Kolkata Court January 1931 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.
Rangpur Raiyat Bank Ltd. Vs. Hesabuddin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal111
Suhrawardy, J.1. The petitioner obtained a decree against the opposite party to the following effect:Plaintiff will get from defendant with interest at six per cent per annum the costs Rs. 22-10-0 in three months from data and Rs. 142-5-6 equally in the next five Kartics, any two consecutive defaults making the entire balance due.2. According to the petitioner the defendant did not pay the costs and the instalments as directed by the decree; and ho accordingly put the decree into execution. When it was discovered that the instalments had been paid into Court by the defendant in accordance with the terms of the decree and that the decree had stood satisfied at the data of the execution, the petitioner claimed that he ought to have bean given notice of the deposits in Court and that as he had no notice of the deposits, be was entitled to the coats of execution and interest. The learned Munsif rejected his claim on the ground that ha was not entitled to interest under Order 21, B. 1 (c), ...
Shahebali Sheikh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal793
S.K. Ghose, J. 1. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge of the 3rd Court, Mymensingh, reports in his letter dated 5th January 1931, that Mr. R. M. Bhattacharjae who triad the Sessions case in question has since retired from service and it is not possible for him to say whether he considered if it was practicable to have nine jurors. He adds that the register of the list of jurors summoned shows that out of the number summoned only seven jurors were present and that all of them were empanelled.2. Mr. Basu for the appellants has pointed out that this report does not touch the point at issue, namely that the learned Judge did not apply his mind to the question as to whether it was practicable to have nine jurors, and further that he did not consider the possibility, under Prov. 2, Section 276, Criminal P.C., of making up the deficiency by choosing from such other persons as might have been present. Mr. Bhattacharjee for the Crown contends that this section will not apply, bec...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. NabIn Chandra Dhur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal218
1. This appeal must be allowed and for the following reasons. The appeal relates to a question arising on the construction of Sections 140, 141 and 142, Calcutta Municipal. Act, 3 (B. C.) of 1923. The respondent Nabin Chandra Dhar is the owner of certain premises in Calcutta being 264-E, Bowbazar Street. These premises were assessed originally at an annual value of Rs. 324, but during the general revision of assessment in the ward in which these premises are situate, a revised assessment came into force from the fourth quarter of 1928-29. Under the revised assessment the annual value of the premises in question was increased from Rs. 324 to Rs. 540. The case for the Corporation of Calcutta is that although notice of this revised assessment had been served on the owner, no objection to the same had been filed under Section 139 within the period prescribed in Section 139 (2), and that in the events which have happened the revised valuation of the premises had become final and binding und...
In Re: Krishna Kishore Paul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal775
Pankckridge, J.1. This is an application on behalf of a creditor whose debt amounts to Rs. 11,761-8-3 to adjudicate Krishna Kishore Paul an insolvent.2. This only difficulty in the matter is occasioned by the fact that on the 5th of this month the debtor was adjudicated in the District Court of 24 Perganas under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act. I am asked to exercise the powers conferred upon this Court by the recently enacted Section 18-A, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. Under that section it is open to this Court to stay any insolvency proceedings pending against the debtor in any Court subject to the superintendence of this Court and also to annul a debtor's adjudication. The section affords no indication as to the grounds on which an order staying proceedings or annulling an adjudication should be made. In this case I have before me the debtor's petition on which the adjudication order was made by the Alipore Court. It appears from it that there are eight creditors...
In Re: Sumermull Surana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal124,140Ind.Cas.594
Panckridge, J.1. This is an application by the firm of Sumermull Surana lately carrying on business at No. 113, Monohardas Katra, Calcutta, that the firms of Bansilal Abir Chand and Mannalal Dhanraj be restrained by injunction from proceeding with suits instituted by them in Bikanir Messrs. Mannalal Dhanraj have not appeared and as against them the applicants are entitled to the injunction claimed with costs.2. The relevant facts concerning the suit instituted by Bansilal Abirchand are as follows:3. According to the applicants the proprietors of the petitioning firm are two in number: Sumermull Surana and Uday Chand Rampuria. The firm were adjudicated insolvents on 18th July 1930. On 15th August 1930 the insolvents submitted a scheme of composition to their creditors which provided for payment of six annas in the rupee to the unsecured creditors and also that on the composition being approved by the Court all the estate of the insolvents should vest in the trustees named in the scheme....
ibrahim Ahmed Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal350
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 46 (A), Bengal Excise Act and under Section 9 (c), Opium Act and has been sentenced under the latter section, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, or in default to undergo further imprisonment for six months and under the former section, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year-the sentences of imprisonment being made to run concurrently.2. The case for the prosecution is that on :30th July 1930, premises No. 16-H-2, Armenia Street were raided by a party of excise officers. The appellant was occupying two rooms, being the western and the eastern rooms on the north side of first floor. It is alleged that in the western room was found a quantity of opium and cocaine worth about Rs. 15,000. The defence is that the room was not in the occupation of the appellant, but that it was in the occupation of one Hasmat Khan. According to the evidence adduced by the P. W. 2, the Sub-Inspecto...
Neogi Ghose and Co. Vs. Sardar Nehal Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal770
Buckland, J.1. This is an application to amend the plaint in a suit; which was instituted byNeogi Ghose Co., a firm carrying on business as plumbers at No. 15/1 Jugal Kishore Das Lane in the town of Calcutta plaintiffs.2. The plaint is verified by Phanindra Nath Ghose, who has described himself as a partner of the plaintiff firm, Anybody reading this would certainly form the opinion that there was move than one partner, and that the suit was properly brought in the firm name under Order 30, Civil P.C.3. The suit came on for hearing and it transpired that Phanindra Nath Ghose is the sole proprietor of the business carried on under the name Neogi Ghose Co.' In these circumstances an objection was taken that the suit in the name of Noogi Ghose & Co. as plaintiffs was incompetent as a suit may not be instituted by an individual carrying on business under a name otherwise than in his own name. 'The hearing was accordingly adjourned to enable the plaintiff to make such application in the mat...
islam and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal710a
Lort-Williams, J. 1. The appellants were convicted under Section 366, I. P.C., and sentenced No. 1 to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 150, and No. 2 to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. There was no order for compensation.2. The appeal was admitted on the ground that the Court disapproved of the infliction of a fine in addition to a substantial term of imprisonment. The learned District Magistrate of Noakhali has reported this case under Section 439, Criminal P.C., to this Court because he considered the sentences passed by the Sessions Judge of Noakhali to be inadequate.3. The facts are that the two accused took away a girl who was a young widow with a child and kept her shut up for nearly a week. She was kept in the house of appellant 1 and was properly attended to and was not molested either by him or by anybody else. The learned Sessions Judge had taken that fact; into consideration in making up his mind as to what should be t...
Nawab Ali Hazi and anr. Vs. Joinab Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal551,AIR1932Cal87
Mitter, J.1. A very ingenious argument has been put forward by Mr. Talukdar who appears for the petitioners in this Rule. The question involved in this Rule turns on the construction of Section 413, Criminal P. C. and concerns the right of appeal of a convicted person. It appears that the petitioners Nawab Ali and Atahar Ali were convicted by the First Glass Magistrate of Perojpur under S.379, and Section 114 read with 324, I. P. C., and both of them have been sentenced under two sections--'Nawab Ali having been sentenced under Section 379 to pay a fine of Rs. 20 and under Section 114 read with 324 a fine of Rs. 15 and the other accused Atahar Ali having been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20 under Section 379, I. P. C, and to pay a fine of Rs. 30 under Section 324 of the same Code. In the case of each of these petitioners the aggregate fine does not exceed Rs. 50. Against the convictions and sentences an appeal was preferred to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge of Backergun...
Priyanath Chakravarty Vs. Kalicharan Chakravarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal162,136Ind.Cas.604
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for possession of certain lands on a declaration of the plaintiff's title there to and for mesne profits. The suit was dismissed in the Court of first instance on the ground of res judicata but was decreed in the lower appellate Court on the finding that the suit is not barred by the principle of res judicata and that the plaintiff's title to the disputed portion of the land in suit was established by adverse possession,2. In this appeal it is urged that the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata. and that the learned Officiating Additional District Judge was wrong in holding that the suit is not so barred on the ground that the Munsif who tried the previous suit was not entitled to try the present suit. The present suit is valued at Rs. 2,100. This valuation includes Rs. 500 claimed as mesne profits the lands claimed being valued at Rs. 1,600.. Now it appears that half of the lands are claimed by inheritance from Uma Charan, gra...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »