Kolkata Court January 1932 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.
Padamchand Pannalal Vs. Bhicumchand Chururia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal661,139Ind.Cas.183
Rankin, C.J.1. The appellants Padamchand Pannalal on 11th February 1930 sued one Deepchand under his trade name of ' Now East Bengal Stores ' in the Calcutta Small Cause Court for Kb. 1,951-2-0 for goods sold and delivered. On 26th February the suit was decreed for the sum of Rs. 2,195-1-0 which included certain costs. On 11th March execution was applied for and on the 13th the stock-in-trade of Deepchand's shop was attached by the Small Cause Court. On the 17th one Bhicamchand Churoria made a claim to the attached property. He did so in the manner provided by a special rule which has for many years obtained in the Court and is applicable to proceedings of the kind known as 'investigation of claims objections' that is proceedings under what are now Rule 58 to 62, Order 21, Civil P. C. (This special rule is now Rule 102 of the Rules of Practice. It was till recently Rule 96.) Under that rule the claim is made by filing a plaint in which the claimant is plaintiff and the execution credit...
Joges Chandra Khasnavis and ors. Vs. Prasanna Kumar Majumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal664
Guha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Mymensingh, dated 25th June 1928, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of their title to a one-sixth share in the properties mentioned in the two schedules of the plaint, and for recovery of possession of the same; as also for mesne profits as claimed in the suit.2. The history of the litigation which has culminated in the present suit is of a complicated nature, and so far as the materials on the record go, the dispute between the parties concerned and their predecessors-in-interest, relates back to the year 1862. A genealogy which shows the relationship of the parties, as also the relevant dates on which some of the predecessors-in-title of the parties to the suit died is given below: Balaram Majumdar | _________________________________________ | | | Chandra Kishore Raj Kishore Chandi Prosad died 1259 B. S. (1852) died 1279 (1872) died 1256 B. S. (1849-50) | widow J...
israil Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal536
Panckridge, J.1. The appellant in, this case has been found guilty by a majority of the jury of 8 to 1 of an offence punishable under Section 304, part 1, I. P. C. The learned Judge after expressing an opinion that in his view the prosecution evidence was not wholly reliable stated that he did not feel justified in disagreeing with the verdict of such majority and. he accordingly convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo transportation for life.2. A preliminary point has been taken on behalf of the appellant which raises a question of some interest and importance. It is said that the trial has been vitiated because the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code with regard to the empanelling of the jury have not been observed. 'What happened is set out in, some detail in the order-sheet. It appears that of eighteen jurors summoned eleven failed to appear. Of the remaining seven one was successfully objected1 to on behalf of the accused. The other six jurors were not objected to...
irpan Ali Laskar Vs. Jogendra Chandra Das Patni and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal708
1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 from a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge at Silchar. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for recovery of the unpaid consideration for a Kobala after deducting certain payments which were admitted, The facts necessary to be stated are the following: One Kanak Ram Patni died leaving a widow Kunja Patni, two daughters of the name of Fula Patni and Neridi Patni and the two plaintiffs, his grandsons being the sons of a third daughter who had predeceased the said Kanak Ram Patni.2. The plaintiffs' case was that the properties which belonged to Kanak Ram Patni devolved on his death in life interest to Kunja, that Kunja in 1914 sold her interest to Fula Patni and the plaintiffs. Fula having died without issue, the plaintiffs alleged and they had become the owners of the properties. Their case was that their father Nayan, defendant 6, had been appointed their guardian by the Court and that defendants 2, 3 and 4 had stood surety for the purpose of t...
Mahomed Ali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal194
Panckridge, J.1. This is an appeal by five persons who were charged of offences punishable under Sections 366, 366-A and 368, I.P.C. They were convicted of the charge under Section 366, but acquitted on the charges under Sections 366-A and 368. Another man was charged under Sections 366-A and 368, but was acquitted on both those charges. In respect of offences punishable under Section 366 the present appellants have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.2. The case for the prosecution appears to have been that a certain young girl who was living in the same bari with her father was forcibly seized by a party of whom some of the accused persons are members and was taken to the house of accused 1. While she was there an attempt was made to force her into marriage with accused 3. She did not consent and she was thereafter taken from place to place and she was finally discovered in the house of a woman who is said to be a woman of the town. The charge under Section 366 is concern...
