Kolkata Court December 1930 Judgments
Radha Ballav Khan and ors. Vs. Peary Lall Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal19
1. The portion of the appellants' application for execution with which we are concerned in the present appeal is in respect of their prayer for execution of an ex parte decree which was passed in their favour on the 11th December 1922. It was a decree for recovery of money from the judgment-debtors. On 4th January 1923 the judgment debtors applied for setting aside the decree. On the 9th April 1923 the appellants applied for execution, but, the judgment-debtors on 25th May 1923 obtained from the Court, in which their application for setting the decree aside was pending, an order in these terms:I think that the execution proceedings should be stayed until the rehearing case is disposed of. Let the execution be stayed until further orders.2. In compliance with this order the executing Court after adjourning the execution case from time to time passed in it an order on 14th December 1923, in these words: 'It is useless to keep the execution case pending any longer. Struck off.' The rehear...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Ijjatulla Paikar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal190
Lort-Williams, J.1. These are appeals against the orders of the Sub-divisional Officer of Bogra acquitting the two appellants of charges under Section 193, I.P.C.2. The appellants were search witnesses in a case under Section 395/411, I. P.C.3. Before the commiting Magistrate on 12th March 1929 they deposed that certain ornaments had been found, that a search list had been made and signed toy them, that labels had been attached to the ornaments, and that these also had been signed by them.4. Before Mr. B. C. Chatterji, the Additional Sessions Judge of Pabna and Bogra, on 19th September 1929, they identified the search list, but said that they could not remember what ornaments had been found, and that they had signed some small pieces of paper, but could not say what had been done with them. Consequently, Mr. B. C. Chatterji, issued notices to the appellants to show cause why they should not be prosecuted for perjury under Section 193, I. P.C.5. Mr. B. C. Chatterji made over his charge ...
Tag this Judgment!Jatindra Nath Borat and anr. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal433
Lort-Williams, J. 1. This was a rule to set aside an order under Section 364 (1), Calcutta Municipal Act, directing the Corporation of Calcutta to demolish a certain masonry platform at the expense of the petitioners.2. The proceedings were started on 3rd October 1929, for failing to comply with a notice under Section 299 (1), which was served on 26th February 1927, to remove a platform forming part of a building situate at No. 76, Hari Ghose Street and alleged to be causing an obstruction in a public passage.3. It was admitted that the platform was in existence in January 1924, and the first contention of the petitioners is that the order is invalid, because the work had been done more than five years before the institution of proceedings. This contention is based upon the argument that Section 364 (2) provides that the provisions of Section 363, Sub-section (2), shall apply, mutatis mutandis, and that this subsection provides that no proceedings shall be instituted in respect of any ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath Rai Vs. Harendra Kumar Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal581
1. Some of the cosharer defendants in a partition suit in which a final decree was passed under which they obtained an allotment, there having been a separate allotment in respect of each of the other sets of cosharers of whom the plaintiffs were one, applied for possession of their allotment in execution of the decree. The decree was passed in 1916 and there was an amendment of it in 1918, but with that we are not concerned. The plaintiffs 'applied for and obtained delivery of possession of their allotment in 1928. On 21st August 1929 the present application for execution was filed. Objection was taken on the ground of limitation. It was overruled by the Munsif, but has been upheld by the District Judge. The applicants for execution have then preferred this appeal.2. The Munsif held that the application of the plaintiffs decree-holders saved limitation. He relied upon the decisions of this Court in Khoorshed Hossein v. Nubbee Fatema [1877] 3 Cal. 55l and Mohun Chunder v. Mohesh Chunde...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Tazem Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal796
Rankin, C.J. 1. In this case, the two accused persons, Tazemali, son of Nasaruddi, and Hatemali, a cousin of accused 1, were put on their trial before the learned Sessions Judge of Bakarganj and a jury of nine upon the following charges, first of all, a charge under Section 364, I. P.C., of abducting one Ahadali with the intent that he should be murdered, and, secondly, and this charge was originally framed against both the accused-that they had agreed with each other and also with some other persons to murder Ahadali and that, in pursuance of that conspiracy, Ahadali was murdered. The date of the occurrence was Saturday, 5th July of this year. The proceedings before the committing Magistrate concluded in August and the trial was held in November.2. The story for the prosecution is that Nasaruddi and his son Tazemali, accused 1. had great enmity against the deceased by reason that they had for a very long time been in possession of and cultivating certain land belonging to Ahaiali, tha...
Tag this Judgment!The Singaran Coal Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Balmakund Marwari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal772
1. The plaintiffs instituted the suit to recover minimum royalty and rent due under three leases, dated 1912, 1919 and 1914 in respect of three pieces of coal lands. The defendants, amongst other pleas, took the plea that according to the terms of the contract between the parties all disputes and differences between them were to be referred to arbitration and they prayed for an order under Section 18, Schedule 11, Civil P.C., staying the suit and directing the parties to refer the claim to arbitration. The Subordinate Judge has made that order and the plaintiff's have preferred this appeal.2. The first contention urged in the appeal is that a part of the claim is based upon the lease of 1914, but that lease contains no stipulation as to arbitration and consequently the order should not have been made. To this the respondents answer is that the lease of 1914 properly construed does contain a stipulation as to arbitration, referring as it does to the earlier lease of 1912 by which it was...
Tag this Judgment!Gopaldas Modi Vs. Hansraj
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal72
Panckridge, J.1. This is a summons taken out by the defendant, Lala Dinanath, for an order that his co-defendant, Lala Hansraj, should within 24 hours, file an affidavit of documents, and within two days, produce the documents therein referred to, and for the costs of this application.2. The suit was instituted on 29th July 1929 by Gopaldas Modi, one of the executors of the will of Raghumall Khandelwal, who died on 5th September 1926, the other executors Lala Hansraj, Lala Dinanath and Gobardhandas, being the defendants, and also the widow of the testator. By the will, the widow was given power to nominate an executor and in pursuance of that power, she nominated herself as executrix. All the executors with the exception of the plaintiff, Gopaldas Modi, are related to the testator. It is said that after probate was granted to the five executors, on 10th January 1929, Hansraj took charge of the Calcutta, Bombay and Karachi branches of the testator's business and Dinanath took charge of ...
Tag this Judgment!Braja Behari Burman Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal349
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case the appellant was charged under Section 121-A, I. P. C, and convicted and sentenced by the Chief Presidency Magistrate to two years' rigorous imprisonment. He is the registered keeper of the Mahamaya Press and the proprietor of the Barman Publishing House which businesses were carried on at 193 Cornwallis Street, and are now carried on at 191, Cornwallis Street. In that press was printed a book 'Fansir Asirbad' which without any doubt is a seditious work. It has not been contended otherwise by the appellant. The only point raised by him is that, although he is the registered owner of the press and proprietor of the press and the proprietor of the publishing house carried on in conjunction with that printing business he is not liable to be convicted under this section because it has not been shown that he had knowledge of the contents of this work and therefore it cannot be presumed that he intended to excite disaffection by printing it. The evidence is ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Kamala Bala Debi and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal711
1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the District Judge of Nadia refusing an application for inquisition under the Lunacy Act in connexion with one Gunindra Kumar Mukharjee. The application has not been dealt with by the learned Judge on its merits, but has been dismissed by him on the ground that the District Judge of Nadia had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The learned Judge held that the District Court had jurisdiction only when the lunatic was not subject to the jurisdiction of any of the Courts mentioned in Section 37 of the Act. This is what is enacted in Section 62 of the Act and the interpretation which the learned Judge has put upon the section is undoubtedly correct. It appears however that the present application for declaring Gunindra Kumar Mukherjee as a lunatic and appointing the applicants managers or guardians of his properties was made to the District Judge on 17th September 1928. It was returned by the District Judge for certain purposes and it appears to ha...
Tag this Judgment!Fakir Chand Mondal and ors. Vs. Madar Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal619
Rankin, C.J.1. In my opinion this reference must be rejected.2. It appears that a Magistrate of the First Class was trying a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P.C. and ho came to the conclusion that, the second party was shown to be in possession. The learned Sessions Judge of Khulna has under Section 435, Criminal P.C., called for the record and has exercised his power under Section 438 in reporting the case to the High Court. He reports the case 'with the recommendation that the order finding that the second party was in possession of the land and prohibiting interference with such possession should be set aside . Ho suggests that the true finding in the case would have been a finding that the first party was in possession. He recommends that the Magistrate's order be vacated, but he does not appear to recommend that this Court should declare the first party to be in possession with the usual reliefs. He suggests that the order should simply be vacated and that, thereupon if the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »