Kolkata Court August 1930 Judgments
Calcutta Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal757,129Ind.Cas.107
Graham, J.1. This rule was issued calling on the District Magistrate of Midnapore to show cause why certain proceedings drawn up against the petitioners under Section 133, Criminal P.C., should not be quashed, or such other order made as this Court might deem fit and proper upon grounds 2, 3 and 5 in the petition to this Court. The first of these grounds is that the proceedings in question are bound to cause irreparable mischief to the lawful and legitimate trade of the petitioners, and as such proceedings are not contemplated by the criminal law. The next ground is that the Courts below have erred in law in construing Section 133, Criminal P.C., and that upon a proper interpretation of the section they ought to have held that it has no application whatsoever to the facts and circumstances of the case. The third and last ground is that the procedure adopted by the Court below has been illegal and without jurisdiction and has operated to the serious prejudice of the petitioners.2. It ap...
Tag this Judgment!Sailendra Kumar Palit and ors. Vs. Hari Charan Sadhukhan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal159
1. Of the objections that have been taken as regards the maintainability of this appeal the one that we are concerned with at this stage relates to its competency as lying in this Court as its forum.2. The appeal is from an order passed in proceedings relating to the execution of a decree in a mortgage suit for sale. The claim at the date of the suit was laid at Rs. 4,477-2-0. That was the amount of claim stated in the plaint which however contained prayers for interest pendente lite and costs, etc. The preliminary decree for sale was for Rs. 6,357-7-0. The question is whether from an order passed in execution of such a decree an appeal lies to this Court.3. There can be no question that if the value of the original suit in this case was less than Rs. 5,000 the present appeal would lie to the District Judge under Section 20 (1) (a), Bengal, N. W. P. and Assam Civil Courts Act 12 of 1887. It has however been contended on behalf of the appellant that though in the plaint only Rs. 4,477-2...
Tag this Judgment!Abbas Mandal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal473
1. The three appellants have been convicted under Sections 366 and 376, I. P.C. by the unanimous verdict of the jury and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The only point taken in this appeal, and which seems to us to be the only point arguable, is that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in admitting in evidence under Section 33, Evidence Act, the depositions of P. W. Tanu Molla recorded by the committing Magistrate. In that deposition Tanu said that an extra judicial confession was made by the second accused Arshad Mandal to him immediately after the occurrence implicating all the other accused. It is contended that the prosecution failed to make out grounds which would make the evidence of this witness before the committing Magistrate admissible in evidence. In the charge the learned Judge says that the evidence of this witness was admitted as he was not available. In the order sheet under order dated 20th February 1930 it is recorded:The depositions of P.W. Tanu Molla bef...
Tag this Judgment!Sonardi Biswas and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.688
1. This Rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate of Murshidabad to show cause why an order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Lalbagh dated the 5th October, 1929, directing the petitioners to execute bonds for good behaviour under Sections 110 118, Criminal Procedure Code, for a period of three years should not-be set aside on the ground that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make the order inasmuch as the petitioners at the time of the initiation of the proceedings were not living within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.2. In the course of the argument before us the learned Advocate for the petitioners argued on the footing not that the petitioners were not living within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, but that they were not within the limits of that jurisdiction, that is to say in a literal and physical sense of being within the territorial limits of his jurisdiction at the date when the proceeding was drawn up. The re...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Jahura Bibi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal11,129Ind.Cas.677
Suhrawardy, J.1. I regret I am unable to agree with my learned brother in the grounds which he has given for ordering a retrial. It is not a case which rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. There is the confessional statement of the accused. There is also some evidence that the deceased told some witnesses that he felt a sensation similar to the after-effect of poisoning after he had taken his meal given by the accused.2. As to the question whether calomel might have been administered, it is only a suggestion and the Court is not justified in asking the jury to act upon suggestion only of the existence of a fact without any evidence whatsoever. The local doctor denies that he administered calomel. There is no suggestion that anybody else did it. It is not the duty of the Judge, it seems to me, to place before the jury theories of facts which are not supported by any evidence. It is not proved that there was any one in the house besides these three persons, the accused, the decease...
Tag this Judgment!Sreenath Chakravarti and ors. Vs. Priyanath Bandopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal312
Mukerji, J.1. The decree-holders obtained a decree for rent under the Ben-Ten. Act, from the 3rd Court of the Munsif at Bhanga on 6th July 1913. This Court was subsequently transferred to Gopalgunje and made the 2nd Court of the Munsif at that place. On 5th July 1925 the decree-holders applied for execution in the 2nd Court of the Munsif of Gopalgunje by attachment and sale of a piece of immovable property of the judgment-debtor which was situate within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Alunsif, 1st Court, Bhanga, and had never been within the jurisdiction of the Munsif, 2nd Court, Bhangs There was also a prayer for execution by attachment and sale of the judgment-debtor's moveables. After certain proceedings wore taken it was found that the immovable property against which the decree-holders desired to proceed in execution lay outside the territorial limits of the Court in which the execution was going on, viz., the Gopalgunje Court and on that the Munsif of that Court on 18...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Nath Bagchi Vs. Nabadwip Chandra Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal476
Rankin, C.J. 1. This was a mortgage suit instituted in 1923 and the subject matter of the mortgage appears to be a rice mill and certain properties connected therewith. It is unnecessary to go into details as to the parties defendants in the suit. It is enough to say that there were three defendants and that, on 2nd December 1924, there was a compromise decree according to which one of the parties was to continue in possession as receiver and certain payments were to be made-one payment was to be made immediately and the other payments were to be made in stated instalments. There was a provision in the decree as to the meaning of which some question now arises to the effect thatin default of payment of two consecutive instalments by the receiver and in breach of the terms mentioned in Clause (D),that was the covenant to insurethe plaintiff will be able to execute the decree without making it absolute as against any or all of these defendants.2. Now an application for execution of the d...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadish Chandra Deo Vs. Debendra Prosad Bagchi Bahadur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal503
1. The plaintiff whose suit for accounts and compensation has been dismissed on the ground that the provision of Section 80, Civil P.C., has not been complied with has preferred this appeal.2. On behalf of the appellant it has been urged in the first place that defendant 1, the principal defendant, was not a public officer, and secondly that the provision contained in Section 80 has been substantially complied with.3. As regards the first contention it may be said that there are several decisions which have proceeded on the footing, that a receiver . appointed under Order 40 of the Code is a public officer, and no decision has been cited before us in which a different view has been taken. The words of Section 2, Sub-section (17), in which ' public officer ' has been defined as meaningevery officer of a Court of justice whose duty it is as such officer .... to take charge or dispose of any property .... and every person especially authorized by a Court of justice to perform any of such ...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Nath Ta and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.676
Mallik, J.1. The two appellants Upendra Nath Tah and Haripada Nandi have been convicted in a Jury trial under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years each. The facts of the case for the prosecution were briefly these. One Purna Tah was lying on the road-in front of his he use in the evening of the 7th April last when one Dharmadas Mondal the rival zemindar of Purna's master and his sworn enemy came there accompanied by Upendra, Haripada and the other three accused and two other men and under the orders of Dharmadas, Upendra and Haripada began belabouring Purna with lathis with the result that Puma's legs were fractured. Puma's brother Nibaran who had gone to a cow-shed nearby, on hearing the cry of Purna came up and on seeing him Purna's assailants all ran away. Purna was taken to the he spital the same night and on the 8th in the morning his leg had to be amputated. Purna's dying declaration was recorded at 1 A.M. on the 9th of A...
Tag this Judgment!Profulla Kumar Basu Vs. Mt. Sorojbala Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal332
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made in an execution case. It appears that the decree under execution was made upon the basis of an arbitrator's award. Then defendant 4, who claimed certain rights under the decree, took out proceedings in execution in order to recover a sum of Rs. 7,000 which it is said she was to receive.; from the plaintiff as the value of her share of a certain house. There are the several objections taken on part of the appellant to the order which has been made granting her execution of the decree. The first objection to be considered is the question of limitation. it appears that the date of the decree was 22nd November 1922 and the money claimed was payable within one year from that date. In December 1922 however the lady applied under O. 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C, to set aside the decree as having been passed against her ex parte. This application was dismissed in 1923 and she took an appeal to this Court which was dismissed on 28th July 1926. The a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »