Kolkata Court July 1932 Judgments

Jitendra Nath Ghosh Vs. Chief Secretary to the Bengal Government

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1932Cal753

Remfry, J.1. This is a petition on behalf of Kali Charan Ghosh praying for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus or for a mandamus. It appears from the petition that Kali Charan Ghosh was arrested and detained in the Presidency Jail on or about 10th February or 16th February 1932. He claims to be a French subject and it is said that he was arrested near Serampur and that his brother, the present petitioner, was informed on 16th February that Kali Charan had been arrested under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act 6 of 1930, Bengal. The petitioner states that in spite of inquiries he had been unable to ascertain the grounds for this arrest, and has not been able to secure a copy of the warrant under which the detenu is detained, and that the detenu is a good and useful French subject and has never been convicted in a Court of law. A rule was issued on 28th April on the Superintendent of the Presidency Jail, to show cause why the body of the detenu should not be produced in this Court on...

Satyaranjan Bakshi and anr. Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1932Cal758

Mallik, J.1. The two appellants in this case have both been convicted on three counts under Section 124-A, I. P. C. Appellant 1 Satya Ranjan Bakshi was the editor of the daily newspaper Liberty' and appellant 2 Pulin Behari Dhar was the printer and publisher of that paper. Satya Banjan Bakshi has been sentenced on that first count to nine months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 with three months' rigorous imprisonment in default, with no separate sentence passed on him on the other two counts; Pulin Bihari Dhar has bean sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500 with six months' rigorous imprisonment in default on the first count, no separate sentence being inflicted in his case also under the other two counts.2. The charges against the two appellants were in relation to three articles published in the 'Liberty.' One of them was published on. 10th December 1931, and was headed 'Farewell and Beware.' The second article which was headad Berhampora and After' was published only two days l...

Emperor Vs. Maturanath De and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1932Cal850

Mallik, J.1. This is a reference under Section 307, Criminal P.C. Three men Mathuranath De, a Sub-Inspector of Police in charge of the Bijni Thana in the District of Goalpara, Syed Habibar Rahaman, an Inspector of Police and Manmathanath Ghose, the Officiating Superintendent of Police of Goalpara were put on their trial on charges under Sections 120-B, 193, 201, ,217 218 and 506, I. P. C. The common charge against all the three accused persons was under Section 120-B read with Sections 193, 201, 217, 218 and 506, I. P. C. Over and above this common charge the special charges against Mathuranath De were under Sections 193, 201, 217 and 506. The special charge against Syed Habibar Rahman was under Section 217,. I. P. C. and the special charges against. M. N. Ghose were under Sections 217, 218 and 201, I. P. C. The trial was held with the aid of a jury consisting of 5 jurors. The jury unanimously found all the three accused men not guilty of any of the charges. The learned Judge could not...

In Re: Krishna Lal Seal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1932Cal886,140Ind.Cas.1

Rankin, C.J.1. The assessees are the owners of two properties of Calcutta (a) 5, Dhurrumtolla Street and (b) 275, Bow Bazar Street which in the year of account. 1929 were let to a tenant on terms that he should pay for the former Rs. 3,000 per month and for the latter Rs. 1,000 per month and that in each case he should also pay (inter alia) the owner's share of the consolidated rate levied under the Calcutta Municipal Act 1923. This Act, by the opening word of Section 149, thereof provides:One half of the consolidated rate shall be payable by the owners of the lands and buildings and the other half of the occupiers thereof.2. The asse3sees's income from these properties is assessable to income-tax under the head 'property' in the manner prescribed by Section 9 of the Act (11 of 1922). In their return of income for the year of assessment 1930 the assessees put down the figure Rs. 48,000 as the annual value of the properties. The income-tax authorities finding that in the year of account...

Makhan Lal Laha and anr. Vs. Nagendra Nath Adhicary

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1933Cal467

Guha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Howrah, setting aside a decree for partition, passed by the Munsif, 1st Court, Howrah in title Suit No. 358 of 1928, and remanding the case with a direction that the defendant in the suit should be ''allowed to avail himself of the advantage under Section 4, Partition Act' (4 of 1893), as he had undertaken to buy the two-thirds share of the plaintiffs who were the transferees in respect of that share of the property in suit. Upon the findings arrived at by the Courts below, the plaintiffs were the holders of the superior interest in the property in question, which is a dwelling house in the sense that it is homestead land with huts standing thereon. Of the three tenants holding under the plaintiff, under a lease which gave no transferable right to the tenants, who were members of an undivided family, two of them surrendered their undivided two-thirds share to the plaintiffs who are not ...

Emperor Vs. Mathuranath De and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 139Ind.Cas.89

Mallik, J.1. This is a Reference under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Three men Mathuranath De, a Sub-Inspector of Police in-charge of the Bijni Thana in the District of Goalpara Syed Habibar Rahaman, an Inspector of Police and Manmathanath Ghose, the Officiating Superintendent of Police of Goalpara were put on their trial on charges under Sections 120(B). 193, 201, 217, 218 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The common charge against all the three accused persons was under Section 120 (B) read with Sections 193 201, 217, 218 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Over and above this common charge the special charges against Mathuranath De were under Sections 193, 201, 217 and 506 The special charge against Syed Habibar Rahaman was under Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code and the special charges against M.N. Ghose were under Sections 217, 2l8 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial was held with the aid of a Jury consisting of 5 Jurors. The Jury unanimously found all th...

Baijnath Shaw Vs. Corporation of Calcutta

Court: Kolkata

Costello, J.1. This rule is directed against a judgment passed by the Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Sealdah, in a suit brought by the Corporation of Calcutta against one Baijnath Shaw for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 69-1-6 for damage caused to a lamp post belonging to the plaintiff Corporation by a motor car alleged to be the property of the defendant. The suit in short was an action for damages for negligence. The defendant denied that he was the owner of the motor car in question. The registered number of the car was 10670 and the registered owner was Baijnath Shaw of No. 225-1, Cornwallis Street, Calcutta. It seems that the accident occurred at night. The witnesses of the occurrence were able to take the number of the car which struck the lamp-post but they apparently had no opportunity of ascertaining the name of the person driving the car at the time or of making any inquiries on the spot as to the ownership of the car. By way of defence to the plaintiff's claim the defen...

Probodh Chandra Chakravarty Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1933Cal186

1. This Rule has been issued upon the District Magistrate of Rajshahi to show cause why an order directing the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 50 under Section 28, Ordinance 2 of 1932, should not be set aside on the ground that there being no finding that the conviction of Paresh under Section 4, Ordinance 5 of 1932, was for an act prejudicial to the public safety or peace, Section 28, Ordinance 2 of 1932, has no application and that the learned Magistrate erred in law in holding otherwise. In the first place it may be pointed out that the section itself does not require any finding that the conviction was for an act prejudicial to the public safety or peace; but it does require that the offence is one which in the opinion of the Court has been committed in furtherance of a movement prejudicial to the public safety or peace. The question is whether on the ground that there is no finding that the offence was in the opinion of the Court committed in furtherance of a movement which is pre...

Chhogan Lal Bagri Vs. Behari Lal Saha Ray and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1933Cal311,147Ind.Cas.881

Guha, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Mymensingh, on 23rd January 1930, holding that an application for delivery of possession made by a decree-holder auction-purchaser was barred by limitation. The purchase was made by the decree-holder at a sale held on 17th September 1924, in execution of a mortgage decree. The judgment-debtor No. 5 applied for setting aside the sale on 31st October 1924, and that application was dismissed on 30th May 1925. The sale was confirmed on that date. There was an appeal by the judgment-debtor against the order dismissing the application for setting aside the sale, and the appeal was dismissed by this Court on 25th July 1927. The application for delivery of possession was made on 18th January 1929. The limitation applicable to such an application would be the one prescribed by Article 180, Sch. 1, Lira. Act, and it was incumbent upon the purchaser to make the application within three years fr...

Khorshed Ali Bepari and anr. Vs. Probhat Chandra Das

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1933Cal496,145Ind.Cas.183

1. This appeal has arisen out of an application under Section 47, Civil P.C., raising objections to the execution of a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale, passed by the Munsif, Second Court Munshigunj, in the District of Dacca, on 11th September 1930. The operative part of the decree was in these terms:The suit be decreed ex parte with costs. The plaintiffs' right to have the contract for sale of the plaint schedule properties for Rs. 801 specifically enforced is hereby declared. The defendant is hereby directed to execute a kobala in favour of plaintiff 2, for the sale of the properties by accepting the balance of the price i.e., Rs. 651 from the plaintiffs within a month. In default the Court will execute and register a kobala of sale of the plaint schedule properties on behalf of the defendant in execution of the decree on the plaintiff's depositing into Court the balance of the purchase money and requisite stamp and registration fee.2. There was no payment of th...