Kolkata Court July 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.
Abdul Gafur and ors. Vs. Mahammad Mirza
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal645
Mallik, J.1. The three petitioners in this case have been convicted under Section 504, I. P.C. They have also been directed to execute bonds under Section 106, Criminal P.C. The petitioners obtained the present rule on the ground that the order under Section 106, Criminal P.C. is illegal, inasmuch as the requirements of law under that section are not satisfied.2. The only point that arises for consideration in the present rule is what interpretation is to be put on the expression 'offences involving a breach of the peace' that is to be found in Section 106. On behalf of the petitioners it was said that this expression means only offences of which a breach of the peace is a necessary ingredient and in which the occurrence of a breach of the peace is actually found. On behalf of the opposite party it was urged that this expression should be given a wider interpretation and it should be held to include not only offences of which a breach of the peace is a necessary ingredient and in which...
Gostha Behari Dey Vs. Indra Chandra Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Cal144
Jack, J.1. This Rule was issued against an order allowing an application under Order 21, Rule 10, Civil P.C. It appears that this application was made in consequence of an order giving the petitioner the decree-holder symbolical possession of the land in suit. The applicants under Order 21, Rule 100 were not the judgment-debtors but holding under the judgment-debtors or some one else and they were not dispossessed by the decree-holder. Order 21, Rule 100 only applies where there is actual dispossession and a person whether holding under a judgment-debtor or any one else is not entitled to apply under this rule in a case where there has been only symbolical delivery of possession. This Rule is made absolute, the order of the Court below is set aside and the application under Order 21, Rule 100 is rejected. The petitioner will get his costs in the Court below as well as in this Court-hearing-fee one gold mohur in this Court....
Bhicumchand Chururia Vs. Deepchand Doogar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal67
Buckland, J.1. The plaintiff sues to re-cover Rs. 10,000 for principal and interest under an instrument of hypothecation, dated 17th February 1930 and for other sums said to be due from the defendant Deepchand Doogar, which instrument was made between the plaintiff and the defendant Chimniram Halaschand of the one part and the defendant Deepohand Doogar of the other part. In addition to Deepchand Doogar and Chimniram Halaschand there are four other parties, Padamchand Pannalal, Matichand Fulchand, Ramkissen Jaikissen and Labhchand Rekubchand, who may briefly be described either as attaching creditors or as creditors who have instituted proceedings or obtained decrees against Deepchand Doogar. The only defendants who have appeared by counsel at the hearing are Padamchand Pannalal and Matichand Fulchand.2. The short facts of the case are that Deepchand Doogar, the son of Indirchand, who is said to have been born on 28th January 1910 was carrying on a business in Calcutta known as the New...
Mahammad Raja Mia Vs. Naderajjama Mia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal53
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a simple mortgage in which the plaintiff claimed Rs. 1,500 on a mortgage bond executed on 15th Falgun 1320 corresponding to about 1st March 1914 by defendant 1, and the predecessor of defendants 2 to 5. The amount borrowed was Rs. 200 payable in six instalments running over six years from .1914-1919 and it was stipulated that in default of payment of any one of these instalments the mortgagors would pay interest on the defaulted instalment at the rate of one pan of betelnut par rupee per month. The evidence on record shows that a pan of betelnut at the time when the contract was entered into was, worth from 2 annas to 4 annas. The interest accordingly chargeable on a defaulted instalment was under the bond from 150 to 300 per cent. The plaintiff however in the suit charged interest at 1 anna per rupee per month, that is 75 per cent per annum. There were various defences on the merits but we are concerned with one which relates to a q...
Ashutosh Gangopadhya and anr. Vs. Sarojini Saha Chaudhurani and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal205,136Ind.Cas.479
Jack, J.1. This rule has been issued upon the opposite party to show cause why a judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court should not be set aside in a suit by the plaintiff opposite party for contribution on account of rent paid by the plaintiff on account of arrears of rental of tenures alleged to be held by the opposite party in order to save them from sale.2. The first ground on which the rule was issued is that, the plaintiff opposite party's raiyati holdings, having been in no danger of being avoided or in any way adversely affected by the default in paying up the revenue, the present suit should have been dismissed; and secondly that assuming that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, she was entitled to a decree, only against the Opposite Party 2, who is defendant 3, to whom, the petitioners allege, they had transferred the tenure which was saved from being sold by the payment made by the plaintiffs.3. As regards the first point, contribution is claimed under Section 9, Act...
Nibaran Chandra Mukerjee Vs. Rai Harendra Lal Bahadur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal446,138Ind.Cas.157
1. In this case the District Judge appears to have proceeded upon a supposition that the Judicial Committee in the case of Jagdeo Narain Singh v. Baldeo Singh A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 272 said something contrary to what was laid down in the case of Hurryhur Mookhopadhya v. Madhub Chunder [1870] 14 M.I.A.152. Considerable argument has been addressed to us either in support of the District Judge's view or against it, and reference has been made to a number of cases amongst which may be mentioned the following: Sashi Bhusan Hazra v. Abdulla : AIR1924Cal328 ; Chattra Nath v. Babar Ali : AIR1925Cal635 ; Kiran Chandra v. Srinath Chakravarti : AIR1927Cal210 ; Makhan Lal v. Rup Chand 0049/1929 : AIR1930Cal164 Abdul Bari v. Hrishikesh Mittra : AIR1929Cal459 . We have perused these decisions with care, but we consider it unnecessary to discuss them here because, for reasons which we shall presently give, we are clearly of opinion that there is no real foundation for such a supposition, and we would resp...
Sashadhar Acharjya and anr. Vs. Charles Tegart and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal123,136Ind.Cas.598,137Ind.Cas.674
Rankin, C.J.1. In my opinion, this application must be dismissed. We have already held that an application upon a complaint asking us to take proceedings against certain persons, one of whom appears to be not in India at all and the others appear to be either Indian subjects or else residing within the original jurisdiction of this Court, does not lie under the clause which Mr. Banerji insists applies to it, namely, Clause 29, Letters Patent. I do not want again to go into the question of the right of this Court to deal with breaches of peace in France or the conditions under which the Courts in British India sometimes have to deal with cases of Indian subjects in respect of such breaches. In order that there may be no misunderstanding in the matter I would point out three things: The ordinary original criminal jurisdiction of this Court is given by Clause 22, Letters Patent. The extra ordinary original criminal jurisdiction is given by Clause 24 Letters Patent, and that gives jurisdic...
Sailendra Nath Palit Vs. Syed Hade Kaza
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal356
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree dismissing his suit. The suit was described in the plaint as a suit for recovery of money, Rs. 15,000 odd, with declaration of a charge in respect of it on a certain trust estate. There were also other reliefs claimed in the plaint which will be presently stated.2. The plaintiffs' case shortly put was as follows: One Nawab Nazir Sidee Nazir Ali Khan by a will dated 25th February 1873 created a trust of his estate, and appointed one Mir Mohamed Kazim Jawahiri as trustee thereof. After the death of Mir Mohamed Kazim Jawahiri, other persons came in succession as trustees, till at last defendants 3 and 4 became such trustees. One of the properties of the trust was lot No. 79, appertaining to Sunderbans, bearing tauzi No. 143 of the 24-Pargannas Collectorate, which goes by the name of Abad Uchildaha. On 9th April 1923, defendants 1 and 5, as such trustees and for legal necessity of the trust estate, borrowed from the plaintiffs Rs. 5,000 a...
In Re: Bijaykumar Singh Buder
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal502
Costello, J.1. This is an application under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890; it also invokes the inherent powers of the Court under. Clause 17, Letters Patent of this Court. The matter was originally heard in Chambers, but as it raised a point of some importance it was adjourned to Court for further argument,2. The petitioner is a man named Rupchand Buder of No. 11, Duff Street, in the city of Calcutta. He is a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law. The application is that he should he appointed guardian of the persons and property of his three sons, all of whom are minors. The petitioner makes the application for the purpose of putting himself into the position of being able to confer as far as possible an unassailable title upon the purchaser of a house No. 19, Shambhu Mallik Lane, which is joint family property belonging to the petitioner and. his three minor sons.3. It has been held in several cases in the various High Courts of India and by the Judicial Committee ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›