Kolkata Court September 1929 Judgments
Dhurrumtolla Properties Ltd. Vs. Dhunbai Peroshaw Sorabjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1931Cal457
Mitter, J.1. This is an application on the part of the plaintiff company for final decree and judgment under Ch. 13-A of the rules of this Court declaring that the lease dated 16th April 1928, in the plaint in this suit particularly mentioned, stands determined on and from 26th June 1929, and directing that the defendant do forthwith make over to the plaintiff company vacant possession of premises No. 32, Dharmatala Street, together with all furniture and fittings, etc., demised by the said lease and directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff company the sum of Rs. 4,583-5-4, being the arrears of rent in respect of the said premises for the month of May 1929, and for 25 days of June 1929, at the rate of Rs. 2,500 per month, and do also pay to the plaintiff company mesne profits at the like rate from 26th June 1929, until delivery of vacant possession of the said premises together with furniture, fittings, etc., and do also pay to the plaintiff company its costs of this suit and al...
Tag this Judgment!Satindra Nath Sen and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal809
Mitter, J.1. This is an application under Section 526, Criminal P.C., on behalf of Satindra Nath Sen and 13 others for transfer of certain proceedings that are pending against them under Section 110, Clauses (e) and (f), Criminal P.C. from the file of the District Magistrate of Barisal before whom those proceedings are now pending.2. The proceedings, when they were first started, were being heard by a Magistrate of that District, Mr. B.R. Sen, and an application was made to this Court for transfer of these proceedings from the file of Mr. Sen to the file of some other Magistrate in the district, to this Court. That application was heard by my learned brothers C.C. Ghose, J and Jack, J., on 17th July 1929, and the learned Judges said in that case that having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the cases in which the present accused had been involved and in order to allay whatever suspicions or apprehensions might exist in the minds of the petitioners it was desirable that the case s...
Tag this Judgment!Peary Mohan Saha Vs. Harendra Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal295
Rankin, C.J.1. The accused in this case has been convicted of an offence under Clause (1), Section 6, Bengal Food Adulteration Act 1919. The offence charged was committed on 25th January 1929 and consisted in the accused having sold to a Health Officer a quantity of mustard oil which was not derived exclusively from mustard seed. The accused has been fined Rs. 150 and ordered to undergo two months simple imprisonment in default of payment.2. This rule was issued on the grounds that Clause 1, Section 6, Bengal Food Adulteration Act does not apply to the facts of the case, and that Section 6, makes the master or owner of the article sold guilty of an offence but not the servant.3. It is clear that the sale was made by the accused in his capacity of servant of a certain firm which used the name of one Josada Lal Roy Chowdhury. Josada Lal is dead, but there is no question that the accused sold the mustard oil as a servant of the proprietors of the said firm and that he is a servant and not...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Samuel Vs. F.H.T. Samuel
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal558
Panckridge, J.1. This is a summons taken out by the plaintiff asking that the defendant be ordered to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,500 or such other sum as the Court may direct on account of and towards the costs of the suit.2. The parties are wife and husband, are members of the Jewish community, and profess the Jewish religion. The plaintiff wife seeks in this suit to obtain a judicial separation from the husband. The suit was instituted on 13th May 1929, and on 21st May, Costello, J., made an order for alimony and the payment of Rs. 300 on account of the plaintiff's costs of the suit.3. It is conceded that the question of the power of the Court to make such an order was not raised on that occasion. There is a recent decision of the Bombay High Court, Benjamin v. Benjamin 50 Bom. 369 (1925), to the effect that the High Court has power to grant a decree nisi for the dissolution of a marriage between Jews. The Court, however, in that ease made it clear that the decree asked for ...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadas Banerjee and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal365
Mukerji, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted under Section 3 and 4, Bengal Public Gambling Act (Act 3 B.C. of 1867), petitioner 1 under Section 3 and air the other petitioners under Section 4 of the said Act. The question for consideration in this rule is whether the convictions are supportable in so far as they are based upon finding that the place where gambling used to go on was a common gaming house within the meaning of the Act. Offences under Sections 3 and 4 have for their foundation as one of the ingredients the fact that the place where gaming goes on is a common gaming house within the meaning of the definition given in Section 1.2. As regards this matter the learned Sessions Judge held in the first instance that:petitioner 1 or those who were interested in the venture along with him have not been proved by any evidence to have either drawn commission or worked so as to ensure more or less certain profits.3. He found, however, that instruments of gaming were found in the...
Tag this Judgment!Prafulla Kumar Bose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal209
1. The appellant Profulla Kumar Bose has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Sylhet under Section 366, I.P.C., and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,200, or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months more. The fine has been ordered to be paid as compensation; to the father of the girl in respect of whom the offence has been found to have been committed. The trial was held with the aid of a jury on charges under Sections 366, 368 and 376, I.P.C. The jury were unanimous in their verdict. They found the appellant not guilty under Section 376, I.P.C. They held that he was guilty under Section 366, LP. C, finding that-the girl had been kidnapped, the seduction having taken place before the girl left her father's place They held that in the circumstances the offence under Section 368, I.P.C., did not arise.2. The story needs no recounting. It is set out in all its harrowing details in the voluminous charge which th...
Tag this Judgment!Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Bhajoo Majhi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal291
Graham, J.1. This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal against the verdict of the jury and order of acquittal passed thereon by the Sessions Judge of Malda on a charge under Section 302, I.P.C.2. The case for the prosecution was that the accused Bhajoo Majhi murdered one Baneswar on the night of 25th February 1928, the motive for the crime being alleged to be a love intrigue between the accused and the deceased's wife Munia.3. The jury brought in a unanimous verdict of not guilty and the learned Judge accepting it acquitted the accused.4. In support of the appeal against that order two main grounds have been urged, firstly, that the jury was not constituted according to law, as there were only seven jurors instead of nine as required by Section 326(1) read with the proviso to Section 274(2), Criminal P.C. This ground has not as a matter of fact been taken in the petition of appeal and was only put forward at the 11th hour. We do not think, theref...
Tag this Judgment!Taleb Ali and anr. Vs. Abdul Aziz and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal689
Rankin, C.J.1. The plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif on the allegation that the defendant was in possession of certain land under a mortgage by conditional sale made to him by the plaintiff and claimed to redeem the mortgage and to recover possession of the land. The defendant contended that the mortgage was not genuine, and that the land was his own. A preliminary decree for redemption was made on 8th December 1924 and on 19th December a final decree for redemption was made, the defendant not appearing. The defendant, on 6th January, preferred an appeal to the lower appellate Court against the preliminary decree. When this appeal came on for hearing no objection was raised that the appeal was incompetent, and on 14th December 1925, the appeal was allowed and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed altogether. Two years afterwards the plaintiffs applied to the Court of the Munsif for execution of the final decree. The defendant objected to the execution on the ground that ...
Tag this Judgment!Girish Chandra and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal756
Rankin, C.J.1. On 19th September 1928, Lort Williams, J., exercising the jurisdiction of the High Court under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (3 of 1909 as amended by Act 9 of 1926) and being of opinion that there were grounds for thinking that certain insolvents had committed offences under Section 103 of the said Act, made a complaint under Section 104, thereof to the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta. The Magistrate issued process on the accused and from the earliest stage of the proceedings determined to conduct them under Chap. 18, Criminal P.C., being of opinion that the case was one which ought to be tried at the High Court Sessions. On 17th December 1928, be formally committed the three accused Girish Chandra Kundu, Sudhir Chandra Kundu and Pramatha Nath Kundu accordingly. On 8th March 1929 the case came before Buckland, J. in the ordinary original criminal jurisdiction of the Court. The learned Judge took the view that as on conviction for an offence under Section 10...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Girish Chunder Kundu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.433
ORDER1. This is a Reference by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under the following circumstances. On the complaint of one of the Judges of this Court presiding over the Insolvency Court, the accused in this case were placed for trial before the Chief Presidency Magistrate on a charge under Section 103 of the Presidency Insolvency Act. The learned Magistrate thought that the case was one which was fit to be tried in the High Court Sessions and committed the accused to the Sessions. On the matter coming up before Mr. Justice Buckland presiding then over the High Court Sessions, the learned Judge, being of opinion that the commitment was illegal, quashed it and sent the case back to the trial Magistrate with the following order: 'The order will be that the commitment be quashed. The record with a copy of the judgment will be returned to the Chief Presidency Magistrate in order that he may deal with the complaint according to law. ' On th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›