Muhammad Ali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1932
Reported in: 145Ind.Cas.925
Panckridge, J.1. This is an appeal by five persons who were charged of offences punishable under Sections 366, 366-A and 368, Indian Penal Code. They were convicted of the charge under Section 366, but acquitted on the charges under Sections 366-A and 368. Another man was charged under Sections 366-A. and 368, but was acquitted on both those charges. In respect of offences punishable under Sections 366 the present appellants have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.2. The case for the prosecution appears to have been that a certain young girl who was living in the, same bari with her father was forcibly seized by a party of whom some of the accused persons are members and was taken to the house of accused No. 1. While she was there an attempt was made to force her into marriage with accused No 3. She did not consent and she was thereafter taken from place to place and she was finally discovered in the house of a woman who is said to be a woman of the town. The charge under ...
Surendra Nath Lahiri Vs. Jnanendra Nath Lahiri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal574; MANU/WB/0025/1932
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the 2nd Subordinate Judge of Hooghly by which he granted probate of a will alleged to have been executed by one Manmohini Debi. The alleged testatrix was an old lady who had three brothers viz., Surendra Nath Lahiri the eldest brother who was the objector in the Court below and is the appellant in. this Court Jnanendra Nath Lahiri the youngest brother who propounded the will and is the respondent in this Court and another brother named Jitendra Nath Lahiri who is not connected with the appeal but has given evidence in support of it as witness 5 on behalf of the propounder. The will is a short document. By it the testatrix appointed Jnanendra Nath Lahiri as the executor, made a small bequest of Rs. 400 out of her estate in favour of her sister Srimati Subashini Debi, and gave a pair of bangles to one Sukumari Debi who is the wife of an eye specialist who had operated on her aye and is said to be a lady who was looked upon by the testatrix as her o...
Nagendra Nath Sen Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal486
M.C. Ghose, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted in two separate cases under Sections 409 and 477-A, I.P.C., and under Section 55, Postal Act, The prosecution case is that the petitioner was a postmaster in charge of the Hatigarh Post Office and in that capacity on different dates in the month of December 1930, he received five value-payable articles for delivery to the consignees on payment of the price. He delivered the articles and received payments therefor but dishonestly misappropriated the sums realized and dishonestly omitted to make proper entries in the register and in each transaction he is said to have committed an offence under Sections 409 and 477-A, I. P. C, and under Section 55, Postal Act. Three of these transactions were tried in one trial and two of thorn in a separate trial.2. It is urged before us that the charges of three distinct criminal breaches of trust could not be properly tried together with the charges of three distinct falsification of accounts, that th...
Sudam Chandra Bag Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal148
M.C. Ghose, J.1. The petitioner Sudam Chandra Bag was convicted by a Magistrate under Section 14, Dangerous Drugs Act, for possession of a quantity of cocaine and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for nine months and a fine of Rs. 1,000. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction but reduced the imprisonment to six months and the fine to Rs. 500. It is urged in this Court that there is no legal evidence to connect the accused with the possession of the cocaine. It appears that one Suren Haldar was a co-accused with the petitioner. After some evidence was taken the Magistrate on the prayer of the Public Prosecutor discharged him under Section 494, Criminal P.C., and thereafter the Public Prosecutor examined him as a prosecution witness. The learned Counsel has urged that Suren Haldar, in the circumstances, was not a competent witness.2. After hearing the learned Counsel who quoted many cases, and after hearing the learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer I am of opi...
Nagendra Nath Sen Gupta Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1932
Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.136
M.C. Ghose, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted in two separate cases under Sections 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 55 of the Postal Act, The prosecution case is that the petitioner was a Post Master in charge of the Hatigarh Postoffice and in that capacity on different dates in the month of December, 1930 he received five value-payable articles for delivery to the consignees on payment of the price. He delivered the articles and received payments therefor but dishonestly misappropriated the sums realised and dishonestly omitted to make proper entries in the Register and in each transaction he is said to have committed an offence under Sections 409 and 477 A, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 55 of the Postal Act. Three of these transactions were tried in one trial and two of them in a separate trial.2. It is urged before us that the charges of three distinct criminal breaches of trust could not be properly tried together with the charges of three distin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »