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.
Fazlar Rahaman and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal515
Suhrawardy, J.1. These two appeals and the revision case are connected and arise out of the same matter. Aziz Mia, the appellant in appeal No. 935 and the petitioner in revision case No. 29 of 1930, filed a complaint before the Chief Presidency Magistrate against one Afaq Ali on the allegation that he had given him Rs. 50 to be made over to Fazlar Rahaman, the appellant in appeal No. 934 of 1929, and the money was misappropriated by Afaq Ali. The learned Magistrate ordered the issue of a warrant on a charge under Section 406, I.P.C. The ease was adjourned from time to time as 'the warrant was not returned. On 1st October 1929 the warrant came back executed, but as the accused did not appear a proclamation was ordered to be issued. The order was thus recorded:Proclamation dates: data of publication 21st October 1329 put up 29th October 1929. Date of appearance 21st November 1929.2. On 21st October the accused appeared in Court, surrendered and was released on bail. The order passed was:...
In Re: Satyendra Mohan Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal627,129Ind.Cas.405
Rankin, C.J.1. The assessees are a Hindu undivided family and for the year 1926-1927 an assessment to income-tax was made upon them under Section 23, Clause (4), upon the footing that they had made default in rendering a return of income and submitting accounts. The Income-tax Officer making the assessment to the best of his judgment, assessed upon a total income of Rs. 17,950, under the following heads: Money-lending business, Rs. 11,155; property, Rupees 1,795; other sources, Rs. 5,000; making in all Rs. 17,950. In connexion with the assessment for the next year, namely, 1927-1928 the assessees produced certain accounts from which the Income-tax Officer was of opinion that in the previous year income under the heads business and property had partially escaped assessment. Accordingly, under Section 34 of the Act, he issued a notice stating that he had reason to believe that their income from money-lending and house property, chargeable to income-tax in the year ending 31st March 1927,...
HemayetuddIn Ahmed Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal526
Rankin, C.J. 1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, made on behalf of an accused person, who desires to complain against a decision of this Court, sitting in criminal appeal from the trial by the Court of Sessions of certain persons upon criminal charges. We have not gone into the nature of the charges or the merits of the complaint that may be made against the Sessions Court's decision or against the decision of the Criminal Bench. We have confined ourselves to calling upon Mr. Fazlul Huq, who appears for the petitioner, to show us that we have any jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council from a decision of the Criminal Bench sitting in appeal from the Court of Sessions. Mr. Fazlul Huq does not contend that Clause 41, Letters Patent governs this case, which is a case from the mufassil, but he contends that Clause 39, while it is confined to matters not being of criminal jurisdiction so far as regards the first two classes of judgment ment...
Harendrachandra Ghosh Vs. Kailashchandra Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal571
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, an application has been made for a rule to show cause why a certain memorandum of appeal should not be received, the office having refused to accept the same.2. It appears that my learned brother, S. K. Ghose, J. heard a second appeal and decided it and, on being asked to give a certificate that the case was a fit one for a further appeal under the Letters Patent, he refused the certificate. From this order, it is proposed now to bring an appeal.3. In my opinion, such an appeal is quite incompetent and I agree with the decision which has already been given by the Madras High Court in the case of Ramanayya v. Kotayya A.I.R. 1930 Mad. 75. Mr. H. D. Bose for the applicants was desirous of maintaining before us that an order refusing leave to appeal was a judgment under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. I desire to say that I agree with the following observations in the judgment of Anantakrishna Ayyar, J., in the case to which I have referred:Whether the order r...
Gangabishnu Singha Vs. Kahn and Kahn and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal508
Rankin, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the learned District Judge of Khulna, whereby he directed a complaint to be made against one Gangabishnu Singha for wilfully failing to perform the duty of producing all books imposed upon him by Section 22, Provincial Insolvency Act. The learned District Judge has given leave to appeal to this Court from his decision and it appears to me therefore that there is no difficulty in holding, under Section 75 of the Act, that the appeal is a good appeal apart altogether from the order complained of being shown to be one of those specified in Schedule 1, Provincial Insolvency Act.2. The position is this: The appellant was the subject of a creditor's petition for insolvency which was presented by one Jaykissen on 12th September 1927. That petition was admitted on the same day. On 24th September there appears to have been an order appointing one Mr. N. N. Ghosh, pleader, interim receiver. The order does not appear to have gone on to sta...
Krishna Gobinda Chatterji Vs. Mt. Kishoribala Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal753,129Ind.Cas.103
Panckridge, J.1. This is a rule obtained by the petitioner Krishna Gobinda Chatterji calling upon the District Magistrate of Bankura and also on the opposite party Kishoribala Debi, the petitioner's wife, to show cause why an order under Section 488, Criminal P.C., directing the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 18 to the opposite party for a certain time and thereafter to pay a monthly maintenance at a reduced rate should not be set aside. An appeal was filed against this order before the Sessions Judge of Bankura and was dismissed by him. It appears that subsequent to the application for an order under Section 488, Criminal P.C., the petitioner instituted a suit in the Munsif's Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights. While the application was still pending he obtained an order from the Munsif restraining the opposite party from proceeding with her application. In spite of the injunction the Magistrate was of opinion that he had jurisdiction to entertain the opposit...
Abdul Khalique Chaudhuri Vs. Cheraguddin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal504
Mallik, J.1. The plaintiff, Moulvi Cheraguddin, is a member of the Sylhet Local Board and he was a candidate for Vice-Chairmanship of that Board. On 28th April 1928, there was a meeting held for election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Local Board. This meeting was presided over by a gentleman named Moulvi Israb Ali, Deputy Inspector of Schools, who had been appointed a supernumerary member under the provisions of Section 4, Sub-section (4), Assam Local Self-Government (Amendment) Act, 1926 (Assam Act 8 of 1926). At this meeting, defendant 1 was elected Chairman and defendant 2 Vice-Chairman of the South Sylhet Local Board. The plaintiff was present at this meeting of 28th April and the proceedings of this meeting were confirmed at a subsequent meeting held on 12th July 1928. On these allegations, the plaintiff instituted the suit that has given rise to the present appeal, for a declaration that the elections of the defendants as Chairman and Vice-Chairman are unauthorized, ul...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›