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.
Janaki Nath Nandi Vs. Amarendra Nath Biswas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal490,145Ind.Cas.243
C.C. Ghose, J.1. The plaintiff is the purchaser of the property in dispute at a sale under Regn. 8 of 1819. He alleges that after the said sale, there was an extinguishment of all encumbrances and that the defendants who are in possession of the lands described in the plaint herein have no right to possess the same and are trespassers. It is further alleged that the defendants fraudulently had an entry made in the Record of Rights to the effect that they were holding the lands as occupancy raiyats at a jama of Rs, 4 a year. In the circumstances the plaintiff is asking for khas possession of the said lands together with mesne profits. The defendants' contention is that they have occupancy rights in the holding, that the holding has been in existence from before the date of the permanent settlement, that they are khudkast resident and hereditary raiyats of the holding, that the holding was not an encumbrance and that it was not and could not be annulled by reason of the sale under Regn. ...
Mahomed MaijaddIn Khan Vs. Janakiballav Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal492,145Ind.Cas.248
1. This is an appeal by defendant 2 in a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff's election as a Commissioner of the Dacca Municipality was valid. At the Municipal election held on 19th July 1928, for Ward No. 2 of the Dacca. Municipality, the plaintiff obtained 1484 votes, Sita Nath De secured 1311 votes, Mahomed Maijaddin Khan obtained 825 votes. Of the total number of five candidates for election, the other two were able to secure seven and two votes respectively. The first two candidates named above were the successful candidates, so far as the election held on 19th July 1928, was concerned, as there were only two seats of Municipal Commissioners to be filled up, and for which purpose the election was held. After the election was over, Mahomed Maijaddin Khan, defendant 2 in the suit, appellant in this Court, filed a petition before the District Magistrate of Dacca, purporting to be one under Rule 40 of the Bengal Election Rules (1930), for declaring the election of the plaintiff ...
Jagan Nath Tripathi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal141
Jack, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 124-A, I.P.C., and sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 in default rigorous imprisonment for three months on the ground that he was the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a Hindi weekly newspaper Lokmanya' in which an article entitled 'Kajal-ka-Pahar' was published in the issue of 28th September 1931, which is found to be seditious. The grounds of appeal were that the Court below was wrong in holding that the article exceeded the bounds of, legitimate criticism and that on a consideration of the entire evidence, facts and the circumstances of the case the Court should have acquitted the appellant. Two points have been urged before us, in the first place, that the Government referred to in the article in question was the British Government and not the Government establised by law in British India and secondly, that on reading the article as a whole the intention of the writer was, as he says, that he...
i.N. Silas and anr. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal341
Jack, J.1. In this case a rule was issued upon the Municipal Magistrate and on the Chief Executive Officer of the Calcutta Corporation to show cause why the order, directing the Corporation to entirely demolish and remove portions of a certain building at the expense of the petitioner, should not be set aside or such further order made as to this Court may seem fit on the ground that the learned Magistrate misconceived the scope of Section 364, Calcutta Municipal Act; secondly that the learned Magistrate erred in law in holding the view that in the present case he had no alternative other than to pass an order of demolition inasmuch as the service of a valid notice under Section 299, Calcutta Municipal Act, upon the petitioner had been proved and admitted by the petitioners; thirdly, that upon a proper construction and consideration of Exs. 16 and 18, and upon a consideration of the provisions of law relating thereto the learned Magistrate should have held that the Corporation failed t...
Sasanka Kumar Nayak and ors. Vs. Hitlal Sow and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal617,145Ind.Cas.856
Mallik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for enhancement of rent of a holding on two grounds: on the ground of excess of area and also on the ground of rise in prices. The plaintiff's claimed enhancement of rant on the ground of rise in prices at the rate of six annas in the rupee and their case was that when the land was let out, the ar6a mentioned in the kabuliyat was 34 bighas only, whereas on actual measurement it has been found to be 42 bighas 17 cottas and the plaintiffs were therefore entitled to an additional rent on the excess area of 8 bighas 17 cottas there having been a stipulation in the kabuliyat that the tenant would be liable to enhancement if the area of the holding would be found on actual measurement to be more than 34 bighas. In the plaint it was also stated that at the time when the land was let out the standard of measurement was 80 cubits to a bigha and 18 inches to a cubit.2. The plaintiffs' claim was resisted by the defendants on the allegation amongst oth...
Gopal Chandra Bose Vs. Uma Kanta Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1934Cal255
ORDER1. This Rule was issued for the purpose of examining whether an order made by the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, 24-Pargannas refusing to entertain an application for setting aside an arbitration in Title Suit No. 40 of 1931 was properly made. We have given our careful consideration to the facts of the case giving rise to the application on which this Rule was granted and we are unable to hold that the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge should be interfered with. The order is in consonance with the decision of this Court in the case of Robindra Deb Manna v. Jogendra Deb Manna AIR 1923 Cal 410, and the learned Judge is right in holding that the charges of misconduct levelled against the arbitrator should not be inquired into at this stage, seeing that under Schedule 2, Civil P. C., the only time for entertaining charges of misconduct against an arbitrator is when the award has been filed in Court.2. The Rule is discharged, but we direct that on failure by the arbit...
Soko Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal142
Jack, J.1. In this case the petitioner has been convicted under Section 354, I.P.C., and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment on the ground that he outraged the modesty of a little girl of five and half years of age. This rule was granted on the ground that having regard to the age of the girl and the fact that she did not take any notice of the alleged assault and never complained to any one about the offence and she never cried or made any noise, the learned Magistrate should have held that the said girl had not developed the sense of modesty of a woman as contemplated by Section 354, I.P.C., and as such the conviction under Section 354, I.P.C., is illegal and should not be allowed to stand. The circumstances were that this little girl was playing with a boy of her own age and the accused aged about 50 put his finger into her private parts and caused a mark on them. This occurred in the afternoon and when her mother returned at about 5 o'clock and bathed the child, she compl...
Saheb Ali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal242
Bartley, J.1. The three appellants have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Mymensingh sitting with a jury, who returned a majority verdict of guilty under Section 147 and 149/304, I.P.C., against all of the appellants and under Section 304, I.P.C., against Sahabali alone. The material facts alleged by the prosecution were that Sataulla and Manu owned a plot of land on which they grew paddy. On 20th November 1930 these appellants and a mob of other people entered the land and began to cut the crop. Sataulla, Manu and another man came up and protested. Appellants Sahabali and Manir speared Manu and Sabel struck him with a lathi. They then assaulted Sataulla with lathis. Both Manu and Sataulla died subsequently from the injuries. The substantive defence set up was that the land belonged to Sabel, who sowed aus and amah paddy in it. He cut the aus, but there was a golmal at the time of cutting the aman. The other appellants simply pleaded not guilty, and no alternat...
Shamji Tricumdas Bhatia and ors. Vs. Ram Moye
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal318
1. This is a rule against an order of the Subdivisional Magistrate of Suri making absolute an order passed under Section 133, Criminal P.C, directing the petitioner to remove an unlawful obstruction on the alleged public road, on the ground that the learned Magistrate acted illegally in refusing to appoint a jury under Section 138, Criminal P.C. The learned Magistrate made an inquiry under Section 139-A on the denial of the petitioner that the road in question was a public road; and the Magistrate finding that there was no reliable evidence in support of the denial of the petitioner, was bound to proceed as laid down in Section 137 or Section 138. It is urged before us that before the Magistrate makes an inquiry as to whether there is evidence in support of the denial of the existence of a public way, the petitioner must have elected to have the matter tried by a jury under Section 135. But we think that it is still-open to the petitioner to elect to have the matter tried by a jury aft...
A.M.A. Zaman Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal140
Mallik, J.1. The appellant A.M.A. Zaman has been convicted under Section 124-A, I.P. C, and under that section sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Zaman was the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a Weekly Bengalee paper 'Sarbahara.' The charge against him was in respect of an article which appeared in that paper in its issue on 26th September 1931, under the heading 'Massacre at Hijli and Responsibility of the Nation.' In this article the writer after condemning the incidents at Hijli proceeded to analyse the reasons why the incidents had happened, whether the Nationalists (the Congress leaders) would be able to remove the causes and the writer concluded by saying that the Congress leaders were impotent in the matter and it would lie with the revolutionary proletariat to come forward to make the creation of a wider and finer society possible through the destruction of the existing impossible, social and administrative regime and the article ended with the slogan:Down with Impe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »