Kolkata Court May 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.
Meher Sardar and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal577a
1. In this case an order has been made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Khulna confiscating a boat said to belong to the petitioner, under the provisions of Chap. 9, Forests Act. The boat has been confiscated under the provisions of Section 55. On appeal to the learned Judge he has dismissed the appeal holding apparently inter alia that the applicant was no party to the proceedings in the original Court and no investigation as to his claim for relief from confiscation was made in that Court, and that under the provisions of Section 59, Forests Act, he is not entitled to a determination of that question on appeal.2. The language of Section 59 is this:The officer who made the seizure under Section 52 or any of his official superiors, or any person claiming to be interested in the property so seized may appeal from the order of confiscation.3. The contention before us has been that the phrase 'or any person interested in the property so seized' has reference only to the circumstances p...
Surendra Kumar Sen Chaudhury and ors. Vs. Chandratara Nath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal135
Graham, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 2 from a decision of the Additional District Judge of Tipperah confirming a decision of the Munsif, Third Court of Comilla, and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, now respondent for a declaration of his raiyati right to a tank with its banks.2. The plaintiff's case was that the tank in question belonged to one Ramkanai Dutt, the father (now deceased) of defendant 1, who executed a lease on 7th July 1913 for a period of ten years covering the years 1320-29 B. S. in favour of Abhoy Charan Nath. Abhoy Charan died in 1922 leaving as his heirs his widow, the present plaintiff '1, and two brothers, plaintiffs 2 and 3. On the expiry of the said lease defendant 1 granted an ejara patta to the present appellant (defendant 2) for a period of 16 years, 1322 to 1347 B. S. Thereafter the tank became the subject matter of proceedings between the parties under Section 145, Criminal P. C with the result that on 8th March 1926 the possession of de...
Cherag Ali Sarkar and anr. Vs. Nawab Khaje Habibulla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal782
Mitter, J.1. In these four appeals by the defendants it is unfortunate that the respondents did not appear as the cases are of. some intricacy and although the learned advocate for the appellants has done his best to present the cases with fulness and fairness the want of an opponent is a sensible disadvantage. We were at pains to investigate into the facts closely and with great care.2. Out of these four appeals, Appeal No. 1429 must be dismissed as the appeal arises out of a suit for rent valued at less than Rs. 100 and none of the questions admittedly arise which permit an appeal having regard to the provisions of Section 153, Bengal Tenancy Act. This appeal is therefore dismissed but without costs.3. I will now proceed to deal with Appeals Nos. 1426, 1427 and 1428. These three appeals arise out of as many suits for rent brought by Nabab Khaje Habibulla and others against the different defendants in these three cases. The plaintiff's title in these three suits based on a sale held u...
Rajendra Nath Chandra and anr. Vs. Dinu Prodhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal738
Guha, J.1. The Courts below have agreed in their decision on the question of the plaintiffs' title to the lands in suit; they have differed however on the question as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to khas possession. The plaintiffs' suit as laid was resisted by defendant 1 and so far as claim for khas possession was concerned it was pleaded that he had acquired right of occupancy in the lands, and was not therefore liable to be evicted as a trespasser. An issue was definitely raised on the question of khas possession, namely Issue 5. The trial Court mainly on the interpretation of the mortgage deed, Ex. 1 in the suit, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs who have stepped into the shoes of the mortgagors were entitled to such khas possession as the mortgagors themselves were entitled to, under the terms of the document. The Court of appeal below, on a reading of the document, has held that it could not be said that by the terms of the mortgage bond, Ex. 1, there was no r...
Satish Chandra Sen Vs. Krishna Kumar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal2
1. This rule is directed against an order of the Deputy Magistrate of Netrakona in the district of Mymensingh passed under Section 139-A, Criminal P.C., staying proceedings started under Section 133, Criminal P.C. It was issued upon two grounds.; first that the learned Magistrate was wrong in disposing of the case without examining the witnesses produced by the petitioner; secondly, that in view of the procedure followed by the Magistrate a final order under Section 137, Criminal P.C., ought to have been passed on 25th May 1929. So far as the question raised by the first ground is concerned, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that, on the date on which the Magistrate passed the order under Section 139-A (2), the first party was present with his witnesses whom the Magistrate did not examine. What the Magistrate did was this: he found that the settlement record published not very long ago was in favour of the second party as it did not show the pathway or gorat claimed by the first...
Rash Behary Ray and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal639,129Ind.Cas.111
Costello, J.1. The only possible point which could be taken is that this is not a matter which can properly be said to fall within the provisions of Section 115, Civil P.C. But in this particular case the learned Judge has taken such a fantastic view of the law and has made an order in circumstances where it is quite impossible for this Court to make any order than that we feel not only justified in exercising but bound to exercise our power in revision to set this order aside. We can only express astonishment that a Judge of the experience of the learned Judge should have so misconceived the operation and function of a written statement as to imagine that because something is put in in a written statement which in a sense is not true, and something is omitted from the written statement that of itself constitutes an offence under Section 193, I.P.C. It is obvious that written statement in a civil suit corresponds to the pleading which in England is called the defence, and that being so...
Mahomed Boyetulla Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal3
Costello, J.1. The applicant Mahommad Boyetulla was a witness on behalf of the prosecution in the case Emperor v. Taizuddin Mondal and Tura Sardar who were charged under Sections 46 and 61, Bengal Excise Act (Act 5 of 1909), in the Court of the Sub-Deputy Magistrate of Naogaon in the district of Rajshahi. On 22nd August 1929 these two accused persons were convicted on the charges under the sections I have mentioned read with Section 109, I. P.C., and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. From that conviction there was an appeal to the District Magistrate of Rajshahi which was dismissed. During the pendency of the appeal the Superintendent of Excise and Salt applied to the Sub-Deputy Magistrate on 5th December 1929 making a complaint against the present petitioner for having committed perjury in the course of the evidence which he had given in the case. On 1st October 1929 the Sub-Deputy Magistrate called upon this man Mahommad Boyetulla to show cause why he should not be proc...
Haridas Premji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal409
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, it appears that there is a certain firm and that firm has three partners. It is apparently a shop and it has been going on in the name of Haridas Premji. The question is with regard to the assessment of income-tax for the year of assessment 1928-29. There is no dispute between the income-tax authorities and the assessees us to the amount of the profits or gain; but the assessees were minded to claim to be taxed as a registered firm. Accordingly, they in time filed an application in the prescribed form to be registered on the basis of certain letters passed between the three partners. It appears that the two junior partners were intended to be working partners and that the capital was to belong entirely to the senior partner and the profits were to be divided 7 annas to the senior partner Ramji Premji, 5 annas to Haridas Gokuldas and 4 annas to Tulsidas Nanji. The letters which the two junior partners addressed to the senior partner set out the shares and se...
Raghunathdas Sewlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal Referring O ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal411
ORDER1. In pursuance of the order of Court, 1 have the honour to refer under Section 66 (3), Income-tax Act, the following case for the decision of the Hon'ble High Court.2. The following are the facts of this case: Messrs. Raghunath Das Sowlal, hereafter called the 'assessees,' having their offices in Calcutta are dealers in piecegoods, sugar, jute, gunny and hessian, observing the Ramnavami year ending in April as their year of account. On 29th May 1926, a notice was issued upon thorn by the Income-tax Officer, District IV (1) Calcutta, calling for a return of their income during the previous year, viz., Ramnavami 1982, by 30th July 1926. On 31st July 1926, a petition was filed asking for one month's extension of time. This was allowed. On 21st August 192G, another petition was filed praying for two months' time on the plea that the books could not be adjusted owing to the absence of the gumasta who had gone to his native village This was allowed till 24th September 1926. On 30th Sep...
Tura Sardar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal710,129Ind.Cas.101
1. The petitioner in this case Tura Sardar has been convicted under Section 46, Excise Act, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. He was also charged under Section 61, Excise Act read with Section 109, I.P.C., but no sentence was passed under that charge. This rule was granted on two grounds. The first is that any statement made by the co-accused Faizuddin, who was also convicted, to the Excise Inspector and Sub-Inspector is inadmissible under Section 25, Evidence Act. The second ground is that the District Magistrate has not in his judgment found all the facts necessary to sustain the conviction, With regard to the second ground, it may be dismissed in a few words. The learned District Magistrate in a careful judgment has dealt with all the points taken in the grounds of appeal before him. In discussing the points he has entered1 sufficient findings of his own with regard to the points that require to be proved in support of the conviction. He says that Faizuddin said th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »