Kolkata Court July 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.
Kalachand Ghose and ors. Vs. Tatu (Tahir) Shaik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal773
Mukerji, J.1. The petitioners who have been convicted under Section 426, I.P.C., have obtained the present rule upon three grounds. Two of these grounds relate to the summary dismissal of the appeal and they purport to state that the judgment of dismissal was wrong as no sufficient reasons have been given therefor. This argument cannot be supported in view of the fact that no reasons need be recorded in support of the summary dismissal of an appeal. The third ground complains of the prejudice that has been occasioned to the petitioners by reason of the fact that while they were charged with an offence under Section 379, I.P.C., they have been convicted under Section 426, I.P.C. This conviction for an offence with which the petitioners were not charged, however, has not been to the prejudice of the petitioners. It is clear that they would not have liked a conviction under Section 379, I.P.C., to justify which there are ample findings in the judgment of the trial Court, any more than a c...
Emperor Vs. C.A. Mathews
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal822
Cuming, J.1. This is a reference under Section 307, Criminal P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of 24-Parganas-in the case of one C. A Mathews. C. A. Mathews was tried by (he learned Additional Sessions Judge of 24-Parganas sit-ting with a jury on a charge of conspiring with a number of other persons to dishonestly and fraudulently induce intending candidates for the post of travelling ticket checkers in the E B. By. administration to deliver moneys to him by deceiving these persons into a belief that they would on such delivery receive appointments on a monthly pay of Rs. 30 and an allowance of Rs. 15. He was further charged with conspiring with the-same persons to cheat a number of persons by obtaining from them moneys as. gratification other than legal remuneration from intending candidates for the post of travelling ticket checkers in the said railway, after deceiving them into a belief that they after the delivery of the money would get appointments as stated in the fir...
Hridoy Krishna Kundu Vs. Binode Behary Bandopadhaya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal390
Mitter, J.1. This rule arises out of a proceeding taken under Order 21, Rule 58 as well as Order 21, Rule 62, Civil P.C. It appears that the petitioner brought a suit for money against two persons Atal Behari Dalai and Gour Charan Dalai who are opposite parties 2 and 3 in the t rule in the Court of the Munsiff, First Court, Basirhat. That suit was ultimately decreed by the said Court. The I decree was put into execution in the same Court and certain properties of the judgment-debtors were attached. On 15th December 1928 opposite party 1, Benode Behari Bandyopadhaya, made an application to the executing Court in which he prayed that lot 1 be released from attachment and lots 2 and 3 be sold subject to a mortgage in his favour under Order 21, Rule 62, Civil P.C. The claim with regard to lot's was allowed by the Munsiff and with regard to lots 2 and 3 the Munsiff made an order to the effect that the said lots be sold with notice of the mortgage alleged to have been executed in favour of B...
Sachindra Nath Dutt Vs. Secy. of State for India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal520
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In my opinion, the order complained of cannot be supported. The appeal was filed on 14th July 1928 and the application on which the order complained of was made was not put in till 6th February 1929. It is elementary that, if a party to a suit tar appeal desires to apply for security for Costs, he must do it promptly. Otherwise, the order made on such an application may have the effect of stifling the suit or appeal. In that view of the matter, the orders of 12th February and 23rd February 1929 must be set aside. As the opposite party does not appear, there will be no order as to costs....
Krishna Lal Saha Choudhury and ors. Vs. Radhika Mohan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1931Cal462
Jack, J.1. The only point raised in this appeal is as to the measure of damages. The defendants by excavating their tank close to the boundary between their land and the land of the plaintiffs have caused the plaintiffs' land to subside. The plaintiffs have therefore been given a decree directing the defendant to raise the plaintiffs' land to its original level and to erect a permanent embankment for its future protection and in default to recover Rs. 1,075 as costs for doing the work which they are to get. done. Also by a permanent injunction, the defendants have been restrained from causing any such damage in future. The learned appellate Judge is satisfied that normal or ordinary damages will not meet the ends of justice and therefore thinks that the trial Court was right in giving exemplary damages. Neither of the Courts below have given any reason for the decree for exemplary damages. There were allegations that the principal defendants wanted to exchange some of their lands for t...
Srish Chandra Banerjee and anr. Vs. Debendra Nath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1929
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.517
Jack, J.1. The appeal Las arisen out of a dispute as to the rights of the parties in a debutter estate. The only two questions arising in this appeal are: (1) whether a lease granted by a receiver appointed by the Court to defendant No. 2 has been rightly cancelled by the lower Appellate Court: (2) whether the lower Appellate Court was correct in holding that the plaintiffs as co-shebaits with defendant No. 1 were entitled to remove the idol to their exclusive custody for 7 1/2 months of the year. The appellants contend that the decision of the lower Appellate Court on both these points is not justified in the circumstances of the case.2. The lease was cancelled on the grounds that (1) the receiver concealed from the Court the fact that the lessee was her own grandson and a brother of Sirish Chandra Banerjee the adopted son of Bama Sundari the previous shebait of the 6-annas share by virtue of a compromise with Promotho Nath Banerjee. The latter was the predecessor of the plaintiffs an...
Sirish Chandra Banerjee and anr. Vs. Debendra Nath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal828
Jack, J.1. The appeal has arisen out of a dispute as to the rights of the parties in a debuttar estate. The only two questions arising in this appeal are : (1) whether a lease granted by a receiver appointed by the Court to defendant 2 has been rightly cancelled by the lower appellate Court : (2) whether the lower appellate Court was correct in holding that the plaintiffs as co-shebaits with defendant 1 were entitled to remove the idol to their exclusive custody for seven and half months of the year. The appellants contend that the decision of the lower appellate Court on both these points is not justified in the circumstances of the case.2. The lease was cancelled on the grounds: that (1) the receiver concealed from the Court the fact that the lessee was her own grandson and a brother of Sirish Chandra Banerjee the adopted son of Bama Sundari the previous shebait of the six annas share by virtue of a compromise with Promotho Nath Banerjee, The latter was the predecessor of the plainti...
Sm. Mati Bala Dasi Vs. Raj NaraIn Dutt and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal831
C.C. Ghose, J.1. The order complained of is an interlocutary order made in a suit which has not yet come on for hearing. The settled practice of this Court is not to interfere with such orders under Section 115, Civil P.C. except in very special circumstances. The present case is not, in my opinion, within that rule applicable to very special circumstances. The result is that the Rule is discharged with costs--hearing fee one gold mohur....
Srimati Bala Dasi Vs. Raj NaraIn Dutt and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1929
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.112
Charu Chander Ghose, J.1. The order complained of is an interlocutory order made in a suit which has not yet come on for hearing. The settled practice of this Court is not to interfere with such orders under Section 113, Civil Procedure Code, except in very special circumstances. The present case is not, in my opinion, within that rule applicable to very special circumstances. The result is that the Rule is discharged with costs--hearing-fee one gold mohur....
Jananada Charan Ghattak Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal807
Suhrawardy, J.1. The only question of law argued before us on behalf of the petititioner is that his conviction for abetment of the substantive offence, though he was not charged with it originally, is erroneous in law. Three persons were tried on a charge under Section 420, I.P.C. The petitioner is the third accused and he is said to have taken part in carrying out the purpose of the cheating. They were further charged under Section 120-B for conspiracy. The facts are that one Alekjan Bibi was induced to sell her property to accused 1 Wazaddi under circumstances which made it a clear case of cheating. She was told that she was to execute a kabala in favour of someone else for Rs. 300. As a matter of fact that kabala was written in favour of Wazaddi to the knowledge of the petitioner and a bundle of money purporting to be Rs. 300 was made over to Alekjan Bibi. It was subsequently found to contain small coins and pice worth Rs. 5. On these facts as elaborated in the evidence the accused...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »