Kolkata Court July 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.
Gouri Sankar Poddar Vs. Gurupada Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal511
Suhrawardy, J.1. One Pran Krishna Haldar died in 1866. His widow Nithambini brought a suit in 1868 against Pram Krishna's mother Biswamoyee and his daughter by another wife Troilakhyatarini for recovery of possession of property left by Pran Krishna Haldar. The dispute between the parties was referred to arbitration, but before the arbitrator no one appeared on behalf of the defendant Biswamoyee and Troilakhyatarini The arbitrator took the evidence offered on behalf of Nithambini and made an award. It will be useful to quote the relevant portion of the award of the arbitrator:It, appears to me that the claim put forward by Sreemati Biswamoyee Debi in her written statement under a verbal gift made in her favour by her son and the allegation made to the effect that five bighas of Brahammater lands in two plots in village Chetla were purchased with her Stridhan are wholly false and fraudulent. The claim as to 12 cottas of lands and palas made by Sreemati Troilakhya Tarini Devi by means of...
Mohendra Nath Pal Vs. Parameswar Maity
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal164
M.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case the learned Subordinate Judge wrote and sigued the judgment at home as he was ill and did not attend Court. He delivered it to his Bench Clerk for communication to the parties. It is urged in appeal that this was not a judgment according to law. The learned advocate for the appellant quotes Order 20, Br. 1, 2 and 3, Civil P. C, which run as follows:Rule 1:The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court either at once or on some future day, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.Rule 2:A Judge may pronounce a judgment written but not pronounced by his predecessor.Rule 3;The judgment shall be dated and signed by the Judge in open Court at the time of pronouncing it and, when once signed, shall not afterwards be altered or added to, save as provided by Section 152 or on review.The learned pleader for the respondent urges that the case comes under Section 99 which provides that:no decree shall be re...
Srimati Golnur Bibi Vs. Sheikh Abdus Samad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal211
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by a plaintiff from an appellate order of the Subordinate Judge allowing an appeal from a decree based on an arbitration award and remanding the suit to the Court of first instance for trial. The relevant facts are the following:2. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for declaration of title and certain consequential reliefs. The suit was instituted on 10th November 1925. Written statements having been filed on behalf of the defence, a commissioner was appointed in March 1926 to make a local investigation. Opposition was offered to the commissioner by some of the defendants when he was doing his work of measurement. The commissioner having reported the matter to the Court, proceedings were instituted against one of the defendants, that is to say defendant 5, to consider whether he should be proceeded against criminally, but eventually the said proceedings were dismissed. The writ issued to the commissioner was recalled in June 1926, and ther...
Gulam Mustaffa Mullick Vs. Madanlal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal167
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an adjudication order made by the learned Judge in insolvency jurisdiction under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. It appears that the petitioning creditor on 28th August 1929 obtained a charging order under Order 21, Rule 49, Civil P.C. against the interest of the debtor in a certain partnership. In his petition for adjudication, the petitioning creditor alleged two acts of insolvency. One was that, by reason of this charging order, the interests of the debtor in the copartnership business were attached and that the attachment was still subsisting. The learned Judge has by his order found this act of insolvency proved. The other act of insolvency alleged was a notice of suspension of payment of debts as to which the learned Judge has not found one way or the other.2. Upon this appeal, the debtor contends first, that the petition was not in order seeing that the petitioner had certain security which he had neither given up nor valued; and, he co...
Abdul Sovan Vs. Ramani Mohan Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal664
Jack, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 485, I.P.C., and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500 on the ground that he was in possession of a mould for counterfeiting the trade-mark of G. Ghose, the manufacturer of hair oil. The rule was issued on the ground that the trade-mark was a combination trade-mark and possession of moulds for counterfeiting a part of the mark did not amount to an offence under Section 485, I.P.C. It appears that the trade-mark consisted of an impression moulded in the glass of which the bottles are made, together with the label, and these moulds were for making the impression on the glass of the bottle. Under Section 485, I.P.C., whoever has in his possession any die for the purpose of counterfeiting the trade-mark is liable under the section. There can be no doubt in this that the mould in question was intended for the purpose of counterfeiting this trade-mark although the apparatus for counterfeiting the label which would complete the trade-mark ha...
Elizabeth Anna VanqulIn and anr. Vs. Official Trustee of Bengal and an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal138
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case it, appears that the testator's will was admitted to probate on 23rd January 1930, he having died on 29th November 1929. It further appears that, prior to the will in question, a previous will had been executed by the testator and had been deposited with the Registrar of Assurances in Calcutta with a view to Section 118, Succession Act, there being certain substantial legacies to charity contained therein. In like manner, the will which was admitted to probate was deposited with the Registrar of Assurances and it appears that, at the time it was made and deposited, the previous will was withdrawn from the custody of the Registrar. It further appears that the previous will was destroyed by the testator. In the later will, there is an express clause revoking all former testamentary instruments. Some of the legacies other than legacies to charity are different if one compares the two wills.2. We find, for example, in the second will, that certain legacies remai...
Sheikh Abdul Sovan Vs. Jitendranath Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal445
Jack, J. 1. The petitioner obtained this rule on account of convictions under Sections 483 and 485, I.P.C. and sentences of fine of Rs. 500 under each section. The prosecution case was that the petitioner counterfeited the trade mark of M. L. Bose and Co., namely the word 'Sree Ram Chandra Murti' with the figure of Earn and he has also been charged of having been in possession of an iron mould for counterfeiting the above trade-mark. The rule was issued on the ground first of all that there was no evidence or finding that the petitioner intended the bottles to contain the hair oil or goods similar to that of the complainant. In support of this proposition a passage from Kerly on trademark is quoted to the effect that trademarks are restricted to the class of goods for which the mark is used and it is further argued that no infringement of the trade, mark has been proved inasmuch as it is not proved that it was intended to sell hair oil in these bottles. But as pointed out by the appell...
Surendra Narayan and ors. Vs. Notan Behary Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.856
1. The opposite party purchased on the 2nd May, 192SJ, an occupancy holding from one Radha Sundar Ghose. On the 6 th May, 1929, he deposited with the Collector Rs, 92 as the landlords' fee under Section 26 D of the new Bengal Tenancy Act. The petitioner after getting notice of the transfer applied for re-transfer of the holding under Section 26-F of the Act after depositing the price of the holding along with the compensation at the rate of 10 per cent. At the hearing of the proceeding thus started before the Munsif at Kandi in the District of Murehidabad the opposite party appeared and alleged that the holding which he had purchased from Radha Sunder Ghose was not an occupancy holding but a mokarari tenancy. The learned Munsif tried the question as to whether it was an occupancy holding or a mokarari tenancy and he decided the question against the petitioner. This Rule was obtained on the ground that under Section 26-F he should not have entered into the question of the nature of the ...
Satindra Nath Sen and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal18
Jack, J.1. The appellants have been ordered to give security for good behaviour on the ground that they habitually commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace and are of so desperate and dangerous a character as to render their being at large without security hazardous to the community.2. The appellants are said to have associated together in what is known as the Satyagraha movement which started at Patuakhali in the Backergunje District in 1926 in connexion with a dispute between the Hindus and Mahomedans because the latter objected to Hindu processions with music passing a certain mosque. The authorities intervened and, in order to prevent breaches of the peace, such processions were prohibited. The members of this movement defied the law and a number of them were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Some of the younger and more active members came to be known as Satin Sen's volunteers as they were enthusiastic followers of Satin Sen. They were by common ...
Dhanapati Daw and ors. Vs. Babu Ballav Daw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal244
Guha, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the decision and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Birbhum, reversing those of the Munsif of Birbhum, in a suit for recovery of possession of the lands mentioned in the plaint, on declaration of the plaintiffs' title to the same. The lands in suit which appertain to an occupancy holding were owned by one Lal Behari Dawn, who died leaving the plaintiffs as his heirs him surviving; defendant 1 is in possession of the lands as a legatee under the will of Lal Behari Dawn. It was alleged in the plaint that there was no custom in the locality under which an occupancy holding could be transferred or bequeathed, and that defendant 1 could not therefore have any title to the lands in suit as a legatee under the will of Lal Behari Dawn, which could under the law prevail against the plaintiffs. The suit was contested, and the plaintiffs' claim in suit was resisted by defendant 1. The defendants' case so far as it is relevant for the purp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »