Kolkata Court March 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.
J.K. Sinha Vs. Hemanta Kumar Sinha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal697
Panckridge, J.1. We do not think it necessary to set out the long and complicated story on the basis of which the petitioner asks for process to issue against the two persons named in the petition of complaint. The facts are accurately summarized in the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate made on 27th January 1932. Mr. Pagh maintains that the order should be set aside inasmuch as the Magistrate before making it heard counsel and permitted documents to be filed on behalf of the persons complained against, a procedure not contemplated or warranted by Ch. 16, Criminal P. C. Secondly, Mr. Pugh argues that even if this alleged illegality is not itself sufficient ground for setting aside the order, it should be set aside on the marits.2. As to the first point the view of Ch, 16 expressed by Sanderson, C. J., and Walmsley, J., in Behari Lal Mukerjee v. Pasupati Chatterjee [1916]17 Cr. L. J. 396 has never been questioned in any decision of this Court and we have no doubt whatever that it ...
Jogendra Nath Saha Vs. Rai Kishori Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal817,140Ind.Cas.465
Rankin, C.J.1. In these cases each of two brothers appeals from an order of the learned District Judge of Jessore refusing to adjudicate him insolvent on his own petition. There has been in my judgment a distinct amount of misconception in the way the matter was treated in the lower Court. The position is that by Section 10, Provincial Insolvency Act, a debtor is not entitled to present his petition unless he is unable to pay his debts and his debts amount to five hundred rupees and so forth. Now, under the previous Act there were many scandalous contentions on the part of creditors who wanted to make the proceedings begin by a complete examination--finding out the man's debts and his assets in order to find out whether he should be insolvent or not and that purely nonsensical course had to be dealt with by the legislature and it was carefully provided by Section 24 that the Court on the day fixed for the hearing of the petition was to require proof, amongst others, of the matter that ...
B.N. Ry. Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravan Desai and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal877
Pearson, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit against the B. N. Ry. Co., in connexion with a consignment of certain goods from Gondia to Shalimar in respect of which the plaintiffs' firm claimed a sum of money as damages for nondelivery of the goods against the Railway Company. The suit was decreed both by the first Court and by the lower appellate Court. The Railway Company are now the appellants before us.2. A certain amount of confusion has been created in this case owing to the not altogether consistent attitude taken by the Bail-way Company in their defence. But the matter becomes clear enough when we look at the claim made by the plaintiffs' firm as made out in the plaint and in the evidence and the findings thereon arrived at by the Courts below. The goods were consigned from a station called Gondia under a railway receipt in which the weight of the consignment was shown as 107 maunds upon which weight the freight was to be paid. The goods arrived at Shalimar about 10th or 12th...
Aktar HossaIn and ors. Vs. Sm. Husseni Begam and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal73
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case there was a suit brought by the plaintiff to set aside a compromise decree which had been entered into on his behalf by his mother when he was a minor. The decree was in September 1926, the plaintiff attained majority in 1927 and the events that we are concerned with happened in January and February 1930. The suit was in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Dacca. On 31st January 1930 the plaintiff wanted time because of communal disturbance in the town and he was given time till next day. Then he filed a petition saying that his pleader had not come to Court and he was given an adjournment till 5th February. On the 5th he filed another petition asking for examination of a witness on commission. The Judge was not willing to give him an adjournment on that ground though he was prepared, if necessary, to consider whether that should be done during the trial. Consequently on 5th February the suit was taken up. The plaintiff was examined but his exam...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›