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.
Chairman, Serajganj Local Board Vs. Budhiswar Patni and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal281
C.C. Ghose, J.1. The facts involved in this case, shortly stated as follows: The accused, who are four in number, were put on their trial before the Deputy Magistrate, Pabna on charges under Section 16 read with Section 28, Bengal Ferries Act, on the allegation that they were plying a private ferry at a place called Simla or Sakha without the sanction of the District Magistrate within two miles of the public ferry at Dhangora. The accused plead not guilty. Evidence was adduced on the point whether the offending ferry was within two miles of the public ferry at Dhangora, The Magistrate found on the record before him that the distance between the two places by river was 3 & 17/18 miles whereas by land it was 1 & 1/2 miles and he accordingly acquitted the accused, holding that the distance contemplated by Section 16, Bengal Ferries Act, was the distance by river and not by land. It is against this order of acquittal that the present rule has been obtained, and the point for consideration ...
Bhim Naik Vs. Chakradhar Maity and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal348a
Rankin, C.J.1. I am afraid that this rule must be discharged. The applicant purchased in execution of a rent decree what appears to be a non-transferable Occupancy holding. When he was put in possession by the Court, it was found that certain persons were on the land who claimed to be in possession as purchasers from the original tenant. The Court peon gave symbolical possession only; but these persons were, in fact, on the land applied under Order 21, Rule 100. Civil P.C., The Munsiff made an order in their favour restoring them to possession under Rule 101. Now, the present application is brought in revision against that order, notwithstanding that the auction-purchaser has a remedy by suit under Order 21, Rule 103, Civil P.C., and, as a rule, this Court does not interfere in revision in such cases because there is another and better remedy open to the parties. I may say that I am by no means satisfied that the case of Panchratan v. Ram Sahai [1918] 3 Pat. L.J. 579, upon which the le...
Mt. Kiransasi Ghose Vs. Panchanan Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal102
1. This appeal has arisen out of an order passed by the District Judge of 24 Parganas removing the appellant from her position of guardianship of her minor son Dhirender Krishna Ghose. It appears that the appellant was appointed guardian on an application made by her some time in the year 1926. Thereafter certain proceedings were taken against her upon the ground that she was not properly managing the property of the minor and was not submitting accounts of her management in respect thereof. From time to time she made applications before the Court which clearly made out that she personally knew nothing about the management and was completely in the hands of certain other persons whom she charged with having mismanaged the minor's estate. Ultimately proceedings were taken against her under the Guardian and Wards Act and on her showing cause an order was passed by the District Judge on 27th July 1928 which runs in these words:Cause shown. The guardian admits that she been doing nothing t...
Shamsul Huq Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal332
Lort-Williams, J.1. On the second day of July 1927 the petitioner despatched to himself as consignee three bundles of goat skins from Chatra railway station to Howrah over the B.T. Railway. On 12th July he went to Howrah goods shed, paid the railway freight and demanded the goods. The railway officials refused to hand them over on the ground that one of the bundles appeared to be different from the one despatched, and was 30 seers short in weight. The petitioner pressed them for delivery under short receipt to avoid loss and depreciation in market value, but this was refused.2. On 26th September the petitioner's pleader Satya wrote to the Commercial Chief Manager, Howrah, setting out the above facts, drawing attention to the falling market and to the fact that the skins were getting damaged and worthless in the goods office, and demanding the price.3. To this letter the Chief Commercial Manager replied sending a copy of his office letter dated 2nd August which had been written to the p...
Shams-ul-huq Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Councie
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1930
Reported in: 128Ind.Cas.248
Lort-Williams, J.1. On the second day of July, 1927, the petitioner despatched to himself as consignee three bundles of goat skins from Chatra Railway Station to Howrah over the E.J. Railway. On 12th July he went to Howrah goods-shed, paid the Railway freight and demanded the goods. The Railway officials refused to hand them over on the ground that one of the bundles appeared to be different from the one despatched, and was 30 seers short in weight. The petitioner pressed them for delivery under short receipt to avoid loss and depreciation in market value, but this was refused.2. On 26th September the petitioner's Pleader Satya wrote to the Commercial Chief Manager, Howrah, setting out the above facts, drawing attention to the falling market and to the fact that the skins were getting damaged and worthless in the goods office, and demanding the price.3. To this letter the Chief Commercial Manager replied sending a copy of his office letter dated 2nd August which had been written to the...
Kuti and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal442
1. This case arises out of a riot that is said to have taken place over the cutting of paddy, in the course of which one of the members of the complainant's party was killed.2. At the trial both sides claimed to have been in possession of the land and to have grown the disputed crop, and each party alleged that the members of the other party had been the aggressors.3. In his charge to the jury the learned Additional Sessions Judge discussed the evidence regarding possession, and the evidence regarding the details of the actual occurrence at considerable length, and he expressly left these matters to the decision of the jury.4. As regards the question of the right of private defence, however, the Judge expressed himself in the following terms:The accused have not set up the right of private defence in answer to the charge against, them, and there are not also circumstances appearing upon the evidence in the case justifying the exorcise of that right. The learned Public Prosecutor had ar...
Rajani Kanta Saha and ors. Vs. Arjun Chandra Chakravarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal588
1. The respondent as plaintiff instituted a suit against the appellants as defendants for ejecting the latter on declaration of his own title on the following allegations that the lands were purchased at a rent-sale by the landlords in execution of a decree for rent obtained by them against the one Bishun Charan Das and others and that the landlords took symbolical pos me session after such purchase and there or after leased the same out to the respondent but when the respondent went to take possession he was resisted by the as appellants who had no title. The appellants in their defence alleged that they had been in possession for many years as occupancy ryots under that tenure-holders and that the plaintiff himself had recognized them as such. This suit was dismissed. The judgments of the trial Court and of the t appellate Court in that suit are not very clear but it appears to have been held by the latter Court that though the recognition had not been proved the respondent or his le...
Raj Chandra Bhowmick Vs. K. Habibulla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal693
Rankin, C.J.1. The facts involved in these appeals shortly stated, are a9 follows :.The plaintiffs are the zamindars of mauza Islampur, bearing Tauzi No. 446 of the Tipperah Colleotorate. The mauza, according to the plaintiffs, was held under them in patni in certain defined shares, i.e., two taluks of six annas each, one taluk of three annas and one taluk of one anna. This last mentioned one anna share was held by one Ramdhone Nath. He died some time ago, and on or about the dates hereinafter preferred to, his heirs and successors were in possession of the said patni taluk of one anna share under the plaintiffs on payment of a um of Rs. 82-15-0 as annual rental. In 1918 there were arrears of rent due on account of the said one anna share. A suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for the recovery of the arrears; a decree was obtained and in execution of the decree for arrears of rent the plaintiffs purchased the patni interest in the said one anna share. The sale was confirmed some time...
AfajaddIn Vs. Jahed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal346
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The plaintiff sues to recover khas possession of the disputed land on the allegation that defendants 1 to 4 have forcibly taken possession of tire suit lands by erecting tin huts thereon, The suit is contested by defendants 1 to 4 who are brothers. Their case is that they have been residing on the land from the time of their father who had taken settlement of those lands, from the plaintiff's father. The trial Court dismissed the suit. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff. It appears that on 27th August; 1926 service on the absent defendant respondents 4 and 5 was not proved and the appeal was dismissed as against these defendants without costs. Thereafter the appeal continued as against the remaining respondents and on 2ist January 1927 it was dismissed for default. On the following day there was an application for restoration of the appeal and in that application all the defendants respondents including respondents 4 and 5 were mentioned as opposite parties, and ...
S.C. Nandi Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal665a
ORDERCuming, J.1. These four rules arise out of four separate prosecutions for putting up scaffoldings in a public lane belonging to the Corporation of Calcutta without obtaining licenses for so doing from the Corporation. The petitioner was apparently charged with obstructing this lane on four separate occasions. For each of these obstructions he was convicted and fined Rs. 20.2. The ground which has been urged on his behalf by Mr. Talukdar is that the separate prosecutions and convictions were not maintainable and illegal, because the obstruction was one and the same in each of these cases and therefore he could not be tried and convicted four times for the same offence. Whether the obstruction for which he was prosecuted was the same in all the four cases or was a different obstruction is obviously a question of fact. When the petitioner was prosecuted on these four charges he never alleged in his defence that the obstructions complained of were one and the same. This point obviousl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »