Kolkata Court January 1933 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.
Tarapada Mitra and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal603,145Ind.Cas.814
Rankin, C.J.1. We have before us the appeals of three parsons who were tried by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta sitting as a, Special Magistrate under Ordinance 10 of 1932. There were four accused at the trial. Abani Ranjan Sarcar, Ashoka Kumar Chatterjee, Tarapada Mitra and Nirmal Kumar Guha and the case against them, in short, was this: On the 14th September last very early in the morning at about 4 o'clock the accused Abani and Ashoka were seen coming out of Sitaram Ghose Street and entering Amherst Street. They were seen by two constables and Abani was seen carrying with him a brown paper parcel. We have been shown the parcel; it is not a very large parcel but one of a cylindrical shape. The constables challenged those two people and they said that they were on their way to Sealdah to catch a train to Khulna. The accused Abani was asked what was in the parcel and he said there were warm clothes. The constables felt the bundle and proceeded to open it and they fo...
Forman Mandal and ors. Vs. Basanta Kumari Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal727
Guha, J.1. This rule is directed against an order passed by the learned District Judge of Jessore, setting aside an order passed by the learned Munsif, second Court at Jessore, granting an application for review of judgment. The Munsif had by his order dated 2nd July 1932 granted an application for review of judgment; on appeal the order of the Munsif was reversed by the Court of appeal below. The trend of the recent decisions in this Court and as also of those of the other High Courts in India is that the provisions of Order 43, Rule 1(w), Civil P. C, are to be read subject to the provisions contained in Order 47, Rule 7, that an order granting a review could be appealed from only on one or other of the grounds specified in Order 47, Rule 7; and it has expressly been laid down by this Court in the case of Suria Narain v. Kunja Behari AIR 1921 Cal 66, that although Order 43, Rule 1(w) allows an appeal against an order granting a review, that clause must be read with Rule 7, Order 47 by...
Sm. Balkish Bibi and ors. Vs. Faridal Alam and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal636a
Mitter, J.1. The question raised by this appeal turns on the construction of Sections 33 and 34, Revenue Sales Act-Act 11 of 1859. It appears that the property of the appellants before us was sold at what purports to be a revenue sale under Act 11 of 1859. A suit was brought by the appellants for setting aside that sale which was in respect of a tenure to which the combined provisions of Act 11 of 1859 and Act 7 of 1858 of the Bengal Council were applicable. The suit ultimately resulted in a decree by the High Court in favour of the appellants-a decree setting aside the sale. The High Court was of opinion that the sale was altogether without jurisdiction as there was no arrears of revenue due from the appellants. The Judges were of opinion that the case was governed by the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the case of Haji Buksh Elahi v. Durlav Chandra, Kar (1912) 39 Cal 981 and that the sale was premature and, as has already been stated, without jurisdiction and...
Ananta Kumar Mukherji Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal679,147Ind.Cas.827
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate purporting to act as a Special Magistrate under Ordinance 10 of 1932, whereby ho found the appellant Ananta Kumar Mukherji guilty of an offence under Section 20, Arms Act, and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment. In this appeal various points have been argued on the merits. It appears that certain officers of police were watching out with an informer and saw the accused accompanied by another man. The police officers challenged the accused who tried to run away. They seized him and the evidence was that he had tucked up in the top part of the dhoti where the folds were, the kocha of the dhoti, a heavy revolver which was not in perfect working order as the trigger did not engage the hammer but it was quite capable of being used by the well-known method of pressing back the hammer and then letting it go again without the assistance of the trigger. It appears that he had a cap of a 1...
Chand Bibi and ors. Vs. Santoshkumar Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal641
Lort-Williams, J.1. On 29th December 1920 a Bengali kabala or deed of sale to Akhilchandra Pal was executed by Chand Bibi, Alifjan Bibi, Sheikh Badruddin and Mahabunnessa Bibi, which stated inter alia as follows: That, in 1892, one Nawabjan executed a deed of wakf in respect of certain properties; that, on 1st May 1914, Alifjan Bibi as mutawalli mortgaged the properties, including the scheduled properties, to Haripada Ray and subsequently sold some of them to pay off part of the mortgage debt; that, in 1919, Badruddin, one of the heirs of Nawabjan, filed a suit for partition of the whole property left by Nawabjan including the wakf property, which suit was decreed on 11th June, thatWe have all agreed to repay the debt of the said Haripada Ray. We have also admitted that certain properties were sold for the repayment of the said debt.2. That by the decree the executants obtained an 11 annas share, and one Izatunnessa Bibi a 5-annas share in certain property, including the property cover...
Gouranga Behari Basak and anr. Vs. Manindra Nath Das Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal625,145Ind.Cas.826
Mitter, J.1. It is unfortunate that the respondent has not appeared in this case but Dr. Pal who appears for the appellants, has put the case with great fairness before us. It appears that the appellants brought a suit for partnership and accounts on 22nd September 1921 against two other persons who have since been adjudicated insolvents. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs who were two brothers and their case was that there had already been accounts taken and a sum of Rupees 2,000 odd was found due from the defendants who have been declared insolvents subsequently. The defence of the defendants in that suit was the denial of the averment about the accounts taken. The parties went into an arbitration and an award was given. The award was against the defendants for a sum of Rs. 1,600 out of which they deposited Rs. 500 with a certain gentleman and offered to deposit Rs. 1,000 with the plaintiffs pleader Bhabani Gobinda Choudhury. An order was made by the Court in that suit on 27th Se...
Midnapore Zamindary Co., Ltd. Vs. Abdul Zalil Mia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal627
Mitter, J.1. This appeal is directed against two orders embodied in one judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia which is dated 29th March 1932. The first order which is attacked is an order directing amendment of a rent decree and the second order challenged by this appeal is one refusing personal execution of the decree against the respondent as asked for by the decree-holders appellants.2. The questions which fall for determination in this appeal depend on facts which are either admitted or have been proved in this case. They may be briefly stated: It appears that the Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd., now appellants, brought a rent suit in the year 1923 against four persons, namely, Abdul Jalil Mia, now respondent, Esmail Hossein Mia, a minor represented by his guardian ad litem Ainuddin and two other persons who were the darpatnidars under them. The rent suit was for arrears for the period 1327 to Pous kist of 1329 B.S. The defence to the suit was that the plaintiffs, the Zamindary Co...
Hafez Molla and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal639,145Ind.Cas.816
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case it appears that ten persons were put on their trial on charges under Sections 304, 326, 324 and 365, I.P.C., certain charges being against some and not against the others In the result, six were acquitted and the four appellants before us have been convicted under Section 326, I.P.C., and sentenced, three of them to seven years rigorous imprisonment each and one to three years' rigorous imprisonment.2. It appears that the foreman of the jury was subsequently convicted of having taken a bribe in connexion with this very trial and, in these circumstances, as that fact is not disputed and as he has been convicted formally of the offence, we have to consider whether it is possible to let the verdict against the four appellants stand. I am of opinion that it is quite impossible. There is no saying how to the corrupted mind of a juryman, who had taken a bribe, the receipt of money from certain accused might not be an influence, which tempted him to convict the oth...
Basanta Kumari Debya Vs. Nalini Nath Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1933
Reported in: 150Ind.Cas.732
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against an order directing the plaint to be returned to the Munsif's Court as in the opinion of the Subordinate Judge the suit was triable by the Munsif which according to him was the proper Court to try. It appears that the plaintiff now respondent instituted a suit against the defendant now appellant who happens to be the wife for declaration and a permanent injunction in respect of immovable and other properties. In para. 11 of the plaint the plaintiff stated that for the purpose of ascertaining the jurisdiction of the Court the value of the reliefs is laid at Rs. 7,175-8-0 that is, Rs. 5,000 in deposit in the Bank and Rs. 187-8-0 interest thereon, altogether Rs. 5,187-8-0 plus Rs. 681, the value of the two jotes and Rs. 1,000 value of the zeminadri, in all Rs. 7,168-8-0, plus Rs. 10 on account of the permanent injunction and a court-fee of Rs. 20-12-0 is paid being Rs. 20 for the prayer for declaration and annas 12 for the permanent i...
Jagendra Chandra Roy Vs. Superintendent of the Dum Dum Special Jail
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal280
Patterson, J.1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 21, Ordinance 2 of 1932, on 12th March 1932 for having disobeyed or neglected to comply with an order that had been made by the District Magistrate of Bakargunj under Section 4 of that Ordinance and that had been duly served on the petitioner on 4th March 1932. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 150 and in default to undergo a further term of imprisonment for three months: he is now serving out his sentence in the Dum Dum Special Jail. By this Rule the Superintendent of the Jail has been called on to show cause why the petitioner should not be set at liberty on the ground that the provisions of Section 21, Ordinance 2 of 1932, authorizing the Court to pass sentences of imprisonment which would continue beyond the date of expiry of the said Ordinance are ultra vires of Section 72, Government of India Act of 1919, and also on the ground that the sentence of rigorous imprisonme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »