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.
Hatimulla Vs. Sukhamoy Chaudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal304
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against the order of the learned District Judge affirming the decision of the Munsiff by which he held that the application for execution of a decree was not barred by limitation. The first application was made on 4th September 1924 and it was dismissed on 7th January 1925. The present application out of which this appeal has arisen was made on 30th November 1927. The question arises whether the last application has been made within three years of any steps taken in execution of the decree. What happened on 7th January 1925 was that the learned Munsiff considered that the application for execution and the sale proclamation were not quite in form. The properties which were advertised for sale consisted of separate shares in separate revenue-paying estates. Those were not described in separate lots and that is the defect which, the learned Munsiff thought, prevented the sale from being held. The learned pleader for the decree-hold...
Jogeshchandra Dhar Vs. Mahammad Ibrahim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal697
Mitter, J.1. The action in which this appeal is taken was brought by the plaintiff, now appellant, for the recovery of Rs. 1044-8-0, which is the principal and interest alleged to be due on an instrument, which is described in the plaint as a hnndi or bill of exchange. To this suit are impleaded as defendant the Guptas (defendants 1 and 2), who borrowed Rs. 1,000 from the plaintiff on 9th August 1924 and executed the hundi in question, promising to repay the same within 45 days from that data and Mahammad Ibrahim (defendant 3) and a firm known as Makbul Ahmed and Sons of Chittagong (defendant 4), who are alleged to have accepted the hundi or the bill of exchange. Both the Courts agreed in dismissing the plaintiff's suit against defendants 3 and 4 and in decreeing the suit ex parte against defendants 1 and 2, although their reasons for so doing are different. The lower appellate Court does not regard the instrument in question as a bill of exchange, within the meaning of the Negotiable ...
Padam Prashad Upadhyaya Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal617
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case Padam-prasad was tried at the High Court Sessions by my learned brother, Jack, J., and a common Jury on charges laid under Sections 193 and 471, I.P.C., together with Sujauddin Ahmed and Kanhyalal. He was convicted on the unanimous verdict of the jury of abetment of the offence of fabricating false evidence and also on the substantive charge of dishonestly using as genuine a forged document knowing the same to be forged. Kanhyalal was acquitted of both charges and Sujauddin Ahmed was convicted of abetment of the offence of fabricating false evidence and also of abetment of. the offence of dishonestly using as genuine a forged document knowing the same to be forged.2. On 19th March 1927, a Nepali girl called Raj Kumari presented a petition of complaint to the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate charging Padam Prasad with divers offences and in particular with the offence of having sold her to one Hiralal Agarwala for immoral purposes. She alleged that she ...
Padam Prosad Upadhayaya Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.193
George Clause Rankin, C.J.1. In this case Padam Prosad was tried at the High Court Sessions by my learned brother, Mr. Justice Jack, and a common Jury on charges laid under Sections 193 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code together with Sujauddin Ahmad and Kanhya Lal He was convicted on the unanimous verdict of the Jury of abetment of the offence of fabricating false evidence and also on the substantive charge of dishonestly using as genuine a forged document knowing the same to be forged. Kanhya Lal was acquitted of both charges and Sujauddin Ahmad was convicted of abetment of the offence of fabricating false evidence and also of abetment of the offence of dishonestly using as genuine a forged document knowing the same to be forged. On the 19th March, 1927, a Nepali girl called Rajkumari presented a petition of complaint to the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate charging Padam Prosad with diverse offences and in particular with the offence of having sold her to one Hiralal Agarwala fo...
Bindu Bhusan Pal Chowdhury Vs. Umesh Chandra Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal568
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 11 against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge First Court, Howrah, by which the learned Judge decreed the suit brought by the plaintiff. The facts are these : the appellant along with the other defendants 1 to 13 and the father of defendants 14 and 15 were the owners of two items of properties with which we are concerned. One was 2 bighas 5 cottahs in area and the other was only 5 cottahs in area. The mortgage was dated 14th May 1910 and the principal amount of the loan was Rs. 7,000. A preliminary decree was obtained by the mortgagee named Khirod Chandra Ghose on 20th July 1917 on his mortgage, by which decree the amount due to the mortgagee was found to be Rs. 16,000 odd. An appeal was taken by the mortgagor against the decree which was dismissed by this Court on 30th April 1920. By an indenture dated 3rd March 1921 the plaintiff purchased from all the mortgagors the bigger plot the area of which was 2 bighas 5 cottahs. In...
Nirpendra Chandra Sen Vs. Sasadhar Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal805
1. This Rule is directed against an order of a Deputy Magistrate of Madaripur under Section 145, Criminal P.C., declaring the opposite party to be in possession of certain disputed land.2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order complained of was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as certain additional lands had been included in the proceedings on which that order was based, not in the exercise of the Deputy Magistrate's own discretion, but in mechanical compliance with a direction given by the District Magistrate.3. It is further contended that fresh proceedings should have been drawn up when the additional lands were included, and that the proceedings as finally framed were defective.4. What happened was this: On 23rd March 1928, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Matbarcharh police station submitted a report to the Magistrate to the effect that the petitioner was in possession of the whole of the land in question, that the opposite party were, however, putting forward a cl...
Gobra Badia and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal729
1. The accused were convicted and sentenced on certain proceedings under Section 109, Criminal P.C. taken against them. The Sessions Judge sustained the conviction against the petitioners, and the present Rule has been issued on the ground that the provisions of Section 109 would have no application to the facts as found in this case ; that there was no concealment as contemplated by the section, because they gave true information to the police as to their names and addresses when questioned ; and that it could not be said they had failed to give a satisfactory account of themselves, merely because they did not give a satisfactory account of what they were doing at the time of their arrest.2. The finding of the Sessions Judge is that the accused:failed to give a satisfactory account of themselves and were attempting to conceal their presence within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and that they were taking such precautions with a view to commit an offence.3. It appears from the facts...
Bidhu Bhushan Pal Chowdhury Vs. Umesh Chandra Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1929
Reported in: 128Ind.Cas.183
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 11 against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Howrah, by which the learned Judge decreed the suit brought by the plaintiff. The facts are these: The appellant, along with the other defendants Nos. 1 to 13 and the father of defendants Nos. 14 and 15, were the owners of two items of properties with which we are concerned. One was 2 bighas 5 cottas in area and the other was only 5 cottas in area. The mortgage was dated the 14th May, 1910, and the principal amount of the loan was Rs. 7,000. A preliminary decree was obtained by the mortgagee named Khirod Chandra Ghose on the 20th July, 1917, on his mortgage, by which decree the amount due to the mortgagee was found to be Rs. 16,000 odd. An appeal was taken by the mortgagor against the decree which was dismissed by this Court oh the 30th April, 1920. By an indenture dated the 3rd March, 1921, the plaintiff purchased from all the mortgagors the bigger plot, the ar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›