Kolkata Court April 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.
Kalipada Mukerji Vs. Basanta Kumar Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal126,138Ind.Cas.177
Mukerji, J.1. The facts which have led up to these two appeals are the following: In a suit for sale instituted by certain persons as the first mortgagees, who 'for the sake of brevity may be called the Rai Chaudhuris holding a mortgage from the appellant Kali Podo Mukherji in which they had impleaded as defendants the said appellant as the mortgagor as well as one Abinash Chandra Dutt as the puisne mortgagee a final decree for sale was passed in accordance with the provisions of Order 34, Rule 5. Civil P.C. on 31st May 1927. The decree was in these words:It is ordered that the immovable properties mentioned in the said decree and specified at the foot thereof or so much thereof as may be necessary be sold by public auction and that the money which may be realized by such sale (after defraying thereout the expenses of sale) be paid into Court to the credit of this suit and that the sum of Rs. 54,301-5-6 payable under the said preliminary decree together with Re- 1-12-3 the costs of the...
Ambika Nanda Maitra Vs. Benode Behari Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal288,137Ind.Cas.816
Williams, J.1. In this case a Rule was issued to show cause why an order of injunction under Section 144, Criminal P.C., should not be set aside. The Subdivisional Officer having received information that there was a likelihood of trouble between the owners of two rival hats and their adherents, passed an order on 4th July last that the second party were not to assemble another hat to the detriment of the first party 'on Sunday next,' i. e., 6th July, and to show cause, if any, against the order by 14th July. On 18th July he passed an order that 'the order of 4th July stands good for two months hence.' It is difficult to understand what the Magistrate really meant by this order. He might have meant that the second party were not to hold a hat upon any Sunday during the next two months. But read literally the order is meaningless because obviously an order not to hold a hat on 6th July cannot 'stand good' for two months after that date.2. On 6th August he passed fresh orders of injuncti...
Trailokyanath Das and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal293
S.K. Ghose, J.1. In this case, the jury, by a majority of 4 to 1, found all the appellants guilty under Section 143,I.P.C., and, by a majority of 3 to 2, they found the three Das appellants guilty under Section 379 read with Section 109, I. P.C., and they unanimously found all the appellants not guilty of the charges under Section 436 read with Section 109, I. P.C. The learned Judge accepting the majority verdict, sentenced all the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 143 and the Das appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each under Section 379/109,I.P.C., the sentences running concurrently.2. The prosecution case is briefly this; Jnanada, P. W. 10, purchased the rights of a tenant in respect of 82 bighas odd of paddy land, the landlords being the Dases. From the time of his purchase in 1920, Jnanada has been in possession through bhag tenants. At the time of the occurrence, the bhag tenant in possession was one Rakhal and it was h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›