Kolkata Court November 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.
Nil Ratan Ganguli Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal124
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the accused Nil Ratan Ganguli has preferred the appeal from jail against the conviction and sentence passed upon him by a Special Magistrate in the District of Hooghly acting under Section 39(1), Ordinance 2 of 1932. The case was one in which the charges were laid under Section 19(f) and Section 20, Arms Act. There were two accused originally and the case against them was that this accused Nil Ratan had handed over to Upen Bhumij alias Upen Singh a revolver and afterwards to Upen's wife some cartridges in order that those might be concealed and kept on his behalf. Both the accused persons made confessions, the confessions being recorded on 17th January 1932. One of the accused was made an approver and the case in the end was held to be amply proved by the Magistrate. The Magistrate found as regards the present accused who gave his name and the occupation as that of a Congress worker, that he used to live in the Congress office and that his meals were suppli...
Government of Bengal Vs. Alimandi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal469
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case we have before us, first of all an appeal preferred by the Government against an order of acquittal passed by the Subdivisional Officer of Netrokona. That officer had before him a number of accused persons who were prosecuted out of the circumstances that arose when the nazir of the civil Court went with a large party of the auction-purchaser's men to give possession of certain land under Rule 95, Order 21, Civil P.C. It appears clear and it is accepted by the trying Magistrate that on 4th April 1931 the nazir with his peons and with these men of the auction-purchaser went in the morning to the land in question. The nazir allowed a substantial time for the employees of the auction-purchaser to come to terms with the judgment-debtors. After a while according to him after 2&frack12; hours he refused to wait any longer and told the judgment-debtors' party to remove their women and chattels. The women and the chattel were removed from the huts. Thereupon, Alimud...
Sudhir Chandra Pal and anr. Vs. Uttara Sundari Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal571,145Ind.Cas.684
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The appellants Sudhir Chandra Pal and Manorath Chandra Pal applied for the probate of a will said to have been executed by Jugalram Pal or in the alternative, for Letters of Administration with a copy of the will annexed. The will in question is dated 3rd Pous 1814 corresponding to 19th September 1907. Jugalram died on 5th Pous following and it is said that he was then in a boat on his way to get the will registered. By the will the testator bequeathed his properties to his son Surjya Kumar Pal and be further provided that in the case of Surjya dying without male issue his nephews Ram Mohan Pal and Dhanram Pal would get the properties and he also appointed these two persons executors to the will. Surjya died on 16th March 1924 and he left no issue. Dhanram died on 3rd January 1925. Ram Mohan died on 18th December 1927. The petitioners claim that according to the provisions of the will they have become entitled to the properties of the testator and accordingly they make...
Sheikh Wafiz Vs. Md. Nannoo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal578,145Ind.Cas.522
Mukerji, J.1. Defendant 1, in a suit which was instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration of a right of way over an alleged 'gopat', is the appellant in this appeal. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but had been decreed by the Subordinate Judge on appeal in a modified form. The 'gopat' which forms the subject matter of the suit will appear from the Commissioner's map which is to be found on the record and the portion of it which has a direct bearing on the case is marked in that map as lying between stations 1 and 16. Although I am not prepared to interfere with the decision which is complained of in this appeal, I must say that I am unable to disagree with the learned advocate for the appellant in his submission that the Subordinate Judge has fallen into an error in dealing with the case in so far as it is a question of the exact nature of the right which had to be determined. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs on their own behalf and also on behalf of all the inhabi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›