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.
Wilson-de-roze Vs. Wilson De Roze
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1929
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.426
Panckridge, J.1. In this case, I made a formal decree nisi for dissolution of marriage on Friday, but, inasmuch as the circumstances raise questions of some public importance, I intimated that I would deliver a considered judgment to-day.2. The petition is a wife's petition for dissolution of marriage, on the ground of the respondent's adultery, cruelty, and desertion. The facts can be briefly stated. The parties, who are domiciled in British India, were married on 3rd October, 1916; there have been two children of the marriage, a son born in December, 1917, who is still surviving, and another child who was born in 1919 and died in infancy. The petitioner complains that not only did her husband treat her with great brutality, but, from the very outset, he neglected to maintain her or her children. She was compelled, as early as 1918, when her elder child was ill to seek? the he spitality of her sister Mrs. Cove. After the child recovered she was willing to return to her husband, but he...
Manik Chandra Sarma Vs. Dambharudhar Sarma and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal41
Mitter, J.1. The question raised by this rule is whether the Munsiff of Sibsagar had declined jurisdiction in refusing to entertain the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of his right to the office of Bara Thakur of (he temple of Siva and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's right as Bara Thakur on the ground that the suit; was valued at Rs. 4,600 and was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif. This order which is challenged was made so far back as 22nd April 1926.2. An appeal was taken against this order to the Additional District Judge who held that as the relief was valued at Rs. 130 by the plaintiff the Munsiff was wrong in returning the plaint, but he thought that the suit was one under Section 92, Civil P.C. and it was desirable that the matter should be heard by the District Judge.3. The District Judge in whose Court the plaint was filed, however, took the view that the suit was not one under Section 92 and could...
Sreehari Swarnakar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal132
Cuming, J.1. This is an appeal by one Sreehari Sawarnabar who was tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Dinajpur sitting with a jury on a charge of rape on a child of some eight or nine years old. The jury unanimously found the accused guilty and the learned Judge agreeing with verdict sentenced him to five years rigorous, imprisonment and 16 strokes. The facts are briefly these : The girl who was raped named Durgamani was living with her mother one Sailabala who is a widow. On the day of occurrence the mother of the accused came to call Durgamani to collect firewood with the accused who was also collecting firewood. Durgamani went with the accused to a place called Puranbhita where they began to collect firewood. While the girl was engaged in collecting wood the accused Sreehari caught hold of her, placed her on the ground and proceeded to have sexual intercourse with her. Finally he let her go and the girl went back weeping to her mother to whom she told the matter. After some delay...
In Re: Lachiram Basantalal Nathani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal297
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta, has referred to the Court under Clause (1), Section 66, Income-tax Act the question whether 'the Special Income-tax Officer' had any jurisdiction over the petitioner's case within the meaning of Sub-sections (4) or (5), Section 5, Income-tax Act.2. The petitioners have been assessed to Income-tax in default of compliance with the requirements of notices directed to them under Clause (2), Section 23 and Clause (4), Section 22 by a gentleman to whom the name of 'Special Income-tax Officer' has been given in view of the provisions of Clause (4) Section 23 of the Act. Divers objections were taken to the assessment and an appeal was taken to the Assistant Commissioner which was rejected. An application was then made under Section 33 to the Commissioner himself to revise the order of the Assistant Commissioner. In connexion with that proceeding, the Commissioner has used his discretion and referred the question to us which...
(J.C.) Galstaun Vs. Radhakissen Chamaria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1931Cal23
Buckland, J.1. The plaintiff, in this case, claims to recover Rs. 33,100, with interest at 8 per cent. per annum from 13th October 1922, and also an additional sum of Rs. 1,250 in circumstances, which, as the facts are not disputed, may be stated very briefly.2. In 1918 the plaintiff sold certain property in Bentinck Street to the defendant. It was also agreed that he should take a lease of the property for 10 years. The sale was duly completed, but (shortly afterwards, the property was acquired by the Calcutta Improvement Trust, The parties jointly filed a claim, and compensation amounting to Rs. 3,39,250 was awarded. The question arose whether the plaintiff Galstaun was entitled to any, and, if so, to what portion of that sum. This question was. referred to the arbitration of two gentlemen and, pending their award, the defendant Radhakissen Chamaria, by arrangement, withdrew the whole compensation money, undertaking to pay to the plaintiff, Galstaun any sum which might be awarded to ...
Mahomed Ismail and ors. Vs. Sharfutullah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal810
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage executed by the predecessor of the plaintiffs in favour of the predecessors of defendants 1 to 12, so far back as the year 1852.2. The three short genealogical trees given below will show who the mortgagees and their successors-in-interest are, as also who the mortgagors and their successors-in-interest are respectively. It is essential that we should have those trees before us in order to understand the questions in controversy in this appeal, more particularly as the heirs of the mortgagees have also succeeded to certain shares in the equity of redemption in the disputed properties. (1) Kanu = Khatija | |-------- Feda Gazi | Asad Ali | |---- Sons Daughter | | --------------------- | Plaintiffs. | (2) Paran married Khatija (widow of Kanu) | Hira Bibi (married) - Hasan Ali | Asmat Ali | |---------------| (3) Hasan Ali Brother | | S |---------|-----|-----|-----|-----| Defendants 1 to...
Jamir Sheik and ors. Vs. Murari Mohan Chaudhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal778
1. The question raised in this rule is whether Clause (8), Section 526, Criminal P.C., applies to proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C. The words in Clause (8) as they stood before the amendment of 1923 were:If in any criminal case or appeal, before the commencement of the hearing &c.;2. By the amendment aforesaid these words have been altered into:If in the course of any enquiry or trial or before the commencement of the hearing of any appeal &c.;3. The introduction of the word 'enquiry' in place of the words 'any criminal case' may ordinarily be taken to have been intended for the purpose of including proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C., but the rest of the clause if read properly would militate against this view. Proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C., are no doubt proceedings by way of enquiry. But then the words of Clause (8), Section 526, such as 'the complainant' 'the accused' and perhaps also the word 'public prosecutor' would be wholly inapposite in conne...
J.C. Galstaun Vs. Radhakissen Chamaria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1929
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.420
Phillip Lindsay Buckland, J.1. The plaintiff, in this case, claims to recover Rs. 33,100, with interest at 8 per cent, per annum, from the 13th October, 1922, and also an additional sum of Rs. 1,250, in circumstances, which, as the facts are not disputed, may be stated very briefly.2. In 1918, the plaintiff sold certain property in Bentinck Street to the defendant. It was also agreed that he should take a lease of the property for 10 years. The sale was duly completed, but, shortly afterwards, the property was acquired by the Calcutta Improvement Trust. The parties jointly filed a claim, and compensation amounting to Rs. 3,39,250 was awarded. The question arose whether the plaintiff, Galstaun, was entitled to any, and, if so, to what portion of that sum. This question was referred to the arbitration of two gentlemen and, pending their award, the defendant Radhakissen Chamaria, by arrangement, withdrew the whole compensation money, undertaking to pay to the plaintiff, Galstaun, any sum ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›