Kolkata Court August 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.
Provash Chandra Lahiri Vs. Municipal Commissioner of Howrah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal147a
1. This rule was issued to show cause why a certain order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Howrah on 24th May 1929, should not be set aside or such other or further order made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. The order complained of was passed on an application which the petitioner Provash Chandra Lahiri had made for leave to sue in forma pauperis. The order was one by which the learned Judge refused the leave asked for.2. The circumstances that are necessary to be set out for the purposes of this rule are the following: The petitioner is a Sanitary Inspector under the Howrah Municipality. He made an application for the purpose of obtaining permission to sue in forma pauperis the Chairman and the Commissioners of the Howrah Municipality, claiming damages for wrongful dismissal from service. He claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 32,000 odd. The said amount is made up of several items amongst which there is one of Rs. 1,290 as being due to him on account of balance of money ...
Abdul Wahed Vs. Mohan Bashi Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal466
Mukerji, J.1. The principal question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the findings recorded by the Court of appeal below are sufficient in law to constitute such adverse possession on the part of the defendants and their predecessors as would extinguish the plaintiff's title.2. The parties are cosharers. The District Judge has found that the adverse possession that was exercised on the part of the defendants and their predecessors was hostile and notorious, that all through the period, which was well over twelve years, their rights were asserted, and that the sales made by them in assertion of such rights were attended with considerable publicity. He has found that these sales were overt acts of an unequivocal character to the exclusion of the rights of the plaintiff. On the question whether the plaintiff had knowledge of these overt acts the District Judge has only observed that:if the plaintiff did not know it was simply due to his lack of diligence for which h...
Sunnat Mondal Vs. Makar Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal138
Patterson, J.1. If the evidence is believed, the complainant's wife was enticed away by a woman named Hazari Bibi, was taken away from Hazari Bibi's house by the present accused and was then detained or concealed for several days in the house of one Mujahar Fakir.2. In the charge framed against the accused in the trial Court, it was alleged that he had taken the woman away from the complainant's custody and having regard to the nature of the evidence, it must be supposed (though this has not been clearly stated,) that the charge was intended to relate to the alleged taking away of the complainant's wife from Hazari Bibi's house. There is however, no finding that Hazari Bibi had the care of the woman on behalf of her husband, the complainant, nor is there any evidence on the record that would justify such a finding. On the contrary, the evidence goes to show that the woman had already been taken away from the complainant's custody by Hazari Bibi before ever the accused appeared on the s...
Kumar Chandra GaIn and anr. Vs. Narendra Nath Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal357
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 4 and 5 against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge of the 24-Parganas, partly decreeing the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of a sum of money under the following circumstances. The plaintiff created a mourashi mokarari tenure in favour of defendants 1, 2 and 3 in January 1906. Defendants 4 and 5 purchased that tenure from the other defendants for a sum of Rs. 8,675 on 13fch December 1923. A dispute arose with reference to a provision in the patta granted by the plaintiff to his tenants which runs thus:If it be necessary to sell any portion of the potta land or the trees, one-fourth share of the proper value shall be deposited in my sherista as chauth selami; otherwise I shall not be bound by the said sale or purchase and the said sale shall not be valid. If you do not conform to the terms of this patta and by your negligence I suffer any loss, you will be liable to compensate the said loss. Observing all the afore...
SirajaddIn Kazi Vs. Sergeant H. Jenner
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal776
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case it is alleged that the applicant was driving a motor bus at 10-45 a. m. on 22nd October 1928 in Chowringhee Road and that he stopped the bus too suddenly in the centre of the road without warning : thereby causing another bus which was behind to dash against it. The Magistrate proposed to try this case upon the question of negligent driving. This incident happened on 22nd October 1928, and the Magistrate proposed to try the case sometime in May 1929. A case like this ought to have been tried within a week. Instead of that it was proposed to be heard months afterwards when the accused and his witnesses might be entirely unable to reconstruct their recollection as to what had happened. In this case it appears that on 1st December 1928 the Magistrate ordered that the case should be tried on 17th December. On 17th December the petitioner appeared in Court with his witnesses but neither the complainant nor his witnesses were present. Consequently the matter seems...
Gagan Chandra De and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal775
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the accused men have been bound down under Section 109, Criminal P. C, and they have been ordered rigorous imprisonment in default of their giving security. It appears that these two men were found not very far from their home in a place outside a village and there is evidence to show that they were bent upon committing burglary at night, one man was found in possession of a sindhkati and a pair of tin-cutters and the other of a bunch of keys and there can be little doubt these people were outside the village in which they lived for the purpose of committing burglary. They were seen to be approaching a certain house and at the barking of a dog they lay quiet and sometime afterwards they attempted to approach again and in these circumstances they were arrested and they were charged as being people who were taking precautions to conceal their presence within the local limits of the Magistrate's jurisdiction and that there was reason to believe that they were t...
DabiruddIn Mohammad and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal131
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case an order was made under Section 144, Criminal P.C., prohibiting the petitioners from exercising any act of possession in respect of a certain fishery. The Magistrate made this order on the basis of a police report and that police report did state that a serious breach of the peace was likely to take place unless such an order was made. Thereupon the petitioners applied to the Magistrate to show cause against the order. In the meantime a complaint had been preferred against the petitioners for a breach of the order and the Magistrate for that reason refused to proceed as he is directed by the section to do and to give the petitioners proper opportunity of showing cause against the order. The petitioners' case appears to be that they could have shown to the Magistrate's satisfaction that there was no likelihood of a breach of the peace. The petitioners went on appeal to the District Magistrate who rejected their petition. They accordingly have come to this Cou...
Dhananjoy Pal and anr. Vs. Nagendra Sankar Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal144
Rankin, C.J.1. In my opinion this rule must be made absolute. The Magistrate has not complied with the provisions of Section 139-A Criminal P.C., before proceeding to make relevant enquiry under Section 137. What happened was that the Magistrate having made a conditional order, the present petitioners appeared before him. It is clear that they denied the existence of any public right of way. The question is whether the Magistrate found that there was any reliable evidence in support of this denial. True, it was no part of his business to try this matter. His business was to find whether there was any reliable evidence in support of the denial. Then, what happened was that he adjourned the case so that the petitioners might adduce evidence in support of this denial. Then the petitioners made a suggestion that the Magistrate might go to the spot and hold his enquiry. Thereupon he ordered a local enquiry to be held and as the result of that local enquiry he got a certain report. This repo...
Dwitiar Chand Mandal and anr. Vs. Dharanidhar Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal831a
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the ease out of which this rule has arisen are briefly these: The petitioners brought a suit in which they claimed a right of passage over two plots of land, dags Nos. 1665 and 1666, in order to have access to a certain tank. The case was referred to the arbitration of three gentlemen. It appears from the Munsif's finding that only two of these gentlemen acted and took evidence. Arbitrator 3 took no part in the arbitration. These two arbitrators submitted, an award in which they gave the plaintiffs a right of way over another plot, dag No. 1670. The learned Munsif held that two of the arbitrators had full authority to act and submit a binding award; and, therefore, he gave a decree in terms of the award filed.2. Ground 1 urged by the plaintiffs 'who have obtained this rule is that the arbitrators had given a path over a piece of land which was not the subject-matter of the suit, namely, plot 1670. The answer to this contention is that this point was never take...
Khadem and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal706
Rankin, C.J.1. In my opinion, this appeal must succeed, the conviction and the sentences must be set aside and the case must be retried.2. The allegation against the seven appellants was that they had committed a dacoity in the house of the complainant on Saturday night, 16fch June, at about 8 o'clock in the evening. The first information was lodged at the thana, some two or three miles away, by 9 o'clock. The amount of property taken away was in value only some Rs. 50 and the case for the prosecution is that the inmates of the house were allowed to leave the house and that, in a very short time, the neighbours were assembling with the result that the dacoits could not continue with their endeavours and in the end managed to get away with very little. The defence clearly denied that there was any dacoity at all and they laid stress upon certain suspicious features in the prosecution case and maintained that there were reasons why the prosecution witnesses had enmity against these accus...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »