Kolkata Court August 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.
Dastarali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal625
Suhrawardy, J.1. The accused Dastarali was tried with six others, charged under Section 467/34, 193/34 and 471, I. P.C. The case for the prosecution was that the deed in question was fabricated by all these persons. It was executed in favour of the first three accused Dastarali, Wafiz Sheikh and Bhadurali and written and witnessed by the other accused. In the course of the trial the learned Judge found that nothing had been proved against accused 2 and 3, Wafiz Sheikh and Bhadurali, and directed the jury, under Section 289, Criminal P.C., to return a verdict of acquittal in respect of them. As regards the remaining accused, the jury brought in a verdict of guilty under Sections 467 and 193, Part. 2, I. P.C., against the appellant Dastarali and acquitted the other accused persons. The learned Judge accepted the verdict and sentenced the accused to two years' rigorous imprisonment under each head, sentences to ran concurrently.2. The only point worth considering in this appeal is, whethe...
Emperor Vs. Rajani Nath Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal706
Guha, J.1. This is a reference by the learned District Judge of Sylhet, forwarding a report by the Munsif of Habiganj, under the Legal Practitioners Act, with respect to four pleaders. The charge drawn up against the pleaders was as follows:Whereas it appears that you Babu Rajani Nath Bhattacharjya, Babu Bipin Behary Roy and Babu Kshitish Chandra Chakravarti, pleaders for the plaintiff, and Babu Jogendra Chandra Deb, pleader for the defendant, engaged as pleaders for the plaintiff and the defendants respectively by vakalatnamas for conducting and pleading in Title Suit No. 264 of 1930, on behalf of the plaintiff and defendants respectively, and that in pursuance of a concerted movement of the pleaders to boycott the Courts today, abstained from appearing before the Court on behalf of the plaintiff and defendants respectively to conduct and plead in the aforesaid suit today, in spite of the fact that the said suit was being heard from day to day from 30th April 1980 and was adjourned to...
Kanak Kanti Roy Vs. Kripa Nath GaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal321
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for enhancement of rent based on an agreement served under Section 46, Ben. Ten. Act and for ejectment on the ground of refusal to pay the enhanced rent. The suit was instituted in 1922. On a previous occasion, when the suit came up on second appeal before this Court, it was remitted to the lower appellate Court to determine the question of service of notice and other questions that might arise. The order of the remand was made in 1927. The Subordinate Judge, on remand, made a decree in plaintiff's favour. The defendant then appealed to this Court, and the said appeal being heard by our learned brother S. K. Ghose, J., that decree has been reversed. From his decision the present appeal has been preferred under the Letters Patent.2. One of the questions mooted before the Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal on remand was whether in view of Section 20, Sub-section (1-A) introduced by Bengal Act 1 of 1925, the defendant had not acquired the status of ...
Kitabdi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal450
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 147, I.P.C., and also of an offence under Section 304 read with Section 149, I. P.C. He has been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment on the charge under Section 147 and to further two years' rigorous imprisonment on the charge under Section 304 read with Section 149, The sentences are to run consecutively,2. The outline of the prosecution case is that, on 3rd April 1927, one Naibali was returning to his house with certain companions, that they passed the house of one Answar and that, when they reached the houses of Answar and Nasar, Nasar called out: 'Here is Naibali, come Samser and catch him.' On that, Answar and Nasar ran out and other people joined Nasar and pursued Naibali. Naibali appears to have been pursued by as many as five, all of them 'armed in one way or another. The prosecution story is that the accused Kitabdi, the appellant before us, came from the opposite direction, and ...
Daulat Bhuiya Vs. Rahisa Banu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal490
1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor from an order refusing to set aside a sale of certain properties. Several questions were raised, but all of them with the exception of one had to be eventually given up. The only question which requires consideration is whether the omission to state the value of the properties to be sold, when all other particulars have been given, is a material irregularity within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C.2. Now, the particulars to be given in a sale proclamation are those mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e), Sub-section (2), Section 66. Clause (e), upon which reliance is placed as indicating the necessity of stating the value of the property, runs in these words:Every other thing which the Court considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge of the nature and value of the property.3. The clause cannot, in our opinion, be interpreted as meaning that the value as put by the decree holder or as assessed by the Court is a thing which ...
In Re: Bholanath Pal, Deceased
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal580
Remfry, J.1. The Secretary of State for India in Council applied for an order to set aside an order made by a Judge of this Court on 22nd May 1930. It appears that the suit arose out of a petition for the grant of letters of administration, and the learned Judge made an order for the issue of a succession certificate in respect of a part of the estate.2. That order was made with the consent of the parties to the suit.3. The Secretary of State applies to set aside that order because no notice of the filing of the cause was received by him and no opportunity to appear was afforded to him,4. In the petition it is contended that notice ought to have been given to the Secretary of State and that the order is wrong because: (1) Section 2, Succession Act, 1929, does not empower this Court to grant succession certificates; and (2) the proper procedure was not adopted.5. It is argued that the Secretary of State is a proper, if not a necessary, party under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P.C., and that ...
Sm. Anarjan Bibi and ors. Vs. Chandramani Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal75
Mukerji, J.1. The question which arises for decision in these appeals is whether an application for delivery of possession by an auction-purchaser under Order 21, Rule 95, Civil P. C, has to be made within three years from the date of confirmation of the sale or from any later date. It was contended in the Court below on behalf of the respondent auction-purchaser that the time should run against him from the date of issue of the sale certificate, and the said Court has upheld that contention.2. The sales in these eases took place on 10th February 1923. Applications to set them aside were made by the judgment-debtor on 2th February 1923, but were dismissed on 15th April 1924. On 22nd April 1924 the sales were con-firmed, and draft sale certificates were prepared. The judgment-debtor appealed against the order refusing to set the sales aside. These appeals were eventually on 17th March 1927. In the beginning of May 1928 the auction-purchasers supplied the stamps for the sale certificates...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. A.C. Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal506
1. This is an appeal by the Corporation of Calcutta under Section 142, Sub-section (3), Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, from a decision of the Court of Small Causes, 24-Pergannas, assessing premises No. 172 Block N. Mudiali Road, on an appeal under Section 141 of the Act.2. The premises consist of a plot of land 13 cottas in area, on a part of which is a building. The assessor had valued the land at Rs. 3,250 (i. e., Rs. 250 a cotta), and the building at Rs. 15,555 from which he gave a deduction of 5 per cent on account of depreciation, thus arriving at a figure of Rs. 14,777. The total thus arrived at was Rs. 18,027, and 5 per cent thereof i.e., Rs. 901, was the annual value assessed by him. The Deputy Executive Officer reduced the annual value to Rs. 795. The Small Cause Court, on an appeal by the owner, has further reduced it to Rs. 687. One of the grounds urged in this appeal is that the Small Cause Court should not have entertained the appeal as it was not preferred within the 30 da...
JasimuddIn Sarkar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal622
C.C. Ghose, J.1. The appellants before us were committed to take their trial in the Sessions Court on a charge under Section 147, I. P.C. There was a further charge under Section 304, I. P.C., against appellants 1, 2 and 3 and a charge under Section 304 road with Section 149, I. P.C., against the rest, i.e., appellants 4 to 8. The jury by a majority of three to two returned a verdict of guilty against all the appellants under Section 147, I. P.C. They also by a majority in the same proportion found appellants 1, 2 and 3 guilty under Section 325, I. P.C., and appellants 4 to 8 not guilty under Section 304 read with Section 149, I. P.C. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the verdict of the majority of the jury and sentenced the appellants to various terms of imprisonment and in addition thereto he also imposed fines of various amounts. Against this conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred.2. On behalf of the appellants, Mr. Talukdar has taken several points before ...
Musammat Bijan Bala Vs. Mathura Nath Sirkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.701
1. Thedecree-holder, who happens to be the assigaee of a decree for arrears of rent but not the assignee of the interest of the landlord who had obtained that decree, is the appellant in this appeal. She applied for execution of that decree but the execution has been refused by both the Courts below on the ground that she is not competent in view of Section 148 (h) of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. So far as this question is concerned it is well known that there is a considerable conflict of judicial opinion. In the case of Manurattan Nath Das v. Hari Nath Das 1 C.L.J. 500, Mookerjee, J., pointed out this conflict but he did not decide the question. It would be convenient to quote his words in this connection. He said, ' Upon a review of these authorities it is manifest that there is a conflict of judicial opinion on the question and the cases of Kailash Chandra Ray v. Jadu Nath Roy 14 C. 380, Dwarka Nath v. Peary Mohan 1 C.W.N. 694, Dinanath v. Golap Mohini 1 C.W.N. 183, Karuna Roy v. Sure...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »