Kolkata Court June 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.
Satyakripal Banerji Vs. Satyabikash Banerji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal631,129Ind.Cas.191
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This rule arises out of the following circumstances: As far back as 1907, Title Suit No. 41 of 1907 was instituted in the First Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipur, the reliefs claimed being partition and accounts and the value of the suit being Rs. 5 lakhs odd. The present petitioner was defendant 1 in that suit. The suit was preliminarily decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge on 24th July 1908 and by the High Court in appeal on 17th August 1909. Thereafter two commissioners were appointed in succession to take accounts, One of the claims of the plaintiff was with regard to Government promissory notes of the face value of Rs. 20,000. The defence was that certain notes had been sold by the plaintiff. The matter was duly investigated and the suit was finally decreed on 3rd April 1928, 21 years after its commencement. The defendants were held liable for Rs. 19,500 in respect of the aforesaid G.P. notes. The final decree was for Rs. 95,000. The petitioner's case i...
Umeshchandra Banerji Vs. Kunjalal Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1929
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.181
Lort-Williams, J.1. Section 129 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that 'Notwithstanding anything in this Code any High Court established under the Indian High Courts Act, 1961, or the Government of India Act, 1915, may make such rules not inconsistent with the fetters Patent establishing it to regulate its own procedure in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction as it shall think fit, and nothing herein contained shall affect the validity of any such rules in force at the commencement of this Code.'2. The object of this section was to provide for elasticity in procedure and to enable defects in the (Jade to be remedied without the dilatory process of legislation, and the High Court was given power to vary or remand the rules of procedure which appear in the Code: see notes on page 487, 'Woodroffe on 'Civil Procedure', Second Edition.'3. For this reason the sections dealing with procedure were taken out of the body of the Code and placed in a separate schedule. Therefore, if ...
Emperor Vs. Dukari Chandra Karmakar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal193
Cuming, J.1. This is a case of one Dukari Chandra Karmakar whoso case has been referred to us by the learned Sessions Judge of Birbhum under the provisions of Section 307, Criminal P.C. The accused Dukari was tried before the Sessions Judge sitting with a jury on a charge of murdering his wife Sakti Kumari. Five of the jury found the accused not guilty. The remaining four of the jury found him guilty under Section 302, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge apparently agreeing with the minority has referred the case to this Court under Section 307, Criminal P.C.2. I would draw the attention of the learned Sessions Judge to the provisions of Section 307, Criminal P.C., and point out to him that it is necessary for him to state clearly what offence, in his opinion, the accused is guilty of. It is not correct for him to state that he is 'inclined to agree with them.'3. The facts of the case are briefly these : The accused Dukari was married to the deceased Sakti Kumari a girl at present some 1...
Buldeo Das Lohita Vs. Balmukund Brijmohan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal806
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., alleging inter alia that the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes in Calcutta has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it.2. The petition brought a suit in Court for the price of goods sold delivered. The defence was a denial, and the seventh Judge of the Court, Mr. P.C. Dutt, dismissed the suit.3. The petitioner then applied for a new trial under Section 38, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act.4. The application was heard by what was called a Full Bench consisting of the Chief Judge and Mr. P.C. Dutt, when new grounds were added, namely that the petitioner had lately discovered fresh evidence to the effect that the defendant firm had disposed of the goods in suit to a third party, and after hearing arguments the Court granted the application, set aside the order of dismissal, restored the suit and ordered it to be heard by Mr. Latifur Rahman, Judge, Fourth Bench.5. Thereupon the defendant firm applied for a n...
Baldeo Das Lohia Vs. Balmukund Brijmohan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1931Cal151
Williams, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., alleging inter alia that the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes in Calcutta has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it. The petitioner brought a suit in the Court for the price of goods sold and delivered. The defence was a denial, and the seventh Judge of the Court, Mr. P.C. Dutt, dismissed the suit. The petitioner then applied for a new trial under Section 38, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act.2. This application was heard by what was called a Full Bench consisting of the Chief Judge and Mr. P.C. Dutt when new grounds were added, namely that the petitioner had lately discovered fresh evidence to the effect that the defendant firm had disposed of the goods in suit to a third party, and after hearing arguments the Court granted the application, set aside the order of dismissal, restored the suit and ordered it to be heard by Latifur Rahaman, J. Fourth Bench.3. Thereupon the defendant firm applied for a new tri...
inasaddar Ali and ors. Vs. Isimulla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal813
1. This Rule is directed against an order passed in proceedings under Section 133, Criminal P.C. relating to alleged obstruction of a public path. The conditional order was passed by the Additional District Magistrate on 5th June 1928. On 20th June the opposite party No. 3 appeared and denied the existence of the right, and 6th July was fixed for taking evidence. On 6th July all the opposite parties appeared and gave a denial of the right, whereupon the Magistrate passed an order making the case over to Babu A.M. Dam, E.A.C. for enquiry and to report to the existence of a public path. His report was submitted after enquiry, and the report was in favour of the existence of the right. On 17th August the Additional District Magistrate took the report into consideration and acted upon it by passing an order declaring it to be a public path. Matters then proceeded before a jury, the majority of whom found that the obstruction should be removed. This Rule was issued on the ground that the pr...
Surendra Nath Banerjee Vs. Dhirendra Nath Dhar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal785
1. In this case the accused was charged under Section 427, I.P.C. relating to an incident whereby the accused cut down a cocoanut tree belonging to the complainant. The accused set up the case of consent, but that has been negatived by the learned Magistrate. He, however, was satisfied that the offence was of a trivial nature. Accordingly he dealt with the case under the provisions of Section 562(1-A) whereby the accused was released with an admonition.2. The complainant has obtained this rule and asks that some punishment should be awarded in respect of the offence committed. It is not a matter which commends itself to us, whether we look upon it as an application made by a complainant for enhancement of sentence, or as in the nature of an appeal against an acquittal, and it is quite clear that a strong case would have to be made out on the merits before this Court would interfere at all in such a case. It is a case for the discretion of the learned Magistrate to act under this Sub-se...
Secy. of State Vs. Bhupalchandra Ray Chaudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal739
Graham, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, against a decision of the District Judge of Dinajpur confirming a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dinajpur. The suit was for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from the assessment and collection of cesses in respect of the plaintiff's income derived from certain hats, ferries, and khutagaries, and for a refund of the sum of Rs. 1,032 and odd annas already realised by the defendant on these accounts together with interest thereon.2. The plaintiff's case was that the collections made from these sources are not liable to pay cess, and that the assessment was ultra vires.3. The defendant on the other hand pleaded that, having regard to the terms of the kabuliyats, which were put in evidence, read with the provisions of the Cess Act (Bengal Act 9 of 1880) the assessment was valid and lawful. He also contended inter alia that the suit was barred by limitation.4. The tri...
Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Bhupalchandra Ray Chaudhur ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1929
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.177
Graham, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, against a decision of the District Judge of Dinajpur confirming a Judgment and decree of the Subordinate fudge of Dinajpur. The suit was for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from, the assessment and collection of cesses in respect of the plaintiff's income derived from certain hats, ferries, and khutagaries, and for a refund of the sum of Rs. 1,032 and odd annas already realized by the defendant on these accounts together with interest thereon.2. The plaintiff's case was that the collections made from these sources are not liable to pay cess, and that the assessment was ultra vires.3. The defendant, on the other hand, pleaded that, having regard to the terms of the kabuliyats, which were put in evidence, read with the provisions of the Cess Act (Bengal Act IX of 1880) the assessment was valid and lawful. He also contended inter alia that the suit was barred by limitation.4. The...
Emperor Vs. Munshi Tamiz-ud-dIn Ahmad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.558
Ghose, J.1. This is a Reference under Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Rungpur against the Jury's verdict of not guilty in respect of a charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. On behalf of the prisoner an objection is taken that the Jury was not legally constituted. It appears that 14 Jurors were summoned and 9 were chosen by lot. It is contended that under Section 326, Criminal Procedure Code, not lees than 18 Jurors should have been summoned. Section 326, which is mandatory in its terms, provides in its first clause for a letter to be sent to the District Magistrate requesting him to summon persons named in the revised list 'the number to be summoned being not less than double the number required for any such trial.' Then the second clause provides that the names of the persons to be summoned (meaning double the number required) shall be drawn by lot. With this we have to take Section 274, Criminal Procedure Code, which contains a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »