Kolkata Court May 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.
Gopal Chandra Chakravarti and anr. Vs. Suresh Chandra Sanyal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal563
Pearson, J.1. This is an application on behalf of two accused persons for stay of certain criminal proceedings against them and three others, one of whom joined in support of the rule, before the Court of the Deputy Magistrate at Alipore, pending the disposal of a civil suit No. 40 of 1929 before the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Alipore.2. Accused 1 was an officer employed by one Sm. Sailasuta Davi, mother and certificated guardian of her two minor sons. The civil suit was filed by her on 25th September 1928 on behalf of the minors against the present petitioners defendants 2 and 3 and accused 1, defendant 1. It was alleged that in February 1928, defendant 1, the manager of Sailasuta, was instructed to purchase a touzi No. 151 notified for sale under the revenue laws, and was entrusted with Rs. 1,00,000 for the purpose but purchased in his own name though informing Sailasuta that it had been purchased on behalf of the estate for Rs. 85,000. Then it is said she was further...
Nagendra Nath Banerjee Vs. Ambica Charan Chakrabarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal676,122Ind.Cas.634
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, it appears that one Nagendra Nath Banerji has appealed from an order dismissing the application for execution of one Kartik Chandra Sen. This appeal cannot be sustained and must be dismissed with costs. Hearing fee two gold mohurs. No. 134.2. In this case, an application for execution has been made by one Kartik Chandra Sen who is a sub-mortgagee of the decree of which execution is sought. The first question is the question of limitation. The lower Court has found that execution is time barred. The facts are these: The decree in question which appears to have been a final mortgage decree was passed on 10th October 1917. On 8th April 1919, on the application of the decree-holder that decree was amended. It was amended upon more than one point. It was amended in respect of interim interest; it was amended upon some questions of costs and there was further question of post-diem interest at six per cent upon which it was also amended by the trial Court. From th...
Gopal Chandra Chakraborti and anr. Vs. Emperor and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.308
Pearson, J.1. This is an application on behalf of two accused persons for stay of certain criminal proceedings against them and three others, one of whom joined in support of the rule before the Court of the Deputy Magistrate, at Alipur, pending the disposal of a Civil Suit No. 40 of 1929 before the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Alipur.2. The first accused was an officer employed by one Srimati Sailasuta Debi, mother and certificated guardian of her two minor sons. The civil suit was filed by her on 25th September, 1928, on behalf of the minors against the present petitioners 2nd and 3rd defendants and the 1st accused 1st defendant. It was alleged that in February, 1928 the 1st defendant, the manager of Sailasuta, was instructed to purchase a Touzi No. 151 notified for sale under the Revenue Laws, and was entrusted with rupees one lakh for the purpose, but purchased in his own name though informing Sailasuta that it had been purchased on behalf of the estate for Rs. 85,000...
Solaiman Moosaji Asmal and ors. Vs. Jatindra Nath Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal553
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Third Court of the 24 Parganas in a partition suit brought on 20th January 1920. It appears that the whole of the land with which we are concerned is about three bighas in area and, in 1893, a gentleman of the name Melosch took a lease for nine years of what was described as two bighas out of the three bighas and it was further said that the bigha which was not included was the share of Shyam Lal and Kishori Lal Mandal. Melosch was minded to put up a rice-mill and he covenanted to erect a brick-built machine-room and rice and paddy godowns at his own expense upon this land. He further covenanted that he should have the right, on the expiry of the term, to remove the-buildings at his own costs and that he should not be competent to claim any damages in respect of the removal from the lessors. There is a clause which seems to operate nothing:If it be necessary to sell the same, I shall sell the same to ...
Pran Nath Kundu Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal286
ORDERMukerji, J.1. The proceedings m this case originated in an application addressed to the Circle Officer of Pangsa Circle by which a number of persons complained that the petitioner Prannath Kandu had placed some refuse etc., on a public road running through plots 511, 512 and 513, which was in use for a very long time, in order to convert it into land in his possession and had thus caused inconvenience to the applicants. It prayed that the public road ight be cleared up and opened to the public as before. It was forwarded by the Circle Officer to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who summoned the petitioner under Sections 283 and 290, I.P.C. The case was tried by another Magistrate who eventually convicted the petitioner under Sections 283 and 426, I.P.C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 20, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. On appeal the District Magistrate has altered the conviction to one under Section 341, I.P.C. keeping the sentence intact. The learned...
In Re: Tarunchandra Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal598
Lort-Williams, J.1. Section 3, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, provides that nothing in this Act shall be construed to take away any power possessed by any High Court established under 24 and 25 Viet. By that statute High Courts were established in the place of the Supreme Courts and Sudder Courts, which had hitherto existed, and, under Section 9, it was provided that they should exercise all such powers as should be granted by Letters Patent and, save as by such Letters might be otherwise directed, the said High Courts should have and exercise all jurisdiction vested in any of the Courts so abolished, i.a., the Supreme and Sudder Courts. Under Clause 17, Letters Patent, 1865, it was provided that the High Court should have the like power with respect to infants and others within the Bengal Division of the Presidency of Fort William as was vested in the said High Court immediately before the publication of those presents. The power therein referred to was contained in Clause 16, Letters...
Panchanan Roy and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal723
Mukerji, J.1. This rule has been issued to show cause why the convictions of and the sentences passed on the two petitioners Panchanan Roy and Kuran Chandra Das should not be set aside or why such other order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper on grounds 1 to 6 of the petition. Panchanan has been convicted under Section 64(a), Stamp Act, and Kuran under Section 64(b) of the same Act. Panchanan has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default simple imprisonment for one month and Kuran to pay a fine of Rs. 50 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The facts shortly are that there was a kabala in respect of a sale in which one Serajuddin was the vendor, Panchanan the purchaser and Kuran the scribe. The kabala stated that the consideration for the sale was Rs. 100. It was presented for registration and Serajuddin apparently made a statement before the Sub-Registrar to the effect that the consideration was really Rs. 161. On these facts prose...
Arjoon Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal769
Mukerji, J.1. This is, reference made under Section 438, Criminal P.C., by the Sessions Judge of Hooghly recommending that the conviction of 15 persons, one Arjoon Singh and 14 others, under Section 4, Act 2 (B.C.) of 1867 and the fine imposed thereunder may be set aside. The case has been argued before me in great detail on behalf of the petitioners as well as on behalf of the Crown.2. The only question that arises for determination in the case is whether the game that was being played at the time when the petitioners were arrested was 'gaming' within the meaning of the Act. The definition in the Act does not really define 'gaming,' but merely indicates what it is like and excludes wagering or betting on some particular occasion and in particular circumstances and also excludes a lottery.' In Hari Singh v. Emperor [1907] 6 C.L.J. 708 it was held that a game of skill is not an offence under the Act but a game of chance is, and that if a game involves a certain amount of skill as well a...
Emperor Vs. Arjoon Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1929
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.643
Mukerji, J.1. This is a referenca under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Sessions Judge of Hughly recommending that the conviction of 15 persons, one Arjoon Singh and 14 others, under Section 4 of Act II (B.C.) of 1867 and the fine imposed thereunder may be set aside. The case has been argued before me in great detail on behalf of the petitioners as well as on behalf of the Crown.2. The only question that arises for determination in this case is whether the game that was being played at the time when the petitioners were arrested was 'gaming' within the meaning of the Act. The definition in the Act does not really define 'gaming,' but merely indicates what it is like and excludes wagering or betting on some particular occasion, and in particular circumstances, and also excludes a 'lottery'. In Hari Singh v. King Emperor 6 C.L.J. 708 : 6 Cr. L.J. 421, it was held that a game of skill is not an offence under the Act but a game of chance is and that if a game involves a certai...
Atab Sunarri Vs. Talib HusaIn Mia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal612
1. The appeal and cross-objection have arisen out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of khas possession.2. The plaintiff's claim shortly put was as follows : There were two brothers Wahedulla and Basiruddi each owning, an eight annas share in the properties. By an amicable arrangement Basiruddi alone possessed the properties and sold them to the plaintiffs in 1320 B.S. In 1321 B.S. the plaintiff grew paddy on the lands but was not allowed to gather the crops and was dispossessed by the defendants acting in collusion with each other. He then instituted this suit on 15th May 1924.3. Defendant is the son of Wahedulla and defendant 2 is the purchaser of the properties from defendant 1. They claimed that defendant 1 had received the properties as gift from Wahedulla and Basiruddi. One of the defences taken was the plea of limitation, it being urged that there was an order under Section 145, Criminal P.C., on 11th February 1915 in favour of defendant 1 in respect of the properti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »