Kolkata Court August 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.
Prasaddas Pal Vs. Jagannath Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal519
C.C. Ghose, Ag. C.J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which has been prepared by my learned brother and I agree with him in the conclusions summarized in his judgment.Mitter, J.2. This is an appeal from the judgments and decrees of my learned brother Lort-Williams, J., and arises in two suits. The appellant Prasaddas Pal was the plaintiff in suit No. 933 of 1930 and defendant in suit No. 838 of 1930. Jagannath Pal and others are plaintiff's in the latter suit. The suit brought by Prasad was dismissed, whereas the suit brought against him was decreed.3. It appears that one Nilmani Pal, who was governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law, executed, at Calcutta, a deed of endowment, on or about 25th July 1911, by which he dedicated the house and premises No. 61, Clive Street and the house and premises No. 105,Balaram Do Street, to the sheba of the idol Shree Shree Annapoorna, established by him in the latter house and premises, and for feeding the poor and carrying out...
Golap Ali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal656,145Ind.Cas.821
Jack, J.1. Of the nine appellants in this appeal, Keamaddi has been found guilty under Section 148, I.P. C, and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and also under Section 304(part 2) and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently; Mohan and Manik Sheikh were each sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 148, I.P. C, and to six years under Section 304, (part 2) 149, I.P. C, the sentences to run concurrently. Manik was further convicted under Section 324, I.P.C. The other appellants Golapdi, Bonomali, Hasenuddi, Gadu, Anasaraddi and Ahmad Ali were convicted under Section 147 and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment; they were also convicted under Section 304(para2) 149 and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently. The verdict of the jury with which the learned Judge agreed was unanimous.2. The prosecution case is that the complainant Kuti Matbar and his nephews Hamid...
Sundarji Shibji Vs. Mangtulal Bagaria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal547
C.C. Ghose, Ag. C.J.1. The present appeal arises out of a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 21,216-10-0 said to be due for minimum royalties, in terms of a lease, dated 7th November 1919, and for an enquiry as to What further sum is payable on account of royalties. The plaintiff is one Mangtulal Bagaria. He succeeded in the Court below and hence the present appeal by Sundarji Shibji, who is one of the defendants. Only one point has been argued before us, namely, that Mangtulal Bagaria was incompetent to bring this suit for the reasons which are set out in the judgment of the Court of appeal in the case of Hiralal Murarka v. Mangtulal Bagaria : AIR1933Cal208 . It is not necessary for me to set out at length the reasons which led the Court of appeal to hold in the last-mentioned case that the plaintiff Mangtulal Bagaria was not entitled to bring a suit of the description as in the present case. The facts in that other case and the facts in this case are all alike so far as the point raised be...
Barkatulla Pramanik Vs. Ashutosh Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal460,145Ind.Cas.121
ORDER1. The facts of this case were as follows: In respect of an occupancy holding there are three co-sharer landlords, Ashutosh Ghose, Sudhansu Bhusan Ghose and Indu Bhusan Ghose, each of the first two owning a four annas share and the last one the remaining eight annas share. In execution of a decree for the eight annas share of the rent due to Indu Bhusan Ghose the holding was sold; and eight annas thereof was purchased by the judgment-debtor's wife and the other eight annas by the petitioner Barkatulla Pramanik. The judgment-debtor then applied to set aside the sale under Section 174, Ben. Ten. Act, but the application was rejected. The sale took place on 24th April 1930. On 2nd April 1931 Ashutosh Ghose applied under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act, to exercise his right of preemption, The Munsif held that so far as the purchase of the eight annas share by the judgment-debtor's wife is concerned there was really no transfer, and so there could be no pre-emption, but that as regards th...
Bhutnath Ta and ors. Vs. Barindra Nath Bhattacharya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal546
Mallik, J.1. This is a Reference under Section 5, Court-fees Act, made by the Taxing Officer, in the present case, the Registrar of the appellate side of the High Court. It has arisen in this way: There was a suit for recovery of money against a firm, named Madhabchandra Ta and Ramratan Chaudhuri. On 31st March 1931, the suit ended in a decree for about Rs. 4,700 against the firm. A year later, the plaintiff decree-holder applied under Order 21, Rule 50, Sub-clause (2), to have a declaration that Bhutnath Ta and some other persons were partners of the firm. Bhutnath Ta and others appeared and denied their partnership. But the Court, after trying the matter, found that they were partners at material times. Against this order, Bhutnath and others filed an appeal in this Court and there was a dispute between the Stamp Reporter and the advocate filing the appeal as to whether the appeal should be registered as a Miscellaneous Appeal stamped with a fixed fee or as a regular First Appeal and...
A.B. Miller Vs. F.G. Ferguson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1932
Reported in: AIR1934Cal300
Ameer Ali, J.1. (After stating the facts and the questions to be considered his Lordship proceeded to consider the law on the point.)2. Law-In this case, I will deal with the law before dealing with the question of construction. The authorities to be considered are not many: Williamson v. Naylor (1838) 3 Y&C; (Ex) 208, Alder-son v. Petrie (1873) 25 WR 361-n, Ashley v. Ashley (1875)1 Ch D 243; Ashley v. Ashley (1876) 4 ChD 757 and In re. Macdonald (1889) 59 LJ Ch (ns) 231, Wilson v. Church (1911) 106 LT 31 and the-following text-books: Daniel's Chancery Practise, pp. 890-2, 897-8; Seton, Edn. 7, forms 2417 and 2429 ; and English Rules of Court, Order 55, inter alia, Rules 56 and 65, and forms in appendix I, Nos.5 and 6, at pp. 1699 and 1701 of the 1931 rules. I will take these authorities in the above order.3. In Williamson v. Naylor (1838) 3 Y andC (Ex) 208, there was a trust by will of one-fifth of the estate of the testator to be distributed rateably amongst 52 persons mentioned in t...
Prodyot Kumar Bhattacharjya Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal1,140Ind.Cas.80
1. The accused Prodyot Kumar Bhattacharji was tried by three Commissioners appointed under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1925 on charges under Sections 302/120-B, 302/34 and 302/114, I.P. C, and also under Section 19(f), Arms Act. The Commissioners unanimously found him guilty under Section 302/120-B, I.P.C., and also under Section 302-34, I.P. C, and convicted him accordingly under the said two sections. As regards the charge under Section 302/114, I.P. C, the Commissioners stated that having regard to their finding on the said other two charges they did not convict him under this charge and the accused was thereupon acquitted of the charge under Section 302/114, I.P.C. As regards the charge under Section 19(f), Arms Act, the accused was found guilty and convicted accordingly. So far as the sentence on the accused was concerned two of the Commissioners were of opinion that having regard to the circumstances disclosed on the evidence on record nothing could be said in mitigati...
Mahammad Fazlul Karim Vs. Ahmad Mahammad Paruk
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal504,145Ind.Cas.318
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by my learned brother Panckridge, J., on 21st July 1932, by which he directed that the Registrar might be at liberty to sell the mortgaged properties without reserve in the circumstances which had happened. The facts involved in this appeal, shortly stated, are as follows: The plaintiff obtained a mortgage decree on 14th July 1927, and the decree directed that the Registrar should take the usual accounts on the footing of the mortgage. The Registrar did take the accounts and reported that a sum of one lakh seventy-seven thousand odd hundred rupees would be due and owing to the plaintiff mortgagee on 7th August 1928. Thereafter the final decree was passed and that would be found on pp. 45 and 46 of the paper book. In the final decree there was inserted a provision, as is usually done in the Original Side, that the Registrar should fix a reserved price on the mortgaged properties before the sale was held by him. The Registrar, purs...
In Re: Mrinal Kanti Ghose, Keeper of the Amrita Bazar Patrika Press an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal738,140Ind.Cas.304
C.C. Ghose, J.1. These are two applications (1) by Tarit Kanti Biswas-- publisher of the newspaper Amrita Bazar Patrika and (2) by Mrinal Kanti Ghose, keeper of the Amrita Bazar Patrika Press, under Section 23, Act 23 of 1931, the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, praying that certain orders of the Governor of Bengal in Council dated 22nd June 1932 calling upon the petitioners to deposit securities to the amount of Rs, 3,000 each may be set aside in the circumstances set out in the petitions. Under the orders of the-Governor of Bengal in Council notices under Sub-section (3), Section 3, Indian Press-(Emergency Powers) Act, 1931 dated 22nd June 1932 were served on the petitioners directing them to deposit 'with the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, securities to the amount of Rupees 3,000 each in money or the equivalent thereof in securities of the Government of India on or before 26th July 1932. The securities demanded have been deposited with the Magistrate. According to the L...
A. Malcolm and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal218
1. The appellants have been convicted under Section 19(f) read with Section 14, Arms Act, and sentenced to periods of imprisonment and fines. The prosecution case is that an officer of the Customs Preventive Service received certain information on 4th January. The information was conveyed to the Superintendent of the Preventive Service who deputed an Indian Officer, Mr. Burman, to act as a bogus purchaser of an automatic pistol.2. On the morning of 5th January they proceeded to Prinsep Memorial about 10-45 a.m. and after about an hour they saw the accused Malcolm come up to the memorial. The informer introduced Malcolm to Burman as the vendor and he said that the wished to sell the pistol which he produced. Negotiations then took place. The vendor wanted Rs. 440 for this revolver and another revolver which Malcolm said he had for sale. The bogus purchaser told him that he was willing to give him Rs. 300 for the pair. At this point by an agreed signal two other men from the Customs Depa...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »