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.
S.W. Colbert Vs. Mrs. H. Colbert
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal776,147Ind.Cas.914
M.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case Mrs. Colbert made a petition against her husband stating that he had married her about 16 or 17 years ago but that lately he had treated her badly and neglected to maintain her; that he was living with another woman for the last four years and refused to maintain her; that he earned about Rs. 150 per month and she asked for a maintenance of Rs. 50 a month The husband stated in his written statement that he married her in 1917 upon her false representation, but afterwards she brought into his house her illegitimate children and a married daughter with children; and he was asked to maintain 3ll of them, and when he refused to do so he was turned out. He further stated that he was willing to maintain her but not her grown up children that although he was willing to maintain her she refused to come to him The matter was fixed for trial on a certain date when the pleader of the husband was absent and in his absence compromise petition was drawn up by the pleade...
Jotindra Nath Roy Chowdhury Vs. Raj Lakshmi Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal449,145Ind.Cas.338
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Third Court, 24-Pargannas, dated 30th August 1930, by which he granted probate of the will of one Jogendra Nath Roy Chowdhury of Behala. The will is dated 23rd April 1910. The testator died on 17th August 1928. The application for probate was filed by his widow Sm. Rajlakshmi Devi in Court on 22nd April 1929. The will in question is a registered will and it appears from the Sub-Registrar's endorsement that it was registered on the day of its execution. It appears that the testator had been married four times and the present applicant Sm. Rajlakshmi Debi was his fourth wife. The other wives of the testator had all died before the testator's marriage with Rajlakshmi. But there was a son by the third wife, named Jatindra Nath Roy Chowdhury. This last named person is the present objector in these proceedings.2. In the said will the testator stated that Jatindra had been residing as a member...
Manmatha Nath Biswas Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal132
Rankin, C.J.1. The appellant Manmatha Nath Biswas was on 27th April last convicted of an offence against Section 19(f), Arms Act-viz., of having in his possession or under his control a revolver and six cartridges on 18th February. He was tried by the Chief Presidency Magistrate sitting as a Special Magistrate under the Bengal Emergency Powers Ordinance, 1931. Another man, Lalit Mohan Singha was tried together with him. The prosecution evidence was as follows: That these two persons had been seen at about 5 p.m. on 27th January standing and talking together for fifteen minutes in front of the office of a newspaper called 'Liberty' in the Upper Circular Road, after which they went together to the Sealdah crossing and separated, that some three weeks afterwards, viz., at about 6-30 p.m. on 18th February, they were again seen near to the same spot, but on the east side of the street where there are railway lines; that they loitered and talked together there for about an hour, after which ...
Nabjan Sardar Vs. Neburali Molla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal506
Mukerji, J.1. Three odd bighas of land which form the subject-matter of this suit formed part of a holding consisting of 7 bighas odd which was held by one Bata Bibi under the Bhowanipore Zamindari Co. One of the terms of the lease by which Bata Bibi's tenancy which was a mourashi mukarrari one was created was as follows:If you transfer the lands of this jama to anybody then the purchaser would be bound to pay into my sarkar as mutation fee one-fourth of the amount which would be the fair price for the land at the time; if such fee is not paid the transfer will not be valid.2. Bata Bibi sold the land in suit to the appellant in 1920. The appellant did not pay the chouth. In 1924 the landlords sued Bata Bibi for rent of the entire tenancy for 1327 to 1330 B, S., obtained a decree and in execution of that decree put up the holding to sale at which the respondent purchased it. In 1923 the respondent, as plaintiff, commenced this suit for ejecting the appellant. The suit was decreed by the...
Tushar Kanti Ghose and anr. Vs. the Governor of Bengal in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal118
1. This is a rule granted on 18th July last by Jack and M.C. Ghose, JJ., on the application of His Excellency the Governor of Bengal in Council calling on the opposite parties, the first of whom is the editor, and the second the printer and publisher of a daily newspaper called the Amrita Bazar Patrika circulating in Calcutta, to show cause why they should not be ordered to stand committed, or otherwise dealt with for the contempt of the Court of the Commissioners appointed as hereinafter stated and of this Court, in respect of the acts and publications referred to in the petition on which the application for the rule is based.2. On 30th April 1932 Mr. Douglas, the District Magistrate, was assassinated at Midnapore. In June the Local Government; under the powers conferred upon it by the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act 1930, directed the trial by three Commissioners of one Prodyot Kumar Bhattacharjee for the murder of Mr. Douglas. The Commissioners sat at Midnapore during the month of...
Santo Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal495,145Ind.Cas.177
1. This Rule was granted by Jack and Dwarka Nath Mitter, JJ., on 6th June 1932, and calls on the Deputy Commissioner of Kamrup to show cause why the conviction of the accused and the sentence passed on him under Section 19(f), Arms Act, should not be set aside on the ground that on the findings of fact arrived at by the Sessions Judge the petitioner was entitled to an acquittal. Owing to the course which the proceedings have taken the result of the Rule has very little importance as the petitioner has now served out the sentence imposed upon him. He was convicted by an Honorary Magistrate of Gauhati of being in illegal possession of a revolver 'in loose parts' without a license and sentenced to a year's rigorous imprisonment. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to a period of six months. It appears that a box belonging to the accused was searched at Amingaon Railway Station and there was found in it a rag in which were tied 21 parts of a ...
Sm. Sakhisona Dasi Vs. Prankrishna Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal566
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff instituted this suit for recovery of rent for the years 1330 to 1333 B.S. for a holding, which, according to her, consisted of 3 bighas 15 cottas of land and bore a rental of Rs. 90-4-0 per year. The defendant's case was that upwards of 100 years ago their predecessors came to have a holding under the predecessors of the plaintiff which originally consisted of 4 bighas 17 cottas of land with a rental of Rs. 72-12-0; that by a measurement subsequently made it was found to consist of 4 bighas 15 cottas 8 chitaks and its rental was accordingly reduced to Rs. 71-11-0; that by subsequent settlements taken of fresh lands from time to time, it eventually became a jama of 6 bighas 3 cottas of land with a rental of Rs. 147-8-0. Their case was that the plaintiff had forcibly dispossessed them of 2 bighas 8 cottas out of the lands and settled the same with a third party. Their case further was that when they protested, the plaintiff promised to give them 1 bigha 3 cott...
Chittya Ranjan Das and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal509
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, twelve persons were put upon their trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge of Faridpur and a jury on various charges in connexion with a dacoity alleged to have taken place on 26th-27th March 1931. The prosecution case was that the complainant Nibaran Chandra Saha went to bathe in the river Brahmaputra leaving his married daughter Nanibala and some other relatives at home; that on the next day at about midnight several men broke open the door of the building of his house and entered the room in which Nanibala and her three children were sleeping with other persons; that they broke open an almirah that was in the room and took away various gold ornaments; that they were heard and the villagers began to arrive and that when Nibaran returned home on Saturday he gave to the police a list of the missing articles. The case was one in which the evidence was all connected up by the evidence of the approver who seems to be a young man of good family and rather an ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›