Kolkata Court November 1930 Judgments
Rajani Kanta Saha and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal443
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, it appears that there was a certain judgment-debtor and the decree-holder was minded to have execution against his person in enforcement of her decree. The decree-holder applied to the Munsif by a petition which was of a thoroughly muddled character. What she really wanted was that the Munsif should make an order under Sub-rule (2), Rule 22, Order 21, Civil P.C., to the effect that a warrant for the arrest of the judgment-debtor should issue at once notwithstanding that more than a year had elapsed since the date of the decree; and, if the procedure of the Munsif had not been in accordance with this muddle-headed petition, the form of the order which he would have made would have been to record his reasons under Sub-rule (2), Rule 22 and direct that a warrant of arrest do issue under Rule 37. In effect what he did was this : He directed simultaneous issue of three things : (1) a notice under Rule 22, (2) a notice to show cause why the judgment-debtor should...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Karim Dai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal636
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is a reference under Section 307, Criminal P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Jessore. The five accused Karim Dai, Akhej Sheikh Molla, Kiran Goshal, Matiar Rahaman and Esmail Molla were tried with two others under Section 395, I. P.C. The two others were acquitted by the learned Judge in agreement with the verdict of the jury. The jury found the five accused not guilty and the learned Judge being dissatisfied with this verdict has refused to accept it and has referred it to this Court as being perverse and against the weight of evidence. After they had given their verdict the learned Judge put these further questions to the jury.Q. What is your view of the occurrence?A. We think there was a theft and not a dacoity.Q. What leads you to take that view?A. Because no neighbours were produced as witnesses.2. We know of no power given to the learned Judge to put questions to the jury after their verdict except those contained in Section 303, Criminal P....
Tag this Judgment!Loke Nath Roy Vs. Mahim Chandra De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal649
Mitter, J.1. This rule is not opposed and is made absolute. It appears that the. petitioner who is the decree-holder applied for execution of his decree and for transmission of the execution petition from the Court at Sunamgunj to the Court at Sylhet. It appears however that notwithstanding all his efforts to send a copy of the decree and a certificate setting forth that satisfaction of the decree has not been obtained by execution within the jurisdiction of the Court by which it was passed the Court at Sunamgunj did not send the copy of the decree and the necessary certificate to the Court at Sylhet as is required by Order 21, Rule 6, Civil P.C. The Munsif however came to the conclusion that if the petition be thrown out the entire decree would be barred by limitation and that the decree-holder did all in his power to have the certificate From the Sunarngunj Court: vide order sheet of Miscellaneous Execution Case No. 1232 of 1927 and he held that notwithstanding the absence of a forma...
Tag this Judgment!Sudarsan Poddar Vs. Manindra Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal80
1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are of a somewhat complicated nature and it is therefore necessary to set them out briefly for the purpose of understanding what is said here-after. It appears that there was a partition suit between certain cosharers, one of whom was named Mathuranath Poddar. That was Suit No. 6 of 1913. In that suit, the preliminary decree for partition was made on 15th September 1914. The preliminary decree is not before us but the learned advocates on both sides are agreed that it was in the ordinary form, that is, it declared the shares of the parties and gave direction for partition by metes and bounds. The final decree in the partition suit was made on 18th December 1917. It appears that, under the terms of the final decree, the said cosharer Mathuranath was held to be entitled to certain immovable properties and was further held to be entitled to a sum of money, namely, Rs. 10,573 odd annas. Although the final decree was made so far back as 18th December ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajitkumar Basu Thakur Vs. Chairman of the Commissioners of Dacca Munic ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal85
1. This is an appeal by a plaintiff from a decree dismissing his suit.2. The plaintiff alleged that he had taken for agricultural purposes, a lease from the Dacca Municipality of 300 bighas of trenching ground lands since 1916-17, on executing a lease on 10th April 1917, that there was a condition in the lease that whenever the Municipality would require any portions out of the aforesaid leased lauds for the purpose of throwing night-soil, the Municipality should demarcate those portions and give notice thereof to the plaintiff in the month of April every year, so that agriculture might not subsequently be interfered with; and that since 1919 he incurred expenditure for procuring sugarcane plants for planting them, but that the Municipality did not comply with the condition and on the other hand put obstacles in his way. His case was that he had suffered considerable loss, as he was unable to do the cultivation, Ho claimed damages for the years 1919-20, 1920-21 and 1922. The terras of ...
Tag this Judgment!Saktiprasanna Bhattacharya Vs. Naliniranjan Bhattacharya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal738
1. There were two suits instituted in the trial Court. One was Haiti No. 1376, which was a suit on a mortgage. The plaintiff's allegation was that defendant 1 had failed to pay the mortgage moneys. The plaintiff therefore prayed for a decree on the mortgage as against defendant 1. Her allegation against defendant 2 was that she had come to know that certain money a had been released by defendant 2 from defendant 1. on account of the mortgage and the plaintiff prayed that should it turn oat that defendant 2 realised any moneys or the whole of the mortgage moneys from defendant 1, then a decree for money on account of the mortgage might be made against defendant 2. The first Court found that defendant 2 had realized a sum of Rs. 100 from defendant 1 and that defendant 1, by such payment, had been released by defendant 2 from the debt in question. The first Court accordingly dismissed the suit as against defendant 1, bur, decreed the suit against defendant 2 for Rs. 100 which had been rea...
Tag this Judgment!Bhola Sardar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal417
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The two appellants before us have been convicted under Section 373, I.P.C. and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another three months. The prosecution case is that on 21st July 1929, a girl Nasirannessa was missing at night from the house of her husband Jamal Fakir. He lodged an information at the thana stating that his wife was missing and had eloped the previous night with Ajitulla, one of the ' two appellants before us. The prosecution case is that she was actually taken away by the appellant Bhola and brought to a house where she was made to have an illicit intercourse with Bhola and other persons. Subsequently, she was made over to the appellant Ajitulla who also had an illicit intercourse with her. Finally the girl was brought to the thana with Ajitulla by the chaukidar. The two persons who were tried in the same trial were acquitted. Mr. Khun...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Phanindra Chandra Set
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal91
Panckridge, J.1. This is an application under the Lunacy Act 1912, presented by one Sreemati Tarubala Dasee, asking for an order directing an inquisition whether her husband, Phanindr . Chandra Sat, is of unsound mind and in-capable of managing himself and his affairs, and also that if upon such inquisition ha be found to be of unsound mind the applicant may be appointed guardian of his person and manager of his estate.2. The applicant is represented by the learned Standing Counsel, who informed me at the outsat that his application raised an important question of jurisdiction. The alleged lunatic is a Hindu, and he is described as residing at 1, Rustomjee Parsi Road, Cossipore, that is to say, outside the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court.3. The matter is one of some public importance, and I have thought it right to set out in a considered judgment 'the reasons which have led me to the conclusion that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the...
Tag this Judgment!Jyoti Prasad Singh Vs. Patmohana Collieries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal569
1. This appeal is by the decree-holder against an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Asansol, dated 15th December 1928, staying the execution of a decree. The Patmohana Collieries Ltd. went into voluntary liquidation and appointed Mr. Charles Ernest Walker, Mr. Benjamin Stanley, and Edwin John Carter liquidators in September 1927. The appellant had obtained a decree against the company in 1924, and in 1928, on his application, certain immovable properties belonging to the company, were attached. On 17th November 1928, the liquidators filed an application before the Additional Subordinate Judge of Asansol for stay of execution of the decree and for vacating the order of attachment and the sale proclamation that had been published in connexion thereof. The learned Subordinate Judge, by his order dated 15th December 1928, dismissed the execution proceedings. The decree-holder appeals to this Court and it is contended on his behalf that the order of the Court below is without jur...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Lachhiram Basantlal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal545
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, certain assessees were being dealt with for the year of assessment 1927-28. The assesses' year of accounting was Sambat year 1983 and, on 30th April 1927, a notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer of the district in which the assessees' principal place of business was situate he being the officer who had jurisdiction over them for the purpose of income-tax. This was the ordinary notice under Sub-section (2), Section 22 of the Act calling upon the assessees to furnish a return. The assessees did not furnish the return and several reminders were issued by that Income-tax Officer of the district in June 1927 and again in July 1927. On 10th December 1927, the Commissioner purported to appoint Mr. P.L. Bhattacharjee, Special Income-tax Officer to deal with what he conceived to be a class of cases which would include the present case. The order was that he was to:perform all the functions of an 'Income-tax Officer in respect of those persons in Calcutta whose...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »