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.
Rakhal Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal647,129Ind.Cas.619
Rankin , C.J.1. This is an appeal by three accused persons who have been tried before a Special Tribunal sitting under the powers conferred by the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act. The charges were in respect of an alleged dacoity or attempted dacoity upon a certain bus which on 11th September last was going from Rajshahye to Natore carrying passengers and also stopping at the post offices on the way in order to pick up the mails. The bus in question was being driven by witness 3 in the case Ramkrishna and there were certain employees of the Bus Company and there were also certain passengers who had got into the bus. In the driver's seat there was the driver, Satis the manager of the company and a certain other person. In the mail box or the middle part of the bus, there were witness 1 Ashutosh and witness Balavi (P.W. 17). The witnesses Khitish, Sukumar and certain others were in the back portion which has been referred to as the body of the bus. What happened was that after the bus ...
Surendra Mohan Sarkar Vs. Manmathanath Banerji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal583
Suhrawardy, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the Court refusing to review an order passed by it in connexion, with an execution sale. Some properties were put up for sale by the Subordinate Judge of Pabna, of which lot No. 1, among other lots, was purchased by the petitioner on 22nd March 1930 for Rs. 670, it being the highest bid. On 24th March 1930 a report by the nazir was placed before the Subordinate Judge for accepting certain bids. The decree-holder thereupon filed a petition saying that lot No. 1 was sold for an inadequate price and expressed his willingness to purchase it for a higher amount. The property was resold and purchased by the decree-holder for Rs. 800. The petitioner's case is that after he purchased the property, he paid the poundage fee and deposited one-fourth of the purchase money and went out of town. When he came back, he found that the property had been resold to the decree-holder on 24th March 1930. On 3rd April 1930 the petitioner filed an app...
Sewdayal Ramjeedas Vs. Official Trustee of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal651
Panckridge, J.1. This originating summons was filed on 8th March of this year. It is taken out by Sewdayal Eamjeedas, described as a firm carrying on business in copartnership or coparcenary as members of a joint Hindu Mitaksbara family at No. 130, Machuabazar Street. Originally the only defendant was the Official Trustee of Bengal, who is now sole trustee of three deeds of trust executed by a settlor of the name of Chandicharan Das, who died intestate on 19th July 1928, leaving him surviving his widow Sm. Sarengabala Dasi, two minor sons, and a minor married daughter.2. The deeds of trust are dated 27th April 1921, 10th May 1924 and 20th December 1926. The deed of 27th April 1921, gives a life interest to the settlor and directs that after his death the trustee or trustees for the time being shall, after paying Rs. 20 a month to the daughter or each of the daughters of the settlor for their lives from the date of their marriage, pay the balance of the income to the widow for life for ...
Harkishore Barua Vs. Gura Mia Chowdhry and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal387
Patterson, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit based on a promissory note, payable on demand. The note purports to have been executed by the principal defendant, (defendant 1), in favour of the pro forma defendant, (defendant 2), but the plaintiff claimed to have advanced the money and to be the real or beneficiary owner of the note. The plaintiff further alleged that the pro forma defendant was merely his benamidar, and the pro forma defendant himself deposed to this effect.2. The trial Court did not record any clear finding as to whether it had or had not been proved that the principal defendant had borrowed the money and executed the note but dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had no cause of action, as he had failed to prove that the money belonged to him.3. The lower appellate Court, while expressing some doubt as to the correctness of the view taken by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal on another ground, viz., that under the provisions of the Negotiable Ins...
Shek Khan Mahmud Vs. Shek Syedali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal549
M.C. Ghose, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to the land described in the plaint and for recovery of possession. In the Court of the Munsif the plaintiff filed a petition stating that he would be bound by what defendants 1 to 3, who were his brothers, stated in Court on touching the holy Koran. Accordingly the three defendants made a special oath on touching the holy Koran stating that the plaintiff had no title to the land in dispute and that their defence was true. The Munsif dismissed the suit and the Subordinate Judge in appeal confirmed the decision.2. In appeal to this Court two grounds have been taken. First, that the offer of the special oath was not made by the plaintiff but it was made by his son who had no authority to make the same; and secondly, that the plaintiff duly withdrew the offer before it was accepted by the defendants, and the Courts below were wrong in the circumstances to allow the defendants to make the special oath. ...
In Re: Sarah Ezra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal560
Panckridge, J.1. This is an application by one Isaac Raphael Davidson (formerly known as Isaac Raphael Ezra) for a grant of letters of administration to the estate credits and effects of Sarah Ezra, late of 34, Kapalitala Lane, Calcutta.2. Sarah Ezra died in Calcutta on 6th September 1929, intestate and a spinster. Her parents predeceased her, and she was survived by her brother, the applicant, and her sisters, Lizzia Ezra and Flora Abrahams, who consent to the petition now before the Court. She also left her surviving an illegitimate son, Moses Ezra. The estate of the deceased, which consists entirely of moveable property, has been sworn at Rs. 5,696-5-11. On 24th April 1930, Mosea Ezra filed a caveat in the goods of the deceased. On 1st May the present petition was presented; and an affidavit in support of the caveat was filed by Moses Ezra on 31st May, and a further affidavit in opposition to the grant prayed for was filed on 17th June. The second affidavit alleges that the deceased...
Hari Charan Bhunya and ors. Vs. Sm. Kamal Kumari Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal670
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for recovery of arrears of maintenance from the year 1327 A. S. to 1332 A. S. at the rate of Rs. 180 a year. The plaintiff alleges that her father executed a will under which the plaintiff and her deceased sister were each to get Rs. 180 a year from the income of the properties that defendants 1 and 2 and the father of defendant 3 are in possession of the property, under the will, and that she is therefore entitled to recover this amount of maintenance which has not been paid. She also claims interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The trial Court decreed the suit and the appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court.2. The main point raised in this appeal is the question of limitation. It is urged that Article 62, Limitation . Act, [applies and under that article a portion 'of the claim is barred. On the other hand it is urged by the respondent that the proper article that, is applicable is Article 123 which is applicable in the case ...
Mokshed Sheikh and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal756,129Ind.Cas.105
1. In this appeal it is objected on behalf of the appellants that the learned Judge has misread the evidence in some portions and has wrongly admitted the evidence of a certain witness under Section 33, Evidence Act. This is the only important point taken before us. It appears that the dacoity with which the accused were charged was committed after midnight of 6th July 1929. The information was lodged at the thana the following morning by a man named Sobhan. He did not name any of the dacoits nor did he say that some of them had been recognized. The first information was recorded by a Sub-Inspector of the name of Abdul Jabbar Chaudhury. The evidence shows that on the night of 7th July 1929 another Sub-Inspector by the name of Birendra Nath Pal took over the investigation from Abdul Jabbar Chaudhury. Abdul Jabbar was not examined in the committing Magistrate's Court because he had died before the case was heard. Birendra Nath Pal was examined by the committing Magistrate. He was not exa...
Krishnabandhu Ghatak and ors. Vs. Panchkari Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal166
Mukerji, J.1. The defendants who unsuccessfully resisted an application for a decree for the balance under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C., have preferred this appeal. They took four objections, which were all over ruled, and two of them have been pressed before us as of any substance.2. The final decree for sale was passed on 18th June 1921. The sale was held on 28th October 1922, and was confirmed on 26th June 1925. The application for a decree for the balance was made on 27th May 1926. It is conceded, and indeed, cannot be disputed, that the application is governed by Article 181, Schedule 1, Lira. Act: Pell v. Gregory : AIR1925Cal834 . This is the article which the Subordinate Judge has applied. He has however observed:I think that the time from which limitation would run is the date of confirmation of the-sale, inasmuch as, unless and until the sale was confirmed by the Court after disposing of all objections against it, the deficiency in the amount could not be ascertained for the p...
In Re: Karim Mia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal392
1. The order from which this appeal has been preferred is one passed under Section 41, Clause (2) (a), Provincial Insolvency Act. The learned Judge by this order refused an absolute order of discharge in favour of the insolvent who had applied for discharge in the proceedings. The learned Judge however has framed his order in this way:It seems to me that nothing is to be gained from suspending the discharge or making a conditional order. The man is not fit to be given credit and that will be the result of his remaining an undischarged insolvent. I therefore refuse discharge absolutely.2. If by this order the learned Judge meant that this order of his would preclude the insolvent from applying again for his discharge the learned Judge, in our opinion, was not right. What the legislature contemplates by Clause (a), Sub-section (2), Section 41 is not that there may be an order absolutely refusing to discharge an insolvent. It contemplates only an order either granting or refusing an absol...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »