Kolkata Court December 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.
Emperor Vs. Panchanon Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal404
ORDER1. We are both of opinion that in the circumstances the reference must be rejected. The accused Panchanon was tried by a jury for offences punishable under Section 467 and Section 477-A, I.P.C. The record shows that at the conclusion of the trial after deliberation lasting for more than half an hour the jury in answer to the questions put to them replied that they were unanimous and that they found the accused not guilty on all the charges. The accused was a tahsildar of the Cossimbazar estate and it was alleged that in one case he had collected rent from a tenant and had put the proceeds into his own pocket, and that in another case he had collected rent from another tenant and had only credited a portion of the rent so collected to the estate and misappropriated the balance, and further that in order to conceal his dishonesty he had made certain false entries and alterations in the books of the estate containing counterfoil receipts. He was charged under both the sections.2. I h...
Gouri Sankar Ram Kumar Vs. Sashi Bhusan Das Bairagya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal501
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Court Act, by the plaintiff whose claim for a sum of Rs. 20 odd for goods supplied together with interest of Rs. 11 odd has been dismissed by the Court below. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant Sashi Bhusan Das Bairagya introduced his son Rebati to the plaintiff's firm and asked them to supply goods on credit to the said son Rebati, that thereupon the plaintiff supplied biris to the son Rebati for a large sum. At the end a sum of Rs. 20 odd was the balance outstanding. As no payment was made the suit was instituted against the defendant. The defence was that he did not stand surety for his son Rebati, that Rebati took the biris for himself and the defendant was not responsible for the debts of Rebati. The Court accepted the defence view and dismissed the suit.2. In this Court is urged that the learned Court below committed a material error in the appreciation of the evidence that the P.W. 2, Bejan...
C.G. Lloyd Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal136
1. This is a rule granted by my learned brother M.C. Ghose, J. and myself calling upon the Deputy Commissioner of Dibrugarh to show cause why the order dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against his conviction and sentence should not be set aside. The petitioner is an employee of the Telegraphs-Department in Assam. He was convicted on 5th November 1931 by the Extra Assistant Commissioner on charges under Section 409, I.P.C. The charges were three in number and related to sums of money amounting in all to Rs. 413-4-0. The trying Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner in respect of the first charge to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 413-4-0 or in default to a further term of imprisonment for two months, the fine, if realised, to be paid to the telegraphs department as compensation. In respect of the other two charges the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment on each of them, the sentences to run concurrently with the...
Makhan Lal Pal Vs. Sakhi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal552,145Ind.Cas.700
M.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case one Khuki Sundari Dasya made a written petition of complaint against three persons: (1) Jaladhar Pal, (2) Profulla Mohan Pal and (3) Sailendra Mohan Pal alias Makhan Lal Pal, stating that she was a widow with two infant children and that accused 1 and 2 were father and son and they were under the influence of accused 3; that the three men for some time had been conspiring to deprive her of her property and to turn her out of her house and that in pursuance of that conspiracy on 7th August the accused men entered into her house and turned her out The Magistrate who received the complaint examined the complainant under Section 200, Criminal P.C., on the same day; but apparently the oral examination was sketchy. Afterwards on 1st October 1931 he again examined the complainant further with reference to her written allegations against Makhan Lal. The first two accused men compromised the case with the complainant and they thereupon were acquitted by the Magistr...
Susheelasundaree Dasee Vs. Bishnupada De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal622
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the learned District Judge of Khulna, dated 3rd July 1931, affirming the order of the Munsif at Satkhira dated 16th July 1930. The circumstances which led to this litigation may be briefly stated thus: It appears that there was a tenure which belonged originally to one Anandaprasad Sadhukhan. That tenure was sold in execution of a decree for rent held under the Bengal Tenancy Act. Sarada and Annada were two uterine brothers, and Khagendra and Bhupendra were the stepbrothers of Sarada and Annada. Durlabhmani, against whom the rent decree was passed, was the widow of Annada, who is now dead. In the rent execution case an application was made under Section 174, Ben. Ten. Act, as now amended for the setting aside of the sale by one Bhishnupada, who claims to be the nephew of Annada that is his brother's son. An objection was raised by the auction-purchaser, Susheelasundaree, who is the appellant before us, that the application under Section ...
Dhirendra Nath Mukherjee Vs. Nutbehary Munshi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal660
Buckland, J.1. The point to be decided in this is one which is by no means complex but generally presents a certain amount of difficulty. On 19th April 1929 the defendant Nutbehary Munshi delivered to his co-defendant Banerjee a promissory note for Rs. 3,000 in the usual form signed 'N. Munshi, agent and attorney to Dr. O.L. Munshi.' On 11th January 1932 the note was endorsed over by the payee to the plaintiff who now seeks to recover the amount due upon the note from the defendant N.B. Munshi, the heirs and legal representatives of Dr. O.L. Munshi who died on 1st November 1930, and from the endorser Nitya Ranjan Banerjee. As against the parties who have not appeared the necessary proof has been given. The suit is contested on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of Dr. O.L. Munshi on the ground that his estate is not bound by a signature in this form. It is submitted in order to make the estate of Dr. Munshi liable that N.B. Mushi signed as agent and not intending to incur pe...
Shyam Sundar Debanshi Vs. Sm. Kamal Kumari Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal769
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Birbhum, dated 30th November 1931, refusing probate of the will of one Ramaprasanna Debanshi, dated 15th January 1930. The testator about the time of the execution of the will was about 36 or 37 years of age and he died on 19th March 1930, after having, it is alleged, executed the said will. So far as the signatures on the will itself are concerned, it is not disputed that those signatures were those of the testator. But what is suggested on behalf of the objectors is that those signatures had been put by the testator sometime previously on blank pieces of paper and that such papers had been left by him with Shyam Sundar Debanshi and that the latter in conspiracy with a number of other persons had written out on these blank papers a will purporting to be a will of the testator. In other words, the contention is that the body of the will is a forgery and that there is internal evidence to show th...
Rajendranath Paramanik Vs. Tushtamayee Dasee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal549,145Ind.Cas.602
Jack, J.1. This Rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why an order giving leave to the plaintiff to sue as a pauper should not be set aside and why the plaintiff's suit should not be dismissed. The ground, on which this Rule has been pressed, is that the Court below ought to have held that the application of the plaintiff opposite party was barred under the provisions of Order 33, Rule 15, Civil P.C. It appears that a previous application to sue as a pauper had been made in 1930 and that application was dismissed for default, because the process fee paid for the issue of notices on the opposite party in that application as required under Order 33, Rule 6 was insufficient. It is urged, therefore that under the provisions of Order 33, Rule 15 the present application is barred. The wording of Rule 15, Order 33, is as follows:An order refusing to allow the applicant to sue as a pauper shall be a bar to any subsequent application of the like nature to be made by him in respect...
Dharani Kanta Chakrabarty and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal594
Rankin, C.J.1. In these three appeals, seven accused persons are before us who were tried by a Special Magistrate under Ordinance 11 of 1931 in the District of Mymensingh. They were charged with various offences under Section 411, I.P.C., under Sections 19(f) and 20, Arms Act, and under Section 5, Explosive Substances Act, and there was also a charge of conspiracy against them all having reference to the offences indicated by these sections. The appellant Dharani Kanta Chakravarty has been sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment, appellant Sailaja Kanjan Bhattacharjya to 4 years, appellant Nikhil Bhusan Chaudhuri to 4 years, appellant Sudhir Chandra Bhattacharjya to 6 years, appellant Jagat Bandhu Basu to 6 years, appellant Profulla Kumar Majumdar to 7 years and the appellant Manindra Chandra Debnath to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The case for the prosecution is that on the night of 22nd-23rd September 1931 the police, upon information received, carried out a search of the pr...
Sadananda Moral and ors. Vs. Heirs of Late Govinda Moral and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal725
Mukherji, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for rent. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendants held a jama of 40 bighas of land for a rental of Rs. 65, that in 1301 the defendants' predecessors had executed a kabuliyat in favour of the plaintiffs' predecessors agreeing to pay for the lands of the tenancy at the highest rate of rent of neighbouring lands; and that the lands have now been found to consist of 48 bighas and the highest rate of rent of neighbouring lands is Rs. 4. On such basis the claim was made. So far as the findings of fact are concerned there is no dispute now; the lands are roundly 47 bighas in quantity, and the highest rate is Rs. 4 though the Commissioner reported that it was Rs. 3. Both the Courts below declined to apply either of these rates and were of opinion that the original rate of Rs. 1-10-0 per bigha was the rate to be applied. In deference to a plea of suspension of rent the trial Court dismissed the entire suit. The lower appellate Court held ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »