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.
Satyendra Nath Mazumdar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal337a
Graham, J.1. In this case a rule was issued calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why his order convicting the petitioner under Section 124-A, I. P.C. upon each of three charges framed thereunder and sentencing him to six months' rigorous imprisonment upon each charge (to run concurrently) should not be set aside upon certain grounds set out in the petition to this Court.2. The facts may be briefly stated:The petitioner Satyendra Nath Mazumdar is the editor, printer and publisher of a daily newspaper published in Calcutta in the Bengali language known as the Ananda Bazar Patrika. This paper it appears has been in the habit of publishing every year at the end of December when Congresses and various conferences take place a special issue containing a review of the events of the past year, a description of places of interest where the Congress meets and a review of the history of the growth of the Indian National Congress and similar movements.3. On the 29...
Sharatchandra Shee Vs. Dwarkanath Shee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal558
Lort-Williams, J.1. By a dead of endowment, dated 18th June 1892, one Baidyanath Shea, a Hindu governed by the Bengal School of Hindu law, dedicated certain property to an idol, which he had previously established at his family dwelling-house.2. By the terms of the said deed, he provided that he should be the first shebait and after his death his mother and after her death his youngest brother, Dwarkanath Shee, defendant 1, in the present suit, and after his death it was provided that the office should devolve on the eldest lineal defendant of defendant 1 in the male line.3. It was further provided that if any shebait should cause harm to the debattar estate, then the other brothers and brothers' sons of Baidyanath Shee should be entitled to remove him and appoint another member of Baidyanath Shee's family in his place.4. Baidyanath and his mother and his brothers and brothers' sons are all dead, with the exception of defendant 1 and his son Kanailal Shee, defendant 2. Defendant 3 is t...
Jadunath Roy and ors. Vs. Murari Mohan Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal594
1. This appeal has been preferred from an order dated 12th April 1930 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, 24 Pargannas. The order has been passed in a suit for partition being title Suit No. 190 of 1929. In this suit a vary large number of parties are concerned and one of the defendants therein is defendant 6 son of one Bhuban Mohan Mallik deceased. The suit was instituted on 30th August 1929 and a preliminary decree was passed on it on 1st October 1929. After the decree was passed as aforesaid a Commissioner was appointed to make the allotments. Now, Bhuban Mohan Mallik the father of defendant 6 had prior to the institution of the aforesaid suit for partition and on certain dates in the years 1923 and 1924 affected certain mortgages and further charges in favour of the appellants in respect of his one-eighth share in some of the properties which subsequently came to form the subject-matter of the aforesaid partition suit. Bhuban Mohan Mallik died in April 1925. In June 1926...
Probhat Chandra Deb Sarkar Vs. Mohesh Chandra Barma and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal157
Guha, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit brought upon an instalment mortgage bond which provided -for the payment of principal sum according to certain instalments and the 'bond also provided that in default in the payment of two successive instalments the entire amount would fall due. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that the mortgagor had paid Rs. 150 in Bhadra 1321 B. S. on account of the first three kists specified in the bond and as the balance of the instalment mentioned in the bond was not paid the plaintiff was obliged to bring the present suit. It has been found as a fact that the payment of Rs. 150, though made on one date was in respect of the three kists due at the time when the payment was made. The story of the payment thus made has been accepted by both the Courts below, and it has been held that the payment amounted to a part payment of the principal sum. As the payment was not endorsed at the back of the bond in the handwriting of the debtor, as requir...
C.L. Kiernander Vs. Benimadhab Khettri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal763
Mukerji, J. 1. One Asokenath Mitra was the owner of considerable properties, in respect of which he had executed various mortgages in favour of a large number of persons. Premises No. 10/2, Elgin Road, is one of such properties. That property lies outside the local jurisdiction of the Original Side of this Court, being situate in the district of 24-Parganas. On 22nd December 1921, one Nalinimohan Das Gupta, the assignee of one of the mortgages, being a mortgage executed on 25th June 1920, instituted a suit to enforce the said mortgage, asking for a decree for sale. Premises No. 10/2, Elgin Road, was one of the properties covered by the said mortgage. ' The claim at the date of the suit was Rs. 5,970-4-0 of which Rs. 5,000 was the amount of principal, and the balance the interest due.2. He impleaded in that suit nine other persons, besides the mortgagor Asoke, who were puisne mortgagees in respect of one or other of the properties covered by the mortgage of 25th June 1920. On 6th March ...
B.N. Ry. Co. Vs. Moolji Sicka and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal815,129Ind.Cas.769
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal is by the B.N. Ry. against the decision of the Additional District Judge of 24-Parganahs decreeing in agreement with the trial Court the respondents' suit for damages to their goods sent through the railway company. The plaintiffs' case is that they despatched 348 bags of country biris out of which 60 bags were damaged by rain in the course of transit from Tumsar Road station to Shalimar station, both on the B.N. Ry. The goods were booked on 26th June 1926 at Tumsar Road station and they reached Shalimar on 3rd July, but the wagon was not brought to the shed till the 6th July when the goods were delivered to the plaintiffs. The plaintiff company had hired a whole wagon and the goods were carried in that wagon. When their man took delivery .of the goods he discovered that there were holes in the wagon through which water leaked into it and damaged 60 packages of the goods. He immediately brought the fact to the notice of the 'Superintendent of the station an...
Maharaja Sasikanta Acharjee Vs. Jalil Baksha Munshi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal779
1. The appellant obtained a decree for rent against the respondents in respect of a jote held by the latter and in execution thereof purchased the jote at an execution sale on 19th February 1923. He took delivery of possession from the Court on 14th June 1923. The respondents applied for setting the sale aside on the ground of material irregularity and the sale was set aside on 31st July 1924. The respondents applied for restitution for possession of the jote with mesne profits for a period of 13 months from Sravan 1330 to Sravan 1331.2. The Munsif held that the respondents were entitled to Rs. 675 as mesne profits. The appellant then preferred an appeal to the District Judge and the respondents a cross-appeal. The District Judge dismissed the appeal and allowing the cross-appeal enhanced the mesne profits to Us. 1,620. Hence the present appeal.3. It has been urged in the first place that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter because the restitution tha...
Nababali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal708
Panckridge, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the accused persons, Nababali, Biswanath Das and Rameswar who have been convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Mymensingh and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment under Sections 221, 388 and 342, I.P.C. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty against all the accused in respect of the charge under Section 342, a unanimous verdict of guilty against Rameswar in the case of the charge under Section 221, a majority verdict of three to two guilty in the case of the charge under Section 388, I.P.C., against all the accused. The Judge accepted the verdict of the majority of the jury and sentenced the accused to various terms of imprisonment.2. A preliminary technical point is taken on behalf of the accused persons, namely that the convictions are bad because the jury have returned a verdict of guilty against Rameswar under Section 342 and Section 221, whereas the charge was framed in the alternative. No one could suppose from ...
Shaikh Nabab Ali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.99
Panckridge, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of three accused persons, Nabab Ali, Biswanath Das and Rameshwar who have been convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Mymensingh and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment under Sections 221, 388 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The Jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty against all the accused in respect of the charge under Section 342 a unanimous verdict of guilty against Rameshwar in the acase of the charge under Section 388, 221 and a majority verdict of 3 to 2 guilty in the case of the charge under Section 388, Indian Penal Code, against all the accused. The Judge accepted the verdict of the majority of the Jury and sentenced the accused to various terms of imprisonment.2. A preliminary technical point is taken on behalf of the accused persons, namely, that the convictions are bad because the Jury have returned a verdict of guilty against Rameshwar under Section 342 and Section 221 whereas the charge was framed in the al...
A.G. Kidston and Co. Ltd. Vs. Seth Brothers
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal692,129Ind.Cas.190
Buckland, J.1. This is a suit on dishonoured bills drawn in England on a firm carrying on business in Calcutta. When the case was before me some days ago, Mr. Moore, on behalf of the defendants, contended that, by virtue of Section 104, Negotiable Instruments Act, coupled with Section 51, Bills of Exchange Act, the bills ought to have been protested, and, that not having been done no suit could be brought upon them. I considered the point and expressed my opinion upon it. At that time, it was assumed that the bills were foreign bills. Subsequently, however, for my own satisfaction, I turned to the definition of a foreign bill and it appeared to me clear, as I now think, that the question which was then argued by Mr. Moore never arose, because these bills are not foreign bills at all. A foreign bill is defined by Section 12, Negotiable Instruments Act, which provides that any instrument not drawn or made or made payable, as provided by Section 11, shall be a foreign instrument. Section ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »