Kolkata Court November 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.
In Re: Krishna Kumar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal543
Rankin, C.J. 1. In this case, the Commissioner of Income-tax has stated a case to this Court in a manner which cannot be accepted and the matter must go back to him to state a case properly. It appears that in this case, as in many other . cases which I have noticed, the Commissioner of Income-tax attempts two things by the same document. An application is made to him and he is asked to give certain findings in connexion with an income-tax assessment and, if he takes a certain view, the assessee asks him to refer certain points of law to the High Court. It is quite correct and proper that the Income-tax Commissioner should write a judgment, so to say, giving his reasons for the conclusion to which he comes. But if part of the conclusion to which he comes is that it is right to refer a certain question to the High Court, then he ought in strictness to make out another document, namely, a statement of the case upon that point for the opinion of the High Court. The order that he makes wil...
Ananta Lal Singh and ors. Vs. Alfred Henry Watson and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal257
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an application by fourteen persons who are accused of various offences and are. being tried at Chittagong by Special Tribunal in respect thereof. Their application is for a writ of attachment and committal for contempt of Court against three respondents : Alfred Henry Watson, Anath Nath Patra and the Statesman Ltd. Respondent 1 appears to be the Editor of the Statesman newspaper and respondent 2 to be the printer and publisher thereof. The application is made in respect of certain comments which were published in the Statesman newspaper on 28th and 31st August of this year in the following circumstances : It appears that, in the course of an editorial published in the issue of 28th August 1930, this newspaper was engaged in certain controversy with another newspaper called Advance upon the question whether or not the throwing of bombs and other acts of violence charged against the accused petitioners in the case at Chittagong were connected with the Congress part...
Saharali Mahomed and anr. Vs. KamizuddIn Mahomed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal446
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the two petitioners apply to us in revision complaining of the conviction which has been recorded against them by the trial Magistrate and the appellate Court under Section 363, I. P.C., in respect of a boy as to whom it is not clear whether he is just above or just below the age of seven, The boy is a Mahomedan and it seems that the petitioners are persons who took the boy away from the custody of his half sister's husband and herself with whom he had been living for about a year and a half since his father's death. The petitioners in so acting were apparently acting on behalf of the boy's paternal aunt and no doubt the circumstance that this boy has a certain amount of property is the cause of the battle raging as to who shall have the custody. Still prosecution under Section 363, I. P.C., must be properly grounded. The learned Sessions Judge in the course of his judgment says:I am not prepared to enter into questions of Mahomedan Law to the extent of det...
Brojendra Chandra Dey Vs. K.S. Sama
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal455
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, it appears that a complaint was made to the Chief Presidency Magistrate to the effect that the applicant before us one Brojendra Chunder De, had taken a certain motor bus on hire purchase terms from the complainant. The petition of complaint went on to say in somewhat remarkable language that the applicant before us had made default in payment of the hire; that on 21st May the complainant's representative, Thakur Bhagwan Singh duly served the termination of the hire whatever that may mean andlawfully recovered the bus from the possession of the said Brojendra Chunder De and granted him a receiptand that thereafter the said Thakur Bhagwan Singh in company with another employee of the complainant, went to a garage at Bentinck Street and while they were inside making arrangements for the garaging of the bus, the bus was stolen from the road and was in the possession of the said Brojendra Chunder De. Looking at the meaning of that, it is very likely that it doe...
Bhutnath Mondal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal617
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The two appellants were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of 24 Parganas on charges under Section 411 read with Section 75, I. P.C. In the end they were convicted of these charges; the appellant Bhut Nath was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years, and the other appellant Gopal was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The heads of charge have been placed before as and it is clear that the learned Judge misdirected himself on some material points. According to the prosecution case two persons, Annada and Khetra, of Kuimuri village lost some heads of cattle in the months of Asar and Sraban. Subsequently some cattle were found in She house occupied by the present appellants and three of the animals are alleged to be stolen properties, two belonging to Annada and one to Khetra. The defence is that the three heads of cattle were mortgaged to the appellant Gopal. In his charge to the jury the learned Judge referred to the ...
Harendra Barman Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal606
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this appeal the learned Counsel for the appellants has raised only the question of sentence. The accused appellants who were nine in number were convicted and sentenced as follows: Accused 1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and six months respectively under Section 147 and Section 325 read with Section 149. These sentences were to run concurrently. Accused 2 to 4 were sentenced each to one year and six years respectively under Section 147 and Section 325 read with Section 149, I. P.C. These sentences were to run consecutively. Accused 5 to 9 were sentenced each to one year under Section 147 and six years under Section 325, I. P.C. These sentences were to run consecutively. The learned Counsel's first point is that under Section 71, I. P.C., it is not legal to pass a separate sentence where the accused is charged both under Section 147 and also under Section 325 read with Section 149. He relies upon the cases of Nilmony Poddar v. Que...
Rajani Kanta Barman Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal618
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The appellant Rajani Kanta Barman was tried along with three other persons on charges under Section 366, I. P.C., before the learned Sessions Judge at Jalpaiguri with the aid of four assessors. The assessors found the appellant guilty on those charges and the learned Judge agreeing has convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Two other accused Teperu and Dhephua were also similarly convicted and were ordered to execute bonds to be of good behaviour for two years. Another accused Galim was held to be not guilty.2. The prosecution case briefly is that on 10th August 1929 the present appellant with others took away Batashi, the 13 year old wife of Tiara Borman from the latter's house. She was taken to certain places and ultimately to Jalpaiguri railway station. There she was found by the Government Railway Police havildar and taken charge of by one Rambadan. The last named person took her to some lawyers, one of whom ulti...
NabIn Chandra Chakravarti and ors. Vs. Sm. Shuna Mala Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal25
Suhrawardy, J.1. The property in suit belonged to one Chandra Nath Chakravarti. He had two wives, Darga Sundari and Ambika, who survived him. By Durga he left a daughter Bharati, and by Ambika a daughter Tirtha Bashi. The plaintiffs are the sons of Bharati and defendant 4 is the son of Tirtha Bashi. Durga predeceased Ambika, and on the latter's death Chandra Nath's estate descended to his two daughters, but it actually was in possession of Tirtha Bashi. In 1298 B.S. Ambika the last holder of the life estate, died, and in order to perform her funeral rites Golok, the husband of Tirtha Bashi, took a loan of Rs. 250 from Rup Chand Ghose, the predecessor of the principal defendants, by mortgaging the entire estate of Chandra Nath on behalf of his wife. In 1299 B.S. a year after this transaction, Bharati came into the field and brought a suit against Tirtha Bashi and her husband to recover joint possession of the property left by Chandra Nath. The suit was settled between the parties in 189...
Kashi Bashi Saha Firm Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal369
Cuming, J.1. The petitioners in this case were ordered under Section 2, Eastern Bengal and Assam Disorderly Houses Act, to discontinue the use of a certain house as brothel. They have moved this Court and obtained the rule on the ground that the preliminary notices served on the petitioner and others having asked them to show cause as to why they should not vacate the holdings was wholly illegal and as such the proceedings based thereon and the orders passed were without jurisdiction. Now apparently the notice which was in Bengali did contain a direction to vacate the house. The learned Magistrate in his explanation says that this may be due to insufficient knowledge of the staff in a mufassil office. The learned Magistrate who signed the notice was himself a Bengali gentleman and it was his duty to see that the notices he signed are correct. He cannot refuge be hind the ignorance of his staff. Possibly this might be due to his own ignorance of the provisions of law. Be that as it may,...
Kumud Chandra Nandi and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal265a
Cuming, J.1. The two petitioners are Managing Director and Secretary respectively of a certain company and they have been prosecuted and fined Re. 1 each for neglecting to file with the Registrar a notice of the change among its directors in proper time. It would appear that one of the directors resigned his post on 6th February 1930. This resignation and the name of the new director was notified to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies on 8th May 1930. Apparently the prosecution was lodged at the instance of the retiring director of the company. S. 87, under which the two petitioners have been convicted and fined reads as follows:(1) Every company shall keep at its registered office a register containing the names and addresses and the occupations of its directors, and file with the Registrar a copy thereof, and from time to time file with the Registrar notice of any change among its director;', or managers. (2) If default is made in complying with this section the company shall ho l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »