Kolkata Court January 1930 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.
Lunkurn Rampooria and ors. Vs. Birji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal219
Rankin, C.J.1. This suit concerns the estate of one Choutmull, a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara school, who died in 1918. It appears that he had three brothers one Bridhichand who does not matter for the present purpose and two others called Ganeshdas and Choonilal. Choutmull had a son Hamirmull who was married to Mt. Birji, defendant 1 in the present suit. Hamirmull died in 1900. in the lifetime of his father and it appears that, in 1906, his widow Mt. Birji adopted or purported to adopt to him one Punamchand who is a defendant in the present suit. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the Bikaner Durbar confirmed this adoption in October 1906. In March 1912 Punamchand and his four sons who are the plaintiffs in the present suit brought a suit (No. 315 of 1912) against Choutmull, Hazarimull, son of Choutmull's brother Choonilal and Thanmull, son of adopted son of Ganeshdas. At that time, all the present plaintiffs were under age and Punamchand brought the suit on his own behalf and a...
Topzal HossaIn Vs. H.C. Hunt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal711
Cuming, J.1. The petitioner in this case is found guilty in a summary trial on a charge under Section 182, I.P.C, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200.The charge against him was that he gave false information to a certain public servant, the Superintendent of Police, that he and his mother had been unlawfully confined by a certain police officer and that money was extorted wrongly from them. He has moved this Court and has obtained this Rule.2. The only ground which it is necessary for me to deal with is ground 3, namely that the offence falls under Section 211, I.P.C., and therefore not triable summarily. Mt. Bhattacharji who appears for the Crown admits himself that the case is an important one and that he would prefer that the accused should be, under the ordinary procedure, tried on a charge under Section 211. There is, I think, no question but that the charge against the petitioner does fall under Section 211, I.P.C. This point was decided by the decision of a Full Bench of ...
Mohini Mohan Singh and ors. Vs. Sita Nath Basak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal233
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff is the author of a book entitled ' Adarshalipi-O-Saral-Barna-Parichay' which was first published in 1902 and has seen numerous editions since then. In 1919 the defendant published two books called 'Nutan Patsala Adarshalipi Prathambhag' and 'Nutan Maktab Adarshalipi Prathambhag' respectively. This suit was instituted for injunction and damages on the ground that the plaintiff's copyright in his book had been infringed by the defendants by the publications aforesaid. The suit was dismissed in the first instance, but on an appeal by the plaintiff to this Court that decree was set side and the suit ordered to be tried further, upon the ground that the relative situation of the parties had not been correctly appreciated by the trial Court. This Court held that upon statutory presumption as also on admission the plaintiff's copyright in his book had been established, and the question whether there was infringement thereof needed determination. Such further trial,...
Tofazel HooseIn Vs. H.C. Hunt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1930
Reported in: 128Ind.Cas.208
Arthur Herbert Cuming, J.1. The petitioner in this case is found guilty in a summary trial on a charge under a. 132, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 200, The charge against him was that he gave false information to a certain public servant, the Superintendent of Police that he and his mother had been unlawfully confined by a certain Police officer and that money was extorted wrongly from them. He has moved this Court and has obtained this Rule.2. The only ground which it is necessary for me to deal with is ground No 3, namely, that the offence falls under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, and, therefore, not triable summarily. Mr. Bhuttacharya who appeals for the Crown admits himself that the case is an important one and that he would prefer that the accused should be, under the ordinary procedure, tried on a charge under Section 211. There is, I think, no question but that the charge against the petitioner does fall under Section 211, Indian Penal Code. This poi...
Hachani Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal481
1. This case arises out of a dacoity that was committed on the night of 2nd November 1928, in the boat of one Kali Kumar Banikya, an itinerant vendor of metal utensils. The other occupants of the boat were Kali Kumar's nephew, Lebu, and two Manjhis named Rajendra and Bir Oharan. They were all strangers to the locality and so were unable to recognize any of the dacoits as men who had been known to them from before. Kali Kumar lodged a first information at the thana on 3rd November, in which he stated that none of the occupants of the boat had beer able to recognize anyone, but that he thought that he might be able to recognize two or three of the dacoits, if he saw them again. He also gave descriptions of three of the dacoits, one of whom, he said, had threatened him with a knife, while the other two had caught him by the throat. On coming to the spot, the Sub-Inspector arrested one Samiruddin, and in consequence of information given by Samiruddin, a box of utensils that had been stolen...
Kusum Baistami and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal638,129Ind.Cas.358
ORDERCuming, J.1. This is an application by four persona who have been sentenced to pay a daily fine of Rs. 2 a day each for not carrying out the orders passed against them under Section 3, Eastern Bengal and Assam Disorderly Houses Act of 1907. The grounds on which the rule has been issued are : first, that the notices upon which the present order is based being ultra vire9 and without jurisdiction the order itself is not maintainable; and secondly, that the judgment is not in accordance with law since the cases of the individual accused have not been separately considered. As far as I can see, the ground stated first is well founded. These persons were ordered to vacate the house. Section 2 of the Act provides that a Magistrate may summon the owner, tenant, manager or occupier of the house to appear before him to show cause why the use of such house should not be discontinued for any of the purposes or in any of the ways described in the section. Admittedly notices on the3e parsons w...
Ghuraram Kahar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal760
Cuming, J.1. This rule has been issued on two grounds : first of all that the conviction and sentence are bad in law inasmuch as the mandatory provisions of Section 342, Criminal P.C., were not, followed, and secondly that the facts, do not constitute an offence under Section 341, I.P.C., inasmuch as among others, the complainant had no right to use the rain water passage as a urinal. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 341, I.P.C., for wrongfully restraining the complainant from going to a certain urinal. The complainant is apparently a tenant of the petitioner and they have fallen out. The complainant's case was that he was not allowed to go to a certain urinal in the house. The learned Magistrate has come to no finding as to whether the complainant had any right whatever to use the aforesaid urinal. This urinal apparently consisted of a couple of bricks put over a rain water pipe. In order to hold the petitioner guilty under Section 341, I.P.C., it would be necessary to ...
Asoke Prasanna Bal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal802,129Ind.Cas.413
Cuming, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 under Section 504, I.P.C., and further to give security for his good behaviour under Section 106, Criminal P. C. The case against him was briefly that he filthily abused the complainant in such a way that the complainant was likely to lose control of himself and to commit a breach of the peace.2. The Rule has been granted on grounds Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the petition to this Court. The first ground urged by Mr. Chatterji is that the general diary entry, Ex. I, is not admissible for the purpose of proving the falsity of the defence case and it cannot legally be used in evidence to disprove the defence and the learned Magistrate was wrong in using the said entry, Ex. I, against the petitioner. As a matter of fact the learned Magistrate has used the general diary entry, Ex. I, for the purpose of corroborating the case of the complainant and showing that the complainant made the same remark then as he does now...
S.M. Choudhuri Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal368
Cuming, J.1. The petitioner in this case who is an advocate of this Court is also the owner of a motor bus and apparently carries on the trade of a motor bus owner. He was prosecuted at the instance of the Corporation of Calcutta and has been fined Rs. 50 on the ground that he is liable under Section 175, Calcutta, Municipal Act 1923 read with Schedule 6, Item 18, to take out a license as a carrier.2. The petitioner contends that he carries only passengers and not goods for hire. His case is that small cases such as suit cases are allowed on his bus but no hire is paid for the carriage of the goods and hire is only paid for passengers. His contention would seem shortly to be this that a person who carries only passengers for hire is not al carrier within the meaning of Schedule 6, item 18, Calcutta Municipal Act. The whole case depends upon the meaning of the expression 'carrier.' In Halsbury's Laws of England vol. 4, p. 2 we find the word 'carrier' defined asAny parson who carries goo...
Panchanan Gogai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal276
1. The accused in this case (Panchanan Gogai, Gopal Gohain, Mohari Ahom alias Mohari Dursa, Kan Bap Baruah, Laghona Koar, and Ratneswar Ahom) were found guilty by the jury in manner following i.e. Pachanan and Kan Bap were found guilty under Sections 328 and 366, I.P.C., Gopal and Mali Ali or Mohari under Section 366, I.P.C. and the remaining two under Section 366 read with Section 107, I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge of the Assam Valley Districts, agreeing with the verdict of the jury has sentenced the accused to undergo various terms of imprisonment.2. The main point which has been argued in this appeal before us arises with reference to the evidence of one Sashi, Prabha, a girl aged about 17, who was alleged to have been abducted. The case for the prosecution, shortly stated, was as follows: It appears that the marriage of Sashi Probha with one Lokenath had been settled and the marriage was to have taken place on 6th May 1928. Her father Durga Prosad had been away from ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »