Kolkata Court March 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.
Kaluram Daga Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal433
Guha, J.1. The appellant in this case has been convicted by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, under Section 6, Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a month. So far as the proceedings before the learned Magistrate was concerned, there has been a material irregularity in the matter of compliance with the provisions of the law under which the accused, appellant, was prosecuted on the complaint of a person who was the secretary of an Association described as the Balya Bibaha Birodhini Samiti. The Child Marriage Restraint Act provides for the taking of security from the complainant, and Section 11(1) of the Act is as follows:At any time after examining the complainant and before issuing process for compelling the attendance of the accused, the Court shall except for reasons to be recorded in writing require the complainant to execute a bond with or without sureties, for a sum not ex...
Kinu Gazi and ors. Vs. Kiranbala Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal653,145Ind.Cas.885
Jack, J.1. These appeals have arisen out of suits under Section 46, Ben. Ten. Act, for determination of fair and equitable rent and for ejectment if the defendants do not agree to pay the rent so determined. In the trial Court the suits were dismissed as it was held that the defendants being occupancy raiyats, Section 46, Ben. Ten. Act, could not be applied. In the Court of appeal below the appeals have been decreed and it was held that the defendants were non-occupancy raiyats and the suits were remanded for a fresh trial on the footing that the defendants were non-occupancy raiyats. The lands in dispute appertain to Sundarban lots which were gradually re-claimed; it has been found that the area in which the lands lie was declared a 'village' on 14th February 1912. The defendants accordingly became occupancy raiyats since they occupied lands in a village continuously for 12 years from that date. The suits were instituted in January and February 1924. By Act 1 of 1925 there was an amen...
M. and S.M. Ry. Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunderjee Kalidas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal742,147Ind.Cas.752
ORDERGuha, J.1. The petitioner was defendant 2 in the suits instituted by the plaintiff opposite party for damages on the allegation that a number of bags of tobacco had been damaged during transit from Niphain to Shalimar. The consignments in question were both covered by risk-notes in Forms A and B. The defendant denied liability in the matter of the claim for damages as made in the suits, pleaded protection under the risk-notes, and asserted that all possible care of the goods consigned was taken. The case of the defendant was that the damage to the consignment was due to causes which were beyond the control of the Railway Administration (defendant 2). The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah, by whom the suits were tried, after stating the case for the parties before him, observed that:the existence of the aforesaid damage would lead to an assumption that there was negligence on the part of defendant 2 such as to entitle the plaintiff to relief sought; it has not b...
Satish Chandra Sen Vs. Jewan Lal Daga and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal1
Mitter, J.1. These two appeals are directed against one order made in the course of execution. The only question raised by these two appeals is one of limitation. In order to appreciate the point it is necessary to state a few salient facts. It appears that Mugneeram Bangar and Kedar Nath Daga instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Asansol against S. H. Seddon and Rasaraj Biswas for declaration of their title to two-annas share of a large number of valuable coal properties and for recovery of about ten lacs and odd under a mortgage-bond said to have bean executed by the said two persons in favour of the plaintiff's on 31st March 1921. This suit was compromised and on 3rd July 1923 the decree which appears to be a preliminary decree for sale was passed by the Subordinate Judge against the said defendant 1, Seddoa, in favour of the plaintiffs according to the terms of a settlement which is to be found annexed to the decree at pp. 3, 4 and 5 of the paper book. Kedar Na...
Tulsi Das Vs. Sm. Saraju Dei Devi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal406
ORDER1. The only point on which we think it necessary to come to a final decision is that raised by the first ground upon which the Rule was issued. It appears that the first opposite party, Sm. Saraju Dei Devi, applied under Section 488, Criminal P. C, for an order that her husband should be directed to make a monthly allowance to her and to her minor children. The Magistrate having taken the circumstances of the case into consideration has ordered the petitioner to make a monthly allowance of Rs. 100 for the maintenance of the lady and a monthly allowance of Rs. 30 in respect of each of five minor children. He has thus been ordered to pay a total monthly allowance of Rs. 250. The petitioner submits that this order is illegal; and he relies on the fact that the section limits the power of Court to ordering a monthly allowance at a rate not exceeding Rs. 100 in the whole. According to the petitioner, this means that however many dependents a person is neglecting to maintain he cannot, ...
Panchanan Maity and ors. Vs. Priyanath Maity and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal441
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the landlord, plaintiff in the five rent suits, has appealed from the decision of my learned brother M.C. Ghose, J., sitting in second appeal. The lands in question are in the Sunderbans and it appears that in 1900 the Government gave a reclaiming lease to the appellant for 40 years at a progressive rent. It was to be rent free for 15 years, after 1915 and until 1920 the landlord was to pay the Government 2 annas per bigha and from 1921 until the end of the term 1940 the landlord was to pay the Government 4 annas per bigha. Now, the landlord settled the land or part of the land which he had taken with the defendants among others in 1907 and as regards the five cases before us in all those except the one with which Letters Patent Appeal No. 18 is concerned, there are kabuliyats. It appears that the tenants may have been inducted before the date of the kabuliyats but the kabuliyats were taken. It is contended for the landlord that the meaning of Clause 8 of th...
Tulsi Das Barman Vs. Srimati Saraju Dei Devi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1933
Reported in: 143Ind.Cas.296
1. The only point on which we think it necessary to come to a final decision is that raised by the first ground upon which the Rule was issued. It appears that the first opposite party, Srimati Saraju Dei Devi applied under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code for an order that her husband should be directed to make a monthly allowance to her and to her minor children. The Magistrate having taken the circumstances of the case into consideration has ordered the petitioner to make a monthly allowance of Es. 100 for the maintenance of the lady and a monthly allowance of Rs. 30 in respect of each of five minor children. He has thus been ordered to pay to a total monthly allowance of Rs. 250. The petitioner submits that this order is illegal; and he relies on the fact that the section limits the power of court to ordering a monthly allowance at a rate not exceeding Es 100 in the whole. According lo the petitioner, this means that however many dependants a person is neglecting to maint...
MontajaddIn Choukidar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal481
ORDER1. The ground on which this Rule was obtained is that the alleged offence having been committed by a party to a proceeding in a civil suit in respect of a document given in evidence in such suit, no criminal Court can take cognizance except on the written complaint of the said civil Court under Section 195, Clause 1(c), Criminal P.C. The petitioner Montajaddi Choukidar was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 468, I.P.C., and also with an offence punishable under Section 82, Registration Act. It appears that he was a party to a mortgage-deed which purported to create a security in favour of a certain lady who had lent money to the petitioner and his brother, a man named Ainuddi. Ainuddi was also on the face of the document, a party to it and the property affected by the document was the property jointly owned by the petitioner and Ainaddi. The lady brought a civil suit on the document and Ainuddi took two defences. In the first place he denied execution and stated that...
S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Krishna Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal433a
Pearson, J.1. This rule is directed against orders of the Magistrate passed in respect of proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C. The petitioner Mr. S.N. Mukherjee is the Official Liquidator of the Karatipara Mazumdar Estate, now in liquidation. The winding up order was passed by this High Court on 20th April 1931. The land in question is a small plot of which the first party Krishna Dassi was given a lease very shortly before the winding up order. Disputes came to a head in December 1931, when the liquidators' men started to put up a fence. Possession has been found to be with the first party, but objection is taken that the first party was out of possession for more than two months before the proceedings were drawn up. The Judge however points out that no such contention appears to have been raised in the first Court, and moreover the finding is that the first party was in possession and there was no dispossession.2. A further argument before us was that the Magistrate had no ju...
Bayatulla Mandal Vs. Purnendra Narayan Roy Deb Barman and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal813
Rankin, C.J.1. These are two Letters Patent appeals from the judgment of my learned brother Patterson, J. The question that arises in the two rent suits is what the annual rate of rent payable for the tenancies is. It appears that there was a Section 105 proceeding between the landlord and the tenants and the case made is first of all that though for a great many years prior to that proceeding rent had been paid at a certain rate being the rate mentioned in the kabuliat, that rate was greater than the amount legally payable because the kabuliat rate represented an enhancement which was not permissible under Section 29, Bengal Tenancy Act. It is not doubted or disputed that the Settlement Officer proceeded upon the rate that had been paid under the kabuliat for many years. It is not disputed that he made up his mind that a fair and equitable rate would be arrived at by enhancing that rate by 3 annas in the rupee and it is clear from the proceedings that be applied that enhancement to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »