Kolkata Court March 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.
Sashadhar Acharjya and anr. Vs. Sir Charles Tegart and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal646
Lort-Williams, J. 1. In this case a rule was issued upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside, the 'order being-one in which he directed the petition of complaint of the petitioners to be filed and so far as it affected certain of the accused he dismissed the complaint. This case comes before us under Section 435, Criminal P.C. The petition is headed, 'Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction. In the matter of an application under Section 439, Criminal P.C.,' there were two complainants petitioners Sashadhar Acharjya. and Suhashini Debi. They complained againstSir Charles Tegart, Commissioner of Police and about 20 other police sergeants and other police officers names unknown led by Sir Charles Tegart to French Chandernagore and Nalini Mazumdar, Manmatha Sen, a Mahomedan Sub-Inspector and some other officers of the special branch of the Calcutta police.2. The facts set out in the petition which consists of 16 paragraphs,...
In Re: Binjraj Hukumchand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal683
Rankin, C.J. 1. In this case the assessees, a registered, firm claim that in computing their profits for the Ramnavami year 1984 (1927-1928) they are entitled to make a deduction of Rs. 60,999-1-0 in respect that certain debts owing to them by one Tarachand son of Kissenchand, became bad to that extent in that year. The Commissioner of income-tax has proceeded on the footing that it is for the assessees to produce satisfactory evidence : (1) of the nature and character of the debts; (2) that they were really and justly due to the assessee firm and (3) that they became bad in the year of account. He has held upon the evidence that the assessees have failed to do this and he has disallowed the deduction claimed. He has referred to us the questionwhether the income-tax officer was right in disallowing set off.2. As under the Income-tax Act, (Section 66) this Court has to decide questions of law only, the form of the question is open to exception. I propose to inquire whether the Income-ta...
Ramjash Agarvalla and anr. Vs. Orr, Dignam and Co. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal233,136Ind.Cas.539
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by my learned brother Lort-Williams, J., on an application made by the attorneys with reference to the taxation of their bill against their clients for whom they had acted in the course of a partnership suit. The partnership suit appears to have proceeded to a stage at which a reference was being conducted in this Court. The bill was carried on and the taxation before the taxing officer arrived at a stage at which the officer was about to complete the taxation. It appears that certain learned Counsel had been employed from time to time in connexion with the suit and the reference and the attorneys acting for the clients wore objecting to this taxation to the allowances of sums which had been paid to counsel on account of counsel's fee. Thereupon the taxing officer having come to the end of his duties recorded an order and said that he would deal with counsel's fee finally at the next meeting and that he understood that the attorneys w...
Surendra Nath Bhattacharjee Vs. Basanta Chandra Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal120
Cuming, J.1. The petitioner who obtained this rule brought a certain case against the opposite party and the Magistrate who heard the case acquitted the opposite party and ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 100 to the opposite party under Section 250, Criminal P.C., on the ground that the case was false and vexatious. The learned District Judge in disposing of this appeal held that it was not open to him to go into the facts of the case and it was not open to the petitioner to go into the facts of the case to show that the case was not false and vexatious. He first of all apparently heard both the parties with a view to decide what he described as the scope of the appeal and his conclusion was as follows:It, therefore, appears to me that I am not competent to consider whether the accusation was false or whether it was vexatious. But I am competent to consider only whether the order for compensation is proper in the circumstances of the case, that is to say, taking the Magistrate's view ...
Profulla Kumar Sarkar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal401
Rankin, C.J.1. By Section 154, Evidence Act, it is provided that:the Court may in its discretion permit the parson who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.2. The Division Bench has referred to us two appeals by accused persons from their convictions and sentences by the Court of Session. In each case the trial was held with a jury, and in both appeals it is contended for the accused that the Sessions Judge has misdirected the jury as to the consequence in law of the fact that the Court had permitted the Public Prosecutor to put to a prosecution 'witness questions of the character described by Section 154.3. In the appeal of Prafulla Kumar Sarkar (No. 327 of 1930) Mr. D. N. Bhattacharjee, who appears for the prosecution has contended before us that the direction given by the learned Sessions Judge has not the meaning and effect which the Division Bench took it to have. As both cases are exactly of the same character fo...
Nalinaksha Majhi and ors. Vs. Rajani Kanto Das Mohanta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal741
Suhrawardy, J. 1. The parties to this litigation belong to a, low caste of Hindus known as Sadgope Suri, whose occupation is supposed to be dealing in intoxicating liquors and agriculture. The properties in suit belonged to one Nayan Majhi who died in 1280 B S., corresponding to 1873-71 leaving a widow Garabini and a daughter Bhikarini. Bhikarini died in 1328 (1921) and Garabini in 1330 (1923). The plaintiffs are Nayan's brother's grandsons and defendants 2 to 4 are the sons and grandsons of Bhikarini. It is not disputed that defendants 2 to 4 are preferential heirs according to Hindu law and are entitled to succeed to the properties left by Nayan. But it has bean found that after the death of Bhikarini's first husband she became a Vaishnava and contracted a marriage in the Vaishnava form with defendant 1 who was originally a Brahmin and had become a Vaishnava. The other defendants are their children, The plaintiffs accordingly maintain that the defendants are excluded from inheritance...
Radharaman Saha Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal712
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case will appear from the judgment of the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 157, I. P.C.2. The case is briefly that on a certain day two persons who are what are described as volunteers came to the house of the petitioner and he gave them food.3. The Magistrate finds that by so doing he harboured these persons and that he was aware that these two had formed or were likely to have formed an unlawful assembly the common object of which was the commission of an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Ordinance of 1930. On the findings of the learned Magistrate no offence under Section 157 has been committed.4. The Magistrate finds that the petitioner was aware that in some past time the two volunteers had formed or were likely to have formed an unlawful assembly.5. Section 157, I. P.C. clearly refers to some unlawful assembly in the future It provides for an occurrence which may happen not which has happened. The findings o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›