Kolkata Court May 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.
Najibulla Sardar Vs. Harimohan Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal481
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the patnidar, sues defendant, who is the darpatnidar, for recovery of thoka, sheha, jamawasil and hastabud papers of the darpatni mahal for the years 1329 to 1332, on the basis of a contract contained in a registered kabuliyat dated 19th Chaitra 1286. Failing such recovery, plaintiff claims Rs. 100 as compensation. The defence mainly is that the contract is not binding on the defendant and that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim specific performance. The Courts below have agreed in finding in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court made an order on the defendant to make over the claimed papers to the plaintiff within 30 days' and failing that the plaintiff would recover Rs. 60 as compensation. This decree was affirmed by the lower appellate Court. The defendant now comes in second appeal.2. There is a preliminary objection that the second appeal does not lie, as the suit was of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and the value wa...
Surendra Nath Bhattacharjee Vs. Police Sergeant and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal121
1. In this case there was some trouble over what was called 'peaceful picketing' outside the Dacca University on 21st July 1930, with the result that it became necessary for the police to disperse an unlawful assembly which was obstructing the public road and during a charge made by the police certain students of the University became involved and one of them was so seriously injured that he died. His brother then made a complaint against the Superintendent of Police, a Police Sergeant, and certain constables whose names he could not give. This complaint was heard by Mr. Ghose, Additional District Magistrate and he examined the complainant on one or two occasions and finally adjourned the further consideration of the matter, until he could obtain the report of an inquiry under Section 176, Criminal P. 0., which was being held. Eventually, he pointed out that no charge could be made against the Superintendent of Police because this required the sanction of the Government under Section 1...
Abdul Hakim Khan Chaudhuri Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal511
Mallik, J.1. Three persons, Mandir Sarkar, Bhadu Mandal and Kafiluddin. Mandal sent a petition to the Superintendent of Police, Bajshahi, and Abdul' Hakim Khan Chaudhuri, the petitioner before us, who was a typist in the District Judge's Court there, was the person who typed that petition. In this petition to the Superintendent of Police, there were some allegations of extortion and bribery against a police Sub-Inspector, one Mahomed Yeadali Fakir, and the petition ended with the prayer that the Superintendent of Police might protect the men so that they would not be oppressed. The Superintendent of Police sent the petition to the District Magistrate for an inquiry. An inquiry was held and the Sub-Inspector, Yeadali Fakir was put on his trial under Section 384,I.P. C. but was ultimately acquitted. Thereupon the trying Magistrate 'made an order under Section 47(5, Criminal P.C., complaining to the Magistrate against the present petitioner and the three signatories to the petition before...
Niwasilal Modi and ors. Vs. Routhmull
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal532
Mallik, J.1. This rule is directed against an order made by the 4th Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta on 19th February 1931 by which he held that he had jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint made before him in this case. One Routhmull is a partner of the firm of Doulatram Routhmull carrying on business in jute and country produce and having their head office at 178, Harrison Road, Calcutta. The firm has got branches at many places and four of these branches are at Matihari, Bettiah, Sitarnari and Chakia, all in Behar. The petitioners are the men who are in charge of these Behar branches. Routhmull complained to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, charging the petitioners with the offences of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts. The allegations on which these charges were made in the petition of complaint were; (1) that the petitioners drew hundis on the Calcutta firm cashed them locally and recovered the moneys but did not credit them in the books and mis...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Purna Chandra Das ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal533
Pearson, J. 1. This appeal is by the Crown against a verdict of acquittal by a majority of the jury, accepted by the trying Judge. There were four accused, namely, Purna Chandra Das, son of one Haricharan, Gopal Chandra Pal and Abdul Gani, friends of Purna, and Saraswati Dasi wife of Haricharan and mother of Purna. The charges ware Section 120 B/302, I.P.C., against all four accused, and under Section 302 and 201 against the accused other than Saraswati, and related to the deaths of one Kiranbala the mistress of Haricharan and her daughter Parul a child of 6 or 7.2. The case for the prosecution was that Haricharan's preference for his mistress had been the cause of quarrels between him and Saraswati and Purna. On the afternoon of 8th April 1930 preceding the occurrence Haricharan and Saraswati were both unwell. Kiranbala and her daughter were sent for through a servant Nanda a boy of 14, and cams to the house with a change of clothing. Nanda, it is said, overheard a conversation that e...
In Re: Damagoria Coal Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal430,137Ind.Cas.870
Buckland, J.1. This is an ex parte application, made at the instance of the Mines Board of Health, Asansol, for leave under Section 171, Companies Act, to levy execution upon a certificate issued by the Certificate Officer, Asansol, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,955, said to be recoverable as a public demand, on account of the applicant's duos under the Mining Settlement Act 2 of 1912.2. It is stated that this is a debt due to the Grown, which I will assume to be correct, and a question arises as to the prerogative right of the Crown to payment in priority to other creditors. The certificate is dated 30th July 1930, the winding up order was made on 18th August 1930, and an official liquidator has been appointed. No notice has been given to the official liquidator and in consequence the matter has not been fully argued. But Mr. Susil Sen who appears on behalf of the applicant has drawn my attention to a judgment of Page, J., in In the matter of West Laikdih Coal Co., Ltd. A.I.R. 19...
Banbihari Mukerji Vs. Bhejnath Singh Mahapatra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal448
1. This is an application made under Section 115, Civil P.C., for an order setting aside the order of the District Judge of Bankura, dated l0th January 1931. That order was made in connexion with a Title Suit (No. 3/98 of 1927-30) and in course of a proceeding, which was described as Miscellaneous Case No. 44 of 1930. The title suit in question had been instituted by a lady, Sreemati Bibasana Debya, claiming a declaration of her title to and recovery of possession of certain lands and also a sum of money as against a lady, Sreemati Indubala Debya, and certain other persons. The plaintiff was successful at the trial and a decree was made in her favour on all points. Thereupon, the defendants appealed to the Court of the District Judge of Bankura,2. The plaintiff, Bibasana Debya, died intestate, shortly after the filing of the appeal, and the defendants-appellants applied for substitution of the present petitioner in place of the deceased plaintiff-respondent, the petitioner being the so...
In Re: Nanda Lal Mukherjee (Lunatic)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal227,136Ind.Cas.600
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the plaintiff brought his suit alleging that he and defendant 1 were brothers. As regards the property of Schedule 1, it was alleged that that was their ancestral property and that the two brothers were in possession thereof in equal shares. That property was said to be of the market value of some Rs. 16,000. As regards Schedule 2 property, the plaintiff's case was that it was acquired by the joint family fund when defendant 1, was the karta. This appears to be a residential house in the suburbs of Calcutta and its value is put down as Rs. 84,000. The plaintiff's case is that he had been actually living in that house when the events which I am about to mention happened. He says that defendant 1 mortgaged the whole of Schedule 2 property ---I omit all reference to the property of Schedule 1--'to defendants 2 to 4 on the footing that defendant 1 was the sole owner of the house and he also executed a subsequent encumbrance in favour of defendant 5.2. The first...
Matilal Dey Sarkar and ors. Vs. Kamakshya Charan Dey Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal209,136Ind.Cas.594
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition of a homestead. The plaintiff's claim for partition is based on the following facts: There was a howla called Jadu Nandan which was held by five persons; Rup Chand and Sreenath Das had a 4 anna share and in the remaining 12 annas Taranath and Prionath had 9-1/2 annas share and Kali Kumar 6-1/2 annnas share treating the 12 annas interest in the howla as 16 annas. About 60 years ago, according to the defence, the predecessor of defendant 1 took a jote settlement of the 4 annas of Rup Chand and Sreenath. In 1300 B.S. the plaintiff took a jote settlement of 6 annas of the howla from Taranath, Prionath and Kali Kumar and about that time the defendants also took a jote settlement of the remaining 6 annas from these persons. In 1315 B.S. the defendants took mirash settlement of Kali Kumar's 6-1/2 annas share in the 12 annas of the howla reckoned as 16 annas. In 1327 B.S. they purchased the maliki interest of Kali Kumar in that sh...
Prabashinee Debi Vs. Rasiklal Banerji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal439,137Ind.Cas.857
Rankin, C.J.1. The appellant in this case made an application under Rule 16, Order 21, Civil P.C. to be permitted to put a decree in execution as an assignee of the decree-holder. It appears that, on 15th January 1927, the appellant took an assignment from two persons of a 'certain property with a right to all arrears of rent. The landlords had by that time instituted suits for arrears of rent and the decree, with which we are concerned, is dated 8th February 1927; so that the appellant's kabala, which was on 15th January 1927, was before the decree came into existence. In these circumstances the question is whether she is entitled to apply under Rule 16, Order 21 of the Code.2. Now the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Mathurapur Zamindari Co., Ltd. v. Bhasaram Mandal : AIR1924Cal661 is a very careful decision upon this very question and it is against the appellant. 'The only question before us is whether there is any reason why that decision should not be followed. We hav...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »