck & Co., for the price of goods sold to the said firm, and that they rece...
Moti Lal Dutt Vs. Kali Das Bhattacharji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1931Cal107
1. This rule is directed against an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Khulna passed under Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P.C. The order is in these terms:Heard Pleaders; the appellants are permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. The respondent will get his costs of this appeal.2. It is argued that this order is not justified by Order 23. Order 23. Rule 1, says that if the Court is satisfied that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect or that there are other sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit it may grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such a suit, with liberty to institute a fresh suit. The power given by the Code to the Court to give permission to withdraw a suit has to be governed by certain considerations and if it appears that those considerations were not present in a certain case it must be held that the order was passed without jurisdiction in its restricted sense that it exercised that powe...
Purna Chandra Dutt Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal440,122Ind.Cas.549
Pearson, J.1. This is a rule which was issued upon the Municipal Magistrate and the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation of Calcutta calling upon them to show cause why a certain order of demolition should not be set aside on the ground that the elements necessary to constitute an offence punishable under Section 364, Sub-section (1), Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923, had not been shown to exist. The petitioner is the owner of certain premises No. 49, Doctor Lane, Calcutta. He was served with a notice under Section 299, Calcutta Municipal Act, alleging that he had unlawfully encroached over the extreme end of a blind passage by the side of his house by erecting an one storied entrance with masonry walls and pucca roof and a ledge and calling upon him to remove the same. On his failure to do so, he was prosecuted before the Municipal Magistrate and order was passed directing that the structure complained of should be demolished. The finding of the Magistrate is that the passage belo...
Sasi Kanta Acharjee Vs. Sonaulla Munshi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal444,121Ind.Cas.412
1. The facts on which this appeal is based are that the defendant was a gomastha under the plaintiff. The agency terminated in April 1915. In August 1921 there was a mablagbandi signed by the defendant in these words : (in Bangali, the translation of which is as follows : I remain liable to the Sarkar for the sum of Rs. 412-7-3). The suit was brought on this mablagbandi and the only point that arises is whether it is barred by limitation. The defence was that the mablagbandi was obtained from the defendant by undue influence ; but the plea was not accepted by the Courts below. Both the Courts below have agreed in holding that the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that though the debt of which the mablagbandi was made had become barred by limitation at that date, Section 19, Lim. Act, would not apply. There was a fresh start of time from the date of the mablagbandi under Section 25(3), Contract Act.2. It appears to be well-established by a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »