Kolkata Court January 1930 Judgments
Haripado Baidya and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal645
Cuming, J.1. In the case out of which this rule has arisen the complainant brought a case against the three petitioners of having defamed him. The facts alleged were that at a certain meeting of the caste the petitioners were alleged to have stated that one Kamini, the complainant's wife had been married before to one Jogendra. The defence apparently was that the statement was true. Both the Courts found that the three petitioners had made the statement alleged and it was not true and found them guilty under Section 500, I.P.C., and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each and in default each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months.2. The petitioners moved this Court and obtained what is described an open rule. The grounds that have been urged are grounds 3, 4 and 8 of the petition to this Court. Ground 3 is that the learned trial Magistrate's order was bad in law in so far as he relied solely on the evidence of interested persons unsupported by the testimony of independent...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Sattar Vs. Moti Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal720
Cuming, J.1. In the case out of which this rule arises the petitioners Abdul Sattar and Abdul Hamid have been convicted under Section 448 and Section 323, I.P.C., and sentenced under Section 448 to pay a fine of Rs. 250 each. No separate sentence was passed with regard to the conviction under Section 323, I.P.C. The case for the prosecution was that the two petitioners went with a Naib Nazir of the civil Court and some peons to execute a decree for ejectment from a house in Dacca which they had obtained against their sister's husband Muhammad Ali. On their arrival the delivery of possession was opposed by the complainant in the case on the ground that the house belongs to her and that she was not a party to the decree. It is alleged that in the absence of Mohammad Ali the complainant's husband, the petitioners and other persons forcibly dragged the complainant out of the house. The case for the defence was that they went to execute the civil Court decree and that they had not assaulted...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Charitar Dubey Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal10
Patterson, J.1. In our opinion this case must go back for retrial and for the following reasons:It being admitted that the appellant had received Rs. 479-4-0 on behalf of the complainant, the main question for the jury was whether the appellant had or had not paid this amount over to the complainant. The appellant received the amount by money order on 8th November 1925, and his case is that he paid it over to the complainant on 14th November 1925. The complainant filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 1st August 1928, alleging that the appellant had misappropriated the amount in conspiracy with the postal peon, and on 18th August 1928 the appellant filed a petition before the police in which he repudiated the allegations made by the complainant. The appellant followed this up by another petition dated 19th December 1928, and in para. 6 of that petition he stated that the complainant, after receipt of the money, had written to the railway company in connexion with ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Rani Dassya and ors. Vs. Sm. Golapi Dassya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal779,129Ind.Cas.362
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 to 4 and arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff for a declaration that defendant 1 Rani Dasee has no right to inherit the property of her husband Jogendra as she became unchaste during her husband's lifetime, and for a further declaration that certain kabalas, which had been executed by Rani Dasee in favour of defendants 2 to 4 are collusive and fraudulent. Both the Courts have held that defendant 1 was immoral and unchaste during her husband's lifetime and that therefore she was not competent to inherit her husband's estate. They have also found that the kabalas executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendants 2 to 4 are collusive and fraudulent.2. Against the concurrent decisions of the District Judge of Bankura and the Munsif of the same district the present appeal has been preferred by defendants 1 to 4, and it has been argued by Mr. Bankim Chandra Mukherji who has appeared for the appellants that the suit offends against the p...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Balak Bala Dassi Vs. Jadu Nath Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal45,129Ind.Cas.566
1. This appeal has been preferred from a decree dismissing a suit for administration. The facts necessary to be stated are the following : One Gokul Krishna Das, the testator, had at the time of his death a four annas share in certain moveable and immovable properties, the remaining 12 annas share therein belonging in equal shares to his brother Jadu Nath Das, who was defendant 1 in the suit, defendants 3 and 4 and defendant 5. Gokul Krishna executed a will on 12th April 1912 and died on 19th April 1912. In between these dates, on 15th April 1912, he executed a codicil. He left a widow Gokul Mohini and two daughters Achinta Mohini Dasi and Balakdasi Dasi of whom the former died on 5th November 1919 and the latter on 4th December 1919. Defendant 2 is the husband of Balak Dasi. On 11th April 1924 Balak Dasi instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. Originally the suit was instituted against the first five defendants but subsequently five other defendants were added on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Forrester Vs. Forrester
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal206
Rankin, C.J. 1. In this case the wife brought a petition for dissolution of marriage against her husband on the ground of adultery. The suit was brought under the Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act of 1926. At first instance, the wife obtained a decree and, an appeal being taken by the husband, the appeal Court reversed that decree and dismissed the suit of the wife.2. During the proceedings on the original side, various orders wore from time to time made for security for costs to be given by the husband in respect of the costs which the wife was incurring in prosecuting her suit in the trial Court. When the decree for divorce was set aside, this Court made an order, which was expressed to be conditional upon the result of an application which might be brought within a limited time by the husband asking for an enquiry into the question whether the wife had sufficient separate estate of. her own. Subject to that condition, the Court ordered that the amount of security which wa...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bissesswar Lal Brijlal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal449
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, has referred to this Court under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act 1922, two questions: (1) Whether the Income-tax Officer has any power under the law to refuse an application for registration made in the prescribed manner with partnership deed prior to assessment and, if so, under what section of the Act; and (2) whether the law gives the Income-tax Officer any power to call for evidence of dissolution of the joint family for the purpose of registration under Section 2(14) over and above the documentary evidence adduced by the partnership deed in support of the application in Form 1 under Rule 2.2. Now it is abundantly clear that the assessees in this case carry on a certain business. The Income-tax Officer says that this business has be9n assessed on the footing that the persons who carry it on are members of a Hindu undivided family in business as such. It seems there is the grandfather who is the senior member and ther...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: N.S. Mundy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal625,129Ind.Cas.411
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam, and the question arises whether or not a certain sum amounting to Rs. 55,000 paid in April 1926 by a Mr. Trotman to the assessee is liable to income-tax.2. It appears that Mr. Trotman in 1924 was the owner of a business which he carried on under the style of John Smeal & Co. Mr. Mundy, the assessee, was engaged by Trotman as an assistant in the business. It may be that the word 'assistant' is not a quite sufficient description and that Mr. Mundy might be described as manager; but Mr. Mundy began as a servant of Mr. Trotman and he had to begin with no interest save that of an employee in his master's business. It appears that by 21st May 1924 Mr. Mundy, had been serving his employer so well that for a good many years past it had been understood between them that, although there was no formal partnership, he had the position which Mr. Trotman described as 'virtually that of a quarter shareholder in the business....
Tag this Judgment!Aswini Kumar Pal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal728
1. The appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 486, I.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500. The charge against the accused was that he had in his possession for sale or purposes of trade certain tins of corn-flour bearing a trade-mark or property mark which was a counterfeit of the mark of Messrs. C. & B. Morton Ltd. Of the marks forming the subject matter of the charge only one described as 'Matrons' has been held by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate to be a counterfeit under the section, but although this is so, it is nevertheless relevant in the present case to observe that at the search which resulted in the prosecution certain other brands of this commodity were found in the accused's possession in which he also traded, bearing different labels, namely 'Nortons' 'Motor' 'Leton's' and 'Newtons.' 'Nortons' has been the subject of injunction proceedings in the High Court and as the Magistrate notes is a closer counterfeit than the others. The conviction...
Tag this Judgment!Shyama Charan De Tahbildar and ors. Vs. Protap Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal349
1. The facts of this case are quite simple. In 1918 the decree-holders obtained a preliminary decree, in a mortgage suit. The ordering portion of the judgment therein directed that after expiry of the period of grace interest would run on the amount due at 6 per cent per annum. In the decree drawn up in accordance with the judgment this portion of the order was omitted and interest was allowed only up to the expiry of the period of grace. In the final decree drawn up about a, year later it was provided:that the sum of Ra. 3,290-8-0 as payable under the said preliminary decree together. with Rs. 284-12-0 as the costs of the suit as specified in the said preliminary decree and further interest up to the date of payment at the rate specified in said decree would be payable to the plaintiffs,and there were other directions therein with which we are not concerned.2. In 1920 the decree-holders applied for execution for a sum of Rs. 3,681-1-0 whether they meant to include in this amount any i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »