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.
Nagendra Bhakta Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1934Cal144,147Ind.Cas.1028
Mallik, J.1. The appellants Nagendra Bhakta and Kamala Kanta Bala were put on their trial with three other persons, Jamini Bhakta, Rajani Bhakta and Kanchi Bewa, Under Sections 201 and 302/120-B I. PC. The trial was held with the aid of a jury consisting of 9 jurors. The jury unanimously found all the five persons not guilty Under Section 302/120-B. They also unanimously found Jamini, Rajani and Kanchi not guilty Under Section 201 either. But they found the other two accused persons, the two appellants before us, guilty Under Section 201, I. PC, by a majority of 7 to 2 in the case of Nagendra and 6 to 3 in the case of Kamala.2. The allegations of the prosecution, so far as the charge Under Section 201 was concerned were that one Provat Chandra Sarkar was murdered in the house of one Sarat Bhakta, and the appellants Nagendra and Kamala with some other persons removed the dead body of Provat from Sarat's house to the verandah of a mosque with the intention of screening the offenders-pers...
Saligram Khetry Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal8
Costello, J.1. In this case three accused persons Saligram Khetry, N.H. Balakani and R.N. Swinton were charged under Section 44, Calcutta Police Act (Bengal Act 4 of 1866). Khetry was the proprietor of a show known as The Grand Variety Show and Balakani and Swinton were his assistants who helped him in running that show. On 14th January 1932 an application was made to the police authorities by the manager of that show for permission to carry it on at 124, Bow Bazar Street, for a period of three months and to conduct various side shows and games of skill including a game known as the 'dart game.' The permission asked for was granted by the police on 19th January 1932. But on 16th February 1932 an order was issued by the police authorities countermanding the sanction as regards the particular game known as the dart game on the ground that it did not belong to the classes of game which are predominantly games of skill. This order was duly communicated by a police officer on the following ...
Emperor Vs. Dwarika Nath Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal47
1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Sylhet and Cachar under Section 307, Criminal P.C. in a case in which the accused was charged under Sections 115/302, 1. P.C. or alternatively under Sections 117/302, I.P.C. The majority of the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty under Sections 117/302. As regards the charge under Sections 115/302 all of them brought in a verdict of not guilty unanimously. The learned Judge came to the decided conclusion that the verdict regarding the charge under Sections 117/302, 1. P.C, was perverse and was against the weight of the evidence, and that as such for the ends of justice it was necessary that the whole case should be placed before this Court. The facts of the case shortly are that on 9th July 1931 the accused Dwarikanath Goswami led a procession of young men and girls consisting of about 40 carrying black flags and pictures of Dinesh Gupta and Bhagat Singh in front of the procession to the Sylhet Town Hall. At about 6 o'clock in the eve...
Gouri Kinkar Bhakat Vs. Radha Kissen Cotton Mills
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal220
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a workman's appeal against a decision of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act rejecting a claim to compensation made on the ground that the applicant sustained an injury on 19th March 1930 while working in the spinning department of a cotton mill. The applicant's case is that he was a piecer, that his duty was to tie broken ends of cotton threads, that while he was standing by the machine and putting a bobbin on a spindle the bottom of his dhoti got caught between two rollers which were underneath the table of the machine and he says that the bottom of his dhoti having been caught between the two rollers was pulled in, that he put out his hand to try to pull it out and that in that way his hand got crushed. It seems that as a result of the injury his arm had to be amputated an inch or two below the shoulder. The employers make the case that it was quite impossible for a person standing by the machine and either putting a bobbin on a spindle or do...
Hira Lal Mondal Vs. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of I ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal130
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal by a workman from a decision of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act in a case in which the workman claimed a lump sum exceeding Rs. 300 as compensation for the injuries alleged to have been sustained by him on 7th February 1930. It is clear enough that he went to the company's doctor on the next day and it appears that on 21st April he wrote a letter to the company in which he said:From 7th February last I am unable to work and could not attend owing to severe pain over the chest and heart. I had a hurt over the chest while I was boring rail; since then I am feeling this difficulty.2. Then he goes on to ask that he may get his pay for the time during which he was absent and also that he may be permitted to retire with a gratuity. In the end the employing company, the Burmah Shell Company, refused to make any payment and the workman brought the case under the Workmen's Compensation Act on 6th August 1930. In his application before the C...
In Re: ananda Bazar Patrika and Satyendra Nath Mazumdar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal745,140Ind.Cas.5
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application by the petitioners named above under Section 23, Act 23 of 1931 [the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931], praying that certain orders of the Governor of Bengal in Council dated 26th May 1932 calling upon the petitioners to deposit securities to the amount of Rs. 1000 each may be set aside in the circumstances set out in the petition. The facts, shortly stated, are as follows: The petitioner Satyendra Nath Mazumdar is the publisher of a daily newspaper printed in Bengal and published in Calcutta called the 'Ananda Bazar Patrika' and the petitioner Jagadish Chandra Mukherjee is the keeper of the Ananda Press, situate at promises No. 18, Mirzapur Street, in Calcutta, where the said newspaper is printed.2. Under the orders of the Governor of Bengal in Council, notices under Sub-section 3, Section 7 and Sub-section 3, Section 3 of the said Act, bearing date 20th May 1932 were served upon the two petitioners respectively on 30th May 1933 requirin...
Nutbihari Das Vs. Bishweshwari Debee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal414
Remfry, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit to eject the defendant from some huts, and from a plot of land claiming that he was the sole owner of the land on the ground that the defendant was a trespasser. He had previously filed two suits alleging that the defendant was his tenant but both were dismissed on the ground that he had failed to prove any tenancy. In this suit the plaintiff satisfied the two lower Courts that he was the sole owner of the land, but the suit was dismissed on the ground that it had not been filed within 12 years from the time when the plaintiff was dispossessed of the land by the defendant. It has been found as a fact that the defendant has been in possession of the disputed land for 18 or 19 years. The only point that was urged in second appeal was that the possession of the defendant was not adverse to the plaintiff in respect of a half share in the land, because of her admissions in her written statement. The defendant in her written statement para. 6, stated t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›