Kolkata Court February 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.
Jesraj Jaichandlal Baid Vs. Chairman of the Commissioners of the Munic ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal177,136Ind.Cas.542
Guha, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit, in which the appeal had arisen. The suit, as laid, was for declaration that a sum of Rs. 326 was not legally recoverable from the plaintiff as license fee. The allegation made in the plaint was that:the Chairman of the defendant Municipality while illegally measuring the jute godown of the plaintiff, had wilfully measured all the places outside the godown, where no jute business was effected, and could not be effected; and inside the godown also (measured) places, where on account of press, etc., being located, no jute was stacked and could not be stacked, and had not given allowances for all these places.2. The defendant's case, as made in the written statement, filed in Court, was that:the defendant Municipality measured the plaintiff's godown, and all the places for stacking jute in presence of properly authorized agent on behalf of the plaintiff.3. The defendant further plea...
Hridaykrishna Adya Vs. Osmanali Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal151,136Ind.Cas.143
1. This appeal raises a question under Section 53, Provincial Insolvency Act. The matter has arisen under the following circumstances. One Lehajuddin Jamadar was adjudicated an insolvent under the Provincial Insolvency Act, on 5th July 1927. Subsequently by an order made by the insolvency Court, a receiver was appointed to take charge of the properties belonging to the insolvent, The receiver was asked to investigate whether the insolvent had got any immovable properties. The attention of the receiver was drawn to the fact that the insolvent had conveyed certain immovable properties to one Osmanali Mandal on 26th May 1926, that is, on a data which was within two years of the date of adjudication of the insolvent as such. The receiver made an investigation and submitted a report to the insolvency Court. His report wag to the effect that the transfer in favour of Osmanali Mandal was not in good faith nor for valuable consideration. Ha accordingly prayed to the insolvency Court that the s...
Kalidas Dutt Vs. Harendra Nath Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal243
Costello, J.1. This appeal is the outcome of a protracted litigation between the parties. The matter has already been before this Court on more than one occasion. The suit out of which the appeal arises was instituted as long ago as the year 1917. It was a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent brought by the plaintiff as one of a number of cosharer landlords, his case being that by reason of a purchase which was made by his father he was the owner of something like l/7th share in the lands of a certain chak. Put shortly, the plaintiff's case came to this: that the defendants' predecessor-in-title had in the year 1851 taken settlement of an area of land under the terms of three pattas. In two of those pattas (the third one not being produced in these proceedings) the area of the land was stated to be respectively 501 and 601 bighas. At the time when the suit was instituted the defendant was said to be in possession of an area of land considerably in excess of 8,000 bighas. The plaint...
Giris Chandra Saw and anr. Vs. Upendra Nath Giridas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal776
Suhrawardy, J. 1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 2 against a decision of the Additional District Judge of Midnapur confirming a decision of the Subordinate Judge of that place, allowing the plaintiffs' suit in part. The facts are that one Jaga Mohan Giri Das disposed of certain properties by. a will executed in 1286 A. S. whereby he dedicated some of his properties mentioned in schedule Ka of the plaint for worship of the family deity installed by him and appointed his wife Taramani as the she-bait of the deity. After her death her adopted son Madhusudan was to carry on the shebaitship of the deity with the income of the properties and after him shebaitship would continue in his line. Madhusudan mortgaged some personal properties to the appellants who obtained a decree upon the mortgage and had them sold. The entire debt under the mortgage not having bean satisfied by the sale they obtained a decree under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C., and in execution of that decree, purchased t...
Girishchandra Namadas and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal118
Williams, J.1. The appellants were charged with dacoity under Section 395, I. P.C. They were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Mymensingh and a jury, and convicted and sentenced, Girish, to three years' rigorous imprisonment and Karim and Rahim each to four years' rigorous imprisonment. It is not necessary to deal with the facts of this case. There was clear evidence that a dacoity had been committed and that Girish, among others, had been engaged in committing it.2. Several points have been taken on behalf of the appellants, the first of which touches the verdict of the jury. When asked what their verdict was, the jury said that they found Ismail, who was another of the accused on trial under Section 412, not guilty and they found the remaining eight accused guilty and they named them. But they mentioned only seven names. After the last answer which was recorded, the foreman was asked whether all the jurors found all the eight accused named above (presumably the names were rea...
Krishnabandhu Pal Vs. Brajendrakumar Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal134
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant and arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiffs under Section 104-H, Ban. Ten. Act, for the correction of an entry in the Record of Rights relating to their status, on the ground that the plaintiffs belonged to a class different from that to which they are shown in the Record of Eights as belonging. In other words, plaintiffs contend that they are occupancy raiyats in respect of the holding, but at the last settlement operations, which were taken up in the year 1328 B. S., the interest of the plaintiffs has been wrongly recorded as that of tenure-holders and that the rent settled was illegal. The first Court dismissed the suit on 8th September 1926.2. An appeal was taken to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nadiya and was disposed of on 11th June 1928. During the pendency of that suit, two of the tenants, who are plaintiffs 5 and 8, viz. Jatindrakumar Shaha and Radhaballav Shaha, died on 28th December 1927 and 16th July 1927, res...
Mrs. Stroud Vs. Mr. Stroud
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal161
Buckland, J.1. This is a wife's petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of her husband's adultery, filed under the Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act.2. A doubt as to the husband's domicile arose in my mind and I adjourned the hearing in order that if possible further evidence might be adduced.3. I have observed that the question of domicile in those cases does not always receive the attention so important a matter demands. A similar observation was made in Wright v. Wright : AIR1931Cal383 which was a case of the confirmation of a decree of dissolution of marriage made under the Indian Divorce Act by a District Court. That, was the converse case and there were circumstances suggesting that in fact the parties were domiciled in England, in which case the Judge would have had no jurisdiction. I then had occasion to discuss the principles applicable and the matters to be considered in determining the domicile of the parties.4. The question of domicile is important, be...
Mani Mohan Ghose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal745
S.K. Ghose, J. 1. In this case the appellant Mani Mohan Ghose has been convicted under Section 364, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years.2. The prosecution case is this. One Soroshibala was a prostitute and was in the keeping of one Hari Ghose, brother of the appellant Moni Ghose. On 23rd December last Moni and one Lakhmi went to the house of Soroshi, the owner of which is an elderly woman named Kali-dasi. Moni represented to Soroshi that his brother Hari was holding a picnic somewhere across the river and had asked him to fetch Soroshi to that place. Soroshi declined to go in the morning, but she agreed to go in the evening. Thereupon in the evening Moni and Lakhmi again came to the house and Moni, it is alleged, induced Soroshi to put on her ornaments, saying that there would be many other women wearing ornaments and that therefore she should also go there properly dressed and wearing ornaments. Moni and Lakhi then took Shoroshi out of the house in the...
Ramendra Chandra Ray Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal410
Lort-Williams, J.1. This case has come before us in a somewhat unusual way. The petitioner applied to the Court as a resident and tax-payer of the city of Calcutta, and such interested in the liberty of one Subhas Chandra Bose, who is described as the Mayor of Calcutta, and a friend of the petitioner.2. The petitioner stated facts which-showed prima facie that the conviction, and sentence of imprisonment passed upon the said Subhas Chandra Bose were technically invalid. Upon this a rule was issued.3. Thereupon the prisoner wrote a letter to the Court saying that the application had been made without his knowledge or consent, that he did not intend to take any part in the proceedings, that any one who moved the High Court on his behalf was not his friend, and that such action was likely to do him harm. We have been informed that the prisoner has pursued this course on principle, because he refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the Courts in India.4. Ordinarily, in such circumstances,...
Sarajubala Devi and ors. Vs. Obaidulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal137
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decree disposing of their suit in accordance with a compromise.2. The plaintiffs are disqualified proprietors and the suit was instituted by them through the Manager of the Court of Wards as their next friend. The suit was for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of certain lands on the allegation that they formed part of the plaintiff's estate. The defendants, amongst other pleas that they took, claimed the lands as appertaining to their own estate. A commissioner was deputed to hold a local investigation. After the report and map of the commissioner wore submitted, there was a talk of compromise between the plaintiffs and defendant 1, the other defendants not being really interested in the suit, the terms of which wore that, so far as the suit lands were concerned, they would be divided between the parties in accordance with the that line, and that certain other char lands, which had newly reformed, and of which n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »