Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1931Cal452
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case the Chief Presidency Magistrate dismissed a complaint under Section 203, Criminal P.C., for want of sufficient evidence and a rule was issued to show cause why this order should not be set aside and a further enquiry made into the complaint.2. The petitioner filed a complaint against the two opposite parties charging them with having committed offences under Sections 420, 417, 171-F and 114,I. P.C. The petitioner stated that he was a voter in the West Bengal non-Mahomedan Constituency for the Council of State in India and that before the last by-election held in March 1930 two ballot papers ware sent to him, but on the cover in which they were enclosed his name was incorrectly written. Shortly after this, the petitioner alleges, that some one telephoned to him who gave the name of the first opposite party, whom I will refer to as the Maharaj Kumar. The petitioner instructed his employee to speak on the telephone for him and thereupon the speaker at the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal112
Panckridge, J.1. This is an originating summons taken out by the Administrator-General of Bengal in the matter of the will of Manicklal Dutt, deceased.2. The testator died on 3rd January 1928 leaving a will and a codicil of which the Administrator-General of Bengal was appointed solo executor and trustee.3. Probate was obtained on 4th September 1928 and the Administrator-General has since that date been in possession of the estate. The difficulty arises with regard to a religions endowment for the benefit of certain deities which was created by the testator. The endowment contemplates shebaits and the will appoints four persons relations of the testator as shebaits, and provides for their places being filled on their decease or on their ceasing to act.4. In addition to these four parsons the will appoints as shebait the Secretary for the time being of the Subarnabanik Samaj.5. In Clause 12 of the will the testator directs that the number of shebaits shall always be five including the S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal328
1. The parties concerned in this case are the widow and the three sons of the late Ray Bahadur Seth Hardutt Rai Chamaria. One of these sons,, namely, Durgaprasad, sued his brothers Kadhakissen and Matilal and their mother Anardeyi Sethani to compel them to execute a conveyance and for other reliefs. Into the details of this litigation it is not necessary to enter and it would be sufficient to say that it ended in a decree on a compromise, the relevant terms whereof, shortly put, were that the defendants would pay to the plaintiff the moneys, together with interest, which the latter had paid for purchase of the properties, as also the expenses actually incurred by him for the said purchase, and that it should be declared that the properties belonged to the mother Anardeyi Sethani, Of the amount so to be paid, rupees four lakhs and twenty-five thousand was paid at the time, and the remainder, that is to say, another four lakhs odd, together with the expenses aforesaid, was to carry inter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal350
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of my learned brother Panckridge, J., upon an originating summons taken out to decide certain questions raised under the will of one Aaron Obediah Cohen whereby he devised all his immovable property to his son Obediah Aaron Cohento be held and enjoyed by him for the term of his natural life without impeachment for waste and from and after his death to my son's sons, namely Charlie O. Cohen, Seamantobe O. Cohen and Solomon O. Cohen and my son's daughter Flossie O. Cohen in equal shares absolutely, provided that if the said Flossie O. Cohen should be married before the death of my son, the said Obediah Aaron Cohen, then and in such case she will not take any interest under this my will.2. Upon that provision, the question was argued before the learned Judge whether or not the provision that if the lady should be married before the death of her father, then she should take no interest under the will was not a condition that was bad, so th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal461
Mallik, J.1. This rule was directed against an order made on 17th November 1930, by the Additional Presidency Magistrate whereby the petitioner, H. B. Spiers, was convicted under Sections 16 and 17, Part 2, Motor Vehicles Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40.2. The rule was issued on three grounds. The first one was that the conviction was without jurisdiction and illegal inasmuch as Sections 16 and 17, Part 2, Motor Vehicles Act, do not apply to the facts of the case. It appears that the offence with which the accused was charged was really an offence under Section 5 and Section 16 deals with offences for which no penalty has been specifically provided. Section 5 is however not one of such offences. The offence which is contemplated in this section has been made punishable by the section itself with a fine of Rs. 500. There is no doubt therefore that the sections which were mentioned in the charge were not applicable to the facts of the case. But it was not, by a reference to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1931Cal790
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for arrears of rent for the years 1329 to 1332 B. S. on the basis of a registered kabuliyat executed by defendant 1. Defendants 2 to 5 are the appellants. They and two minor defendants 6 and 7, were made parties to the suit by the plaintiffs on the allegation that the kabuliyat was executed by defendant 1 on behalf of a firm and at the dissolution of the partnership the property in suit fell to the share of defendants 2 to 7. The suit was dismissed in the Court of first instance, and in the appellate Court it was decreed as against defendant 1 or in the alternative against defendants 2 to 7. Defendants 2 to 5 now appeal on the ground that there is no proof of the relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the plaintiffs and also on the ground that there was no prayer for any relief as against them, the suit originally being one against defendant 1 alone; and in the third place the rent for the year 1329 is barred by limitation. The suit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal375
Williams, J.1. The appellants in this case were tried by the Sessions Judge at Khulna and a jury on various charges. The verdicts were not unanimous. By a majority of 5 to 4 the jury found Easin Sheikh and Karimuddi Sheikh guilty under Section 148, I.P.C. and Jonabali, Haran, Lalit and Gopal guilty under Section 147. On a charge under Section 302, I.P.C., against Easim, the jury, by a majority of 6 to 3 found him guilty under Section 326, I. P. C On the other charges some of which were under Section 302, read with Section 34, the jury by a majority of 6 to 3 found the accused Karimuddi, Jonahali, Haran, Lalit and Gopal not guilty. The learned Judge agreeing with the verdicts of the jury, sentenced all the appellants to various terms of imprisonment under Sections 147 and 148, and in addition he sentenced Easin to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 326, I'.'P. G.2. On the facts alleged an attack was made by these appellants with weapons upon the complainant's party owing to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1931Cal528
Lort-Williams, J.1. A great deal of time has been wasted on this case, both here and in the Court below. This has been due to the fact that the Chief Presidency Magistrate has disregarded those elementary principles which ought to be observed by every Judge when trying a case. Instead of rivetting his attention on the essential facts proved, he pursued vainly a number of guesses, assumptions and what he called 'insoluble equations,' which had not any connexion with facts disclosed by the evidence. The result is that his long judgment is unintelligible to anyone who was not present at the trial, and he has drifted into most regrettable confusion while trying to apply the law to the facts.2. When criticising the defence put for-ward by the accused he remarked that 'an ounce of fact is worth considerable quantities of fiction'--a maxim with which, after reading his judgment, we find ourselves in complete agreement. He complained thatthe learned Counsel who appeared for the accused took a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1931Cal801
Pearson, J. 1. The question raised in this appeal is what is the appropriate article of the Limitation Act in the case of a suit based on a personal covenant in a registered mortgage bond. It appears that in the present case as regards one of this points in the suit the plaintiff relied inter alia upon two payments, one made on 4th April 1922 and the other in April 1925. The mortgage bond itself was dated 17th April 1918. The suit was instituted on 4th September 1926. Of the two payments above mentioned the trial Court held that the first payment was good and that the second payment had not been established. He accordingly decreed the suit on mortgage, but held that the personal remedy was barred.2. On appeal the lower appellate Court seems to have acted under a misapprehension. After summarizing the conclusions of the trial Court the learned Judge states as follows:Assuming that Article 116, Lim. Act, applies even the payment of Rs. 19 made in 1328, B. S. that is to say the first paym...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal319
1. The facts that have given, rise to the present appeal were briefly these:One Baradaprasad Basu mortgaged two of his properties to the Pabna Model Co., on 25th June 1918. He again mortgaged on 1st February 1919 to the same company those two proporties. together with another. The Model Co. obtained two-decrees on the two mortgages and after obtaining them put them both into execution at the same time. The execution case in respect of the second mortgage decree was No. 65, while that in respect of the first mortgage decree was No. 66. In an order passed under Order 21, Rule 66, Civil P.C., the Court ascertained the values of the three properties to bo-sold. Property No. 1 was valued at Rs. 1,250, property No. 2 at Rs. 2,000 and property No, 3 at Rs. 1,650. The sales were held first in Execution Case No. 65. Property No. 1 was purchased at this sale by the decree-holder for Rs. 1,250 and property No. 2 was purchased by one Krishnachandra Bhoumik, a stranger, for Rs. 2,350. As the sale p...
Tag this Judgment!