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.
Duni Chand Ram Saran Das Chopra Vs. Secy. of State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal585
Suhrawardy, J.1. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant consigned six bales of woollen goods to be carried from Howrah to Amritsar. At Amritsar it was discovered that three of the bales were missing. It is not necessary to go more fully into the facts of the case and the evidence, as it has been found by both the Courts below that the goods were lost in transit between Howrah and Burdwan and that was on account of wilful neglect of the servants of the E. I. Ry. Company. The plaintiff's suit was thrown oat by the Courts below on the ground that there was no proper notice under Section 77, Railways Act (9 of 1890). What happened was that on the nondelivery of the goods the plaintiff sent a notice to the Traffic Manager of the N. W. Ry. on whose line was Amritsar to which the goods were consigned. A copy of the notice was sent to the Agent of the E. I. Ry. It has been found that the liability for the loss of the goods rested on the E. I. By. and the learned Additional Dist...
Abdul Majid Bhuiya and ors. Vs. Ali Mia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal657
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possession of the land in suit on the allegation that the tenant who held the land had no transferable occupancy right but ha had transferred the entire tenancy to the defendant. The plaintiffs claim to be the sixteen anna, landlords in respect of the tenancy in suit. Their suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that they were not sixteen anna maliks but were eight anna cosharer landlords and the other cosharer was not made a party. The lower appellate Court was of opinion that the suit by the plaintiff was maintainable to the extent of their share but relying on the case of Ahmed Moulavi v. Hemanta Kumar Roy [1926] 94 I.C. 338 he dismissed the suit on the ground that the holding in suit was composed of some entire plots and undivided shares in some other plots and was therefore not a holding under Section 87, Ben. Ten. Act. The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the plaintiffs were entitled ...
Hari Kishore Saha Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal128
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this Rule has arisen are shortly these: The petitioner has been convicted under Section 32, Act 5 of 1861, for taking out a certain image in procession without a license. The District Superintendent of Police had published a notice under Section 30, Act 5 of 1861, that all processions required license from the police. The case of the accused is that the idol was not taken out in procession and secondly it is argued that the notice prohibiting or rather requiring licenses to be taken for processions was not properly promulgated and that there were serious discrepancies between the original notice in English and the notice in Bengali which was actually published.2. The first point to be considered is whether was a procession. The case of the petitioner is that the image in question was merely carried down to the ghat and immersed in the river. There was neither music nor did any one accompany the idol except the persons who actually carried...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›