Kolkata Court May 1930 Judgments
Kishorimohan Pramanik Vs. Krishnabihari Basak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal527
1. The point involved in this Rule is about the construction of Section 139-A, Criminal P.C. The construction, to our minds is reasonably clear. 2nd Party, against whom the provisional order has been made, is to appear before the Magistrate and to state what his case is; if he is inclined to deny the existence of the public right in question, he must say so. If he has denied the existence of the public right, he is to be required to produce reliable evidence in support of his denial and it is needless to add that such evidence should be legal evidence. The Magistrate is to find whether there is reliable evidence in support of the 2nd party's denial of the existence of the public right. Obviously, in order that the Magistrate may satisfy himself whether there is reliable evidence in support of the denial, he may allow cross-examination of the witnesses adduced by 2nd party in support of such denial. The enquiry being of a summary character, it is not intended that 1st party should be re...
Tag this Judgment!Balaramdas Dakna Vs. Umesh Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal517
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for mesne profits for the years 1329-1330 B.S. and it was brought under the following circumstances : Defendants 2 to 5, the Chakravartis, who are the landlords, got a rent decree against the plaintiffs in 19.1.1. In 1912, they auction-purchased the holding in execution of that decree; and subsequently they lot it out to defendant 1. In 1919 the plaintiffs got the sale set aside under Order 21, Rule 90, of the Code. In 1922 they obtained an order for restitution upon an application purporting to be under Section 144 of the Code. There was an appeal and it was dismissed in December 1922. Plaintiffs took formal possession in July 1924. The present suit for mesne profits was brought in September 1925, praying for mesne profits for Bhadra to Falgun and Chaitra of 1329 and 1330. The suit is defended by defendant 1. His defence is that the suit is not maintainable and that the plaintiffs were in possession during the period, in respect of whi...
Tag this Judgment!Official Trustee of Bengal Vs. G.A. Arratoon
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal518
Remfry, J.1. In this originating summons, the Official Trustee of Bengal applies to this Court to ascertain the construction to be placed on certain portions of a marriage settlement.2. The father of the bridegroom made a settlement on the marriage wherein it is recited that it is the intention of the settlor that the beneficiaries thereunder should receive a yearly income of Rupees 14,000 being equivalent to 7 per cent per annum on the nominal value of the securities settled thereunder and that in the event of such securities failing to yield the aforesaid income, to supplement and make up the deficiency.3. The covenant is as follows:. if in any year the said securities... shall not yield an annual income of Rs. 14,000, then the settlor... shall on demand... pay any deficiency between the sum actually realized by way of dividends or income on the said securities and the sum of Rs. 14,000. 4. The securities consisted of 7 per cent preference shares, additional preference shares and sec...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Khagendra Nath Da ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal759,129Ind.Cas.366
Pearson, J.1. In this matter a rule was issued by us upon the opposite party to show cause why he should not be committed to prison or otherwise dealt with for the contempt of this Court and of the Court of Akshoy Kumar Bose, Deputy Magistrate of Jalpaiguri, in printing and publishing and allowing to be published certain articles on 6th March 1930 entitled 'The Sedition Case of Jalpaiguri' and 'Bichar' and why he should not pay the costs.2. The articles related to the trial of certain accused persons under Section 124-A, I.P.C., which started in November 1929, and went on until February 1930. On 28th February they were found guilty and sentenced, and on 7th March they appealed to this Court. The articles in question were published at Jalpaiguri on 6th March, and the opposite party is resident there.3. The Chief Justice has directed that we should exercise the jurisdiction vested in this Court by the Contempt of Courts Act 1926, but when the Rule first came on for hearing, the point was...
Tag this Judgment!E.i. Ry. Co. Vs. Saniram Jitmal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal306
Costello, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. B. K. Basu the District Judge of Burdwan dated 9th March 1928. In order to make it clear how the matter cam-) before that District Judge it is necessary to refer to the history of the case. The suit out of which the matter arises was brought by one Saniram Jitmal against the E.I. Ry. Co. and his claim was in respect of 61 bales of piece-goods which were sent on 10th May 1919 from Nagpur on the B. N. Ry. to be delivered to the plaintiff at Barakar, a station on the E. I. Ry. line. The goods in question were loaded in an E. I. Ry. wagon at Nagpur and the wagon was then sealed. The wagon was sent over the B. N. Ry. line as far as Asansol and there it passed into the charge of. the E I. Ry. Co. That company instead of forwarding it to Barakar apparently misreading the ' direction which was placed on the wagon sent it to Chitpur taking the address to be not Barakar but Barabazar. The Chitpur Railway Station is the joint property of the...
Tag this Judgment!Nagarbashi Banik Vs. Meghnath Maishan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal171,129Ind.Cas.839
Graham, J. 1. This appeal is from a decision of the District Judge of Tipperah confirming a decision of the Munsif, 3rd Court, Brahmanberia, and arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of some land within the town of Brahmanberia together with twohuts standing thereon. The plaintiff's case was that defendants 1 and 2, to whom the land and house in question belonged, entered into a contract with him to sell them to him for a sum of Rs. 525, that he paid Rs. 125 as earnest money, that the defendants executed a baynapatra in his favour on 22nd Agrahayan 1322 B. S., and that subsequently they sold the land and houses to defendant 3, who in his turn transferred them to defendant 4.2. It appears that at the trial the baynapatra, not having been registered, was not admitted in evidence by the Munsif as creating a charge upon property following the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Dayal Singh v. Indar Singh A.I.R. 1926 P.C....
Tag this Judgment!Tara Kinkar Chanda and anr. Vs. Rasik Chandra Mahajan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal799,129Ind.Cas.186
Guha, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The facts of the case are with sufficient clearness set out in the judgment of the trial Court and have been summarized by the Court of appeal below. The Courts below have directed themselves rightly as to the essentials in an action for damages for malicious prosecution.2. The first essential and the main factor to be taken into consideration in a case of this description is that plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant. Was there a prosecution which would sustain a claim for damages as made in the suit? On this part of the case the learned District Judge has adverted to the facts about which there is no doubt or dispute : defendant 1 at the direction of defendant 2 lodged an information to the police charging plaintiffs and defendant 3 with theft. The allegations made were enquired into, the plaintiffs being examined by Police Officers. The Circle Officer reported the case to be false, an...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu Mian Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal357
1. This Rule relates to a conviction and sentence passed upon the accused, one Kalu Mian, under Section 406, I.P.C. The objection which is now taken to the conviction, we are told was not at any time raised before the lower Courts. The charge upon which the accused was tried was:That you, on or about between 15th January 1926 to 15th March 1927, at Madarihat being entrusted with certain property to wit Rs. 600 and '25 cattle, by Charowa Uraon committed criminal breach of trust of same and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 406, I. P.C., and within my cognizance.2. The charge, it is conceded, is defective. The period mentioned therein during which the offences are said to have been committed is one of 15 months and therefore offends against the provisions of Section 234, Criminal P. C, under which the charges in such a case must be limited to offences committed within the period of 12 months. There is nothing to be found anywhere in the judgments of the lower Courts o...
Tag this Judgment!Ran Mamud Sarkar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal6,129Ind.Cas.353
1. This is an appeal by five persons against their conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge of Rangpur under Sections 147 and 148 and of appellant 1 under Section 304 (ii), I. P.C., also. Mr. Chatterjee has raised several grounds in appeal but it is enough for our present purpose to refer to one of them and that is that the learned Sessions Judge did not give the defence an opportunity of examining one of the witnesses whom the appellants had named in the list of witnesses submitted by them to the committing Magistrate. It appears that the appellants named one Jadunath Ghose as a witness for the defence in the list filed by them before the committing Magistrate. The trial began on 12th November 1929. We do not know if he was present on that day, but he was not apparently present on 14th November. The appellants made an application to the learned Judge that the witness was not in attendance on that day and it was intimated that on account of the illness of his son-in-law...
Tag this Judgment!Ramprasad Chimanlal Vs. Hazarimull Lalchand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal458
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is an appeal from the Master, who has refused to admit a plaint on the ground that it is not in accordance with the rules of pleading laid down in the Civil Procedure Code-and discloses no cause of action. He pointed out the defects to the attorney and asked him to amend the plaint and present it again so that the necessary alterations could be made before any costs had been incurred by the defendant.2. The attorney presented the plaint again, but in its original form unaltered, saying that his client declined to rectify the defects, and had been advised to prefer an appeal and asked the Master to record his reasons for refusing to admit the plaint. This the Master has done fully upon the back of the plaint.3. I am surprised at the attitude adopted by the attorney and the advocate who drew the plaint. The Master gave them an opportunity to put the plaint in order at a time when this could be done without burdening the client with any costs. The client's only in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »