Kolkata Court December 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.
Abinash Chandra Sadhu Khan Vs. Hemanta Kumar Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal680
Rankin, C.J. 1. In this case, a complaint having been made to this Court, the matter was referred by the Court to the Bar Council. A tribunal was constituted under Section 11 of the Act, and the Tribunal, under the rules made by this Court, heard the complainant as it was entitled to do. The Court is now sitting to consider the report of the Tribunal and Mr. Sen who desires to appear and be heard on behalf of the complainant very properly draws our attention to the question whether such appearance by the complainant before this Court is allowed by the statute.2. Now, it is quite true that in Sub-section (3), Section 12 of the Act, a number of persons are mentioned who by the terms of that clause must be given notice. Notice is to be given to the advocate concerned, that is to say, the advocate against whom the complaint has been made, to the Bar Council and to the Advocate-General. But it is not stated in that subsection that notice must be given to the complainant. In Sub-section 1, S...
Emperor Vs. Surendra Mohan Maitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal616
1. These two references are made by the District Judge of Rajshahi under Section 14, Legal Practitioners Act, against 11 pleaders named in the proceedings practising in the Rajshahi civil Court. The ground on which the references are based is that they absented themselves from the Court on 6th May 1930, the day after the arrest of Mr. Gandhi and thereby brought the work of the Court to a standstill. The pleaders in explanation of their conduct say that they were hurt by the news of the arrest of Mr. Gandhi but on the day in question there was a general hartal in the town, there were no carriages available (they living at some distance from the Court premises) and that if they had attempted to attend Court there was risk of their being molested and socially boycotted. They also allege that there were no cases before the Court on that day in which they were engaged.2. No evidence was adduced on either side. There is no proof that these pleaders were engaged in cases fixed for that day so...
Md. Ismail Chowdhuri Vs. Kali Charan Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal731
1. In this matter if; appears that the application for the copy of the decree was filed on 6th September 1930 and the requisition for stamp and folios was notified on 6th September 1.930. The 7th September was a Sunday and the requisite stamps and folios were supplied on 10th September 1930. This memorandum of appeal was presented in the office on 2nd December 1930. The question is whether 7th September 1930, which was Sunday, should be excluded from computing the period according to the rules contained in General Letter No. 16, dated 2nd September 1918. If that Sunday be excluded from computation, the appellant is within time and if ho is not entitled to exclude that day, ho is out of time by one day. It appears to us that under Clause (2) (ii) of the rule in General Letter No. 16 any holiday or holidays immediately following the day or period mentioned in Clause (i) should be excluded. Under Clause 1 the period from 5th September, when the application for copy was made to the data wh...
Nawabali Khan Vs. Chandrakanta Banerji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal760
Rankin, C.J. 1. In this case, the Munsif made a complaint against a peon of his Court on the footing that he had made a return purporting to have served several persons, at a certain place, with process of the Court while, in fact, those persons were not at that place at all and never were served. The defence, which the peon set up, was that he had served some people on the identification of the identifier and that it was just possible that the identifier arranged for certain persons to personate the persons upon whom the process was to have been served. This matter went on appeal to the District Judge and the District Judge did not consider that this defence was a sufficient ground for interfering with the order directing a complaint. In this Court, the main point relied on is that neither the Munsif nor the District Judge has obeyed the terms of Section 476, Criminal P.C., and recorded a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be m...
G.N. Pascal Vs. Raj Kishore Mathur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal521
Rankin, C.J. 1. In this case, the question arises whether a certain prosecution which is proceeding before the Additional Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta is without jurisdiction; in other words, whether the prosecution, if it is to take place at all, should take place in the District of Patna. Now, on the footing of the complainant, the case made is that the accused man was in charge of the Patna branch office of a certain business whose head office is in Calcutta, that he realized amounts from different hirers of motor cars and never deposited these amounts to the credit of the firm, that the accused professed to have paid these sums to the firm at Calcutta but ha never did so and that consequently he has committed an offence under Section 406, I. P.C.2. The Magistrate has taken certain evidence. He has examined the complainant; but he has come to no finding whatsoever about any question of fact. The question before us has been argued 1931 C/66 & 67 on the footing that, as the accus...
Kalikadas Bandopadhyay Vs. Jillar Rahman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal36
1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan setting aside a patni sale.2. The plaintiffs' case was that Lot Teora, bearing touzi No. 1 of the Burdwan Collectorate, appertains to the zamindari of the Maharaja of Burdwan, defendant 4 in the suit, and that in respect of the said lot there was a patni, which defendant 2, held as patnidars. Their case farther was that defendant 3, held in darpatni a mehal, named Mouza Chandanpnr alias Sisua under the patni, at a rental of Rs. 1,100 per annum; that by a wakfnama in respect of that mehal, executed in 1321, she had constituted herself and her husband, plaintiff 1, as muttawalis, and that, subsequently in 1330, she appointed her son, plaintiff 2, in her place as mutawalli. The plaintiffs' case thus was that they were muttawalis and in that capacity in possession of the said darpatni. The plaintiffs' case further was that there were other darpatnidars under the patni, defendant 2, himself having a darpat...
Surendranath Datta Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal705
Cuming, J. 1. The six petitioners before the Court were convicted by the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta under Section 488 (2)/386 (1) (a), Calcutta Municipal Act for continuing to store dal without a license. The ground on which this rule has been granted is that the facts alleged and proved do not disclose an offence under Section 386 (1) (a), Calcutta Municipal Act. It has been contended first of all, that dal is not grain and, secondly, that the petitioners are not the persons who are using or permitting the premises to be used for the purpose of storing dal. They are the owners and not the actual occupiers and it is contended that they cannot be held liable under the section. It is the actual occupiers, the tenants, who are using the premises, who are responsible for storing dal.2. The first point to be decided is whether dal. is 'grain.' Schedule 19, Calcutta Municipal Act, Clause (8) sets forth a list of articles for which premises may not be used without a license and among th...
Bhuban Mohan Koley and ors. Vs. Narendra Nath Konwar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal27
1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for rent. The plaintiffs are two of the four shebaits of an idol Damodar Jieu. Their case is that there were four shebaits of the idol, the plaintiffs and defendants 4 and 5. By an arrangement amongst themselves the plaintiffs were entitled to four annas, defendant 4 to four annas and defendant 5 to eight annas of the rent from the tenants holding the lands belonging to the idol. Defendants 4 and 5 having ceased to perform the sheba of the deity the plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to recover 16 annas rent on behalf of the idcl. Defendants 4 and 5 are co-shebaits and they filed a joint written statement contending that they had not lost their right of coshebaitship and the plaintiffs are not entitled to realize more than four annas of the rent and that by a family arrangement defendant 4 used to realize four annas and defendant 5 the remaining eight annas of the rent and that the tenant-defendants had, in collusion with the plaintiffs, w...
Sajar Ali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal264
Cuming, J.1. The four petitioners in this case Safar Ali, Sujayatulla, Abdul Majid and Anwar Ali were convicted by a Sub-Deputy Magistrate exercising Second Class powers under Section 447, I. P. C, and sentenced each to pay a fine of Rs. 100. They appealed to the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate summarily rejected the appeal. They have now moved this Court and obtained the rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Noakhali to show cause why the appeal before him should not be reheard on ground 2 of the petition to this Court. Ground 2 is that in view of the complicated nature of facts and the voluminous documentary evidence, and the question of title involved in the case, the summary dismissal of the appeal has been improper and illegal. It is obvious that the summary dismissal of the appeal was not illegal. The Magistrate had power under Section 421, Criminal P.C., to dismiss this appeal summarily. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that, even though it ...
Aswini Kumar Bose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal522
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are briefly these: One Jagadish Ch. Bose, a child of 12 was arrested on 7th July 1930. The charge against him apparently was that he caused obstruction in Harrison Road by distributing leaflets. He was further charged under Section 12, Press Act, with publishing a paper which was not in conformity with the rules contained in Section 3, Press Act, namely that there did not appear on it the names of the printer, the press of printing and the publisher. He was produced before the Magistrate on 8th July. It does not appear that any attempt was made to communicate to his parent or guardian. It was then ordered by the Magistrate that a medical officer would examine him on 10th July. This examination, I understand, was for the purpose of determining his age. On the 10th he was apparently examined by the Medical Officer who declared that he was 12 years old. The order then passed was 'tomorrow for evidence. Accused as befor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »