Kolkata Court March 1933 Judgments
Nezamal Ashan and ors. Vs. Golam Mahammad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal80,147Ind.Cas.800
ORDER1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Dacca in a proceeding Under Section 145, Criminal P. C, which ended in favour of the first party. By his order declaring possession in favour of the first party the learned trial Magistrate directed Golam Mohammad, one of the second party, to pay Rs. 100 as costs to the first party. Thereupon Golam Mohammad came and filed a motion before the learned Judge with the result that the learned Judge has made this reference. He recommends that the order of the Magistrate directing payment of Rs. 100 as costs should be rescinded and that the Magistrate should be directed to consider the question of costs upon notice to both parties.2. It appears however that the order complained against was passed simultaneously with the final order and in the presence of the aggrieved party. It was not necessary therefore that fresh notices should have been given. The learned Judge also considers that there is nothing to show on what materials the M...
Tag this Judgment!Nrisingha Chandra Ghose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal792
ORDER1. The facts involved in the case out of which this Rule has arisen, shortly stated, are as follows: It appears that certain unauthorized news-sheets or unauthorized newspapers were being produced at premises No. 9, Sibnarain Das Lane, in the town of Calcutta. These unauthorized news sheets or news papers were being produced from an undeclared press. The police acting under the provisions of Section 16, Indian Press Emergency Powers Act (23 of 1931), entered into the said premises and seized the said unauthorized news-sheets or unauthorized news papers. As a result of the seizure certain persons, whose names are not material, were prosecuted and convicted by the Magistrate and sentenced adequately. The police on the date of the entry into the premises, without obtaining at warrant as contemplated in Section 17 of the said Act, proceeded to search the said premises with a view to seize the press from which the unauthorized news-sheets or news papers were being produced. The police ...
Tag this Judgment!Jnanendrakumar Ray Chaudhuri Vs. Amritakrishna Datta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal886
ORDERLort-Williams, J.1. In this suit a sale was held by the Registrar on 10th February 1933. On 13th March, the defendant Amritakrishna Datta gave notice that, on Monday 20th March, an application would be made for an order that the sale be set aside. Article 166, Lim. Act, provides that such an application must be made within thirty days of the sale. The thirtieth day fell on 12th March, which was a' Sunday. Therefore the applicant had, until 13th March inclusive, to make his application. The first point taken by the plaintiff is that there were two purchasers at the sale, and that notice was given to one only. I am satisfied from the affidavits that the other purchaser had actual notice of the application, and that absence of formal notice is not a bar. This was decided by Suhrawardy and Duval, JJ., in the case of Charu Chandra Ghosh v. Behari Lal Mitra : AIR1925Cal157 .2. The next point taken by the plaintiff is more difficult to determine. It is clear that notice of the applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Lal Ganguly Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal101,147Ind.Cas.1041
Pearson, J.1. The petitioner in this case stood surety for an accused person and signed the bail bond to the effect that he would attend at the Court of the Suburban Police Magistrate at Alipur on 7th June 1932 and other dates of the preliminary inquiry into the offence charged against the accused and should the case be sent for trial by the Court of Session, he would appear before the said Court to answer the charge against him. It seems that on several occasions the accused appeared and eventually the case was transferred from the file of the Suburban Police Magistrate to that of an Honorary Magistrate of Alipur for disposal. Sub-sequent to this, on 20th June 1932, the accused failed to appear, whereupon proceedings were taken against the surety for forfeiture of the bond and an order for forfeiture was made. The case was then retransferred to the file of the Suburban Police Magistrate and though the District Magistrate set aside the former forfeiture order, the Suburban Police Magis...
Tag this Judgment!Abu HosseIn Mia Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal256
ORDER1. The facts are set out in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and need not be repeated. The point that has been argued before us in this case is that the proceedings had against the accused were without jurisdiction as the District Magistrate of Rangpur had no power to transfer the case to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Gaibandha in the circumstances which happened. It appears that the District Magistrate's attention being drawn to the contravention by the accused of the terms of the order of 22nd February 1932, which required him to stay in a particular village, the District Magistrate made an order on the report of the Police Officer transferring the case against the accused to the Sudder Sub-Divisional Magistrate for disposal. Subsequently the District Magistrate's attention was drawn to the fact that the offence having taken place within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Gaibandha, it became apparent to the District Magistrate that the proper offi...
Tag this Judgment!Jnanendra Kumar Ray Chaudhuri Vs. Amrita Krishna Datta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.797
ORDERWilliams, J.1. In this suit a sale was held by by the .Registrar on February 10, 1933. On March 13, the defendant Amritakrishna Datta gave notice that, on Monday March 20, an application would be made for an order that the sale be set aside. Article 166, Limitation Act, provides that such an application must be made within thirty days of the sale. The thirtieth day fell on March 12, which was a Sunday. Therefore the applicant had, until March 13 inclusive, to make his application. The first point taken by the plaintiff is that there were two purchasers at the sale, and that notice was given to one only. I am satisfied from the affidavits that the other purchaser had actual notice of the application and that absence of formal notice is not a bar. This was decided by Suhrawardy and Duval, JJ., in the case of Charu Chandra Ghosh v. Behari Lal Mitra : AIR1925Cal157 .2. The next point taken by the plaintiff is more difficult to determine. It is clear that notice of the application was ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalipada Banerji Vs. Charubala Dasee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal887
Mallik, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal, by which he rejected an application of the petitioner, Kalipada Banerji, for stay of hearing of a reference made to him under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act. The principal facts, which led up to this application, were these: On 17th February 1930, the petitioner, Kalipada, instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore, being Title Suit No. 39 of 1930, for a declaration of title to and recovery of possession of some lands, among which there was a property, item 5(1) with an area of one bigha and seven cottas odd. There were as many as 108 defendants in the suit at that time. Shortly after the institution of this suit, proceedings were taken for acquisition of an area of land measuring 4 bighas and 18 cottas odd and the land was ultimately acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The opposite party before us, Charubala Dasee, on 8th December 1930, filed her cl...
Tag this Judgment!Swadesh Ranjan Dutta Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal161
ORDER1. This rule must be discharged and for the following reasons: It appears that the petitioner before us was a member of an association known as the Karimganj Congress Association. The Government of Assam by a notification dated 5th February 1932 declared all associations unlawful within the meaning of Part 2, Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act (14 of 1908) by whatever name the associations might be known or whether they might be known by any distinctive name or not-which had the following objects or any one of them, namely, disobedience of laws and orders of Government, non-payment of taxes, bycott and picketing of liquor and foreign cloth shops-on the ground that they interfered with the administration of law and order and constituted a danger to the public peace. Subsequent to the issue of this notification a meeting was held within the compound of the Karimganj Congress Office or nearabouts, to celebrate what it called the Gandhi day. The petitioner before us made a speech, a tr...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chandra Poddar Vs. Lakshmi Kanta Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal817,147Ind.Cas.492
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff and arises out of a suit brought by him to enforce an award on an arbitration without the intervention of the Court. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the agreement for reference to arbitration on which the award is founded is opposed to public policy and is illegal under the provisions of Section 23, Contract Act. It appears that a criminal proceeding was pending against the defendant Lakshmi Kanta Saha under Section 408, I.P.C. A settlement was reached in the course of that proceeding on 20th December 1928. A petition was made on behalf of the accused in which the terms of the settlement were set forth. That petition discloses that under orders of the Court the house of the defendant was searched and an iron safe with documents, unused stamps, and articles of gold and silver within it and also documents, pledged articles etc., found outside the safe were brought to the Court. It was stated ...
Tag this Judgment!Harnathrai Binjraj Vs. Churamoni Shah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal175
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is an application to revoke leave granted under Clause 12 of the Charter in a case where the plaint disclosed or purported to disclose a part of the cause of action in Calcutta. Standing counsel for the applicant himself described it as a novel application. That in itself does not make it any the worse. In point of fact, this is the first application of the kind that I have known. The plaint is to recover the balance of an account due from the defendant Churamoni Shaha to Baijnath Jograj amounting to Rs. 11,762; both these persons or firms being residents of Bhagalpur and carrying on business at Bhagalpur and nowhere else. This debt was assigned by Baijnath Jograj, the creditor, to the present plaintiffs, Harnathrai Binjraj, on 17th August 1932, the suit being brought on 23rd August 1932. The summons in the suit was served on 19th September 1932. Considerable correspondence took place between the attorneys for the parties between the date of the service of the summ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »