Kolkata Court May 1933 Judgments
Fajer Ali Darji and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal142,147Ind.Cas.1043
1. This appeal is by four accused persons. Accused Fazar Ali has been convicted Under Sections 147, 326/149 and Section 323, I. PC, Kasimali Under Section148, 326/149 and Under Sections 323 and 325, I. PC, Abdul Aziz Under Sections 148 and 326, I. PC. and Yonus Under Sections 148 324 and 326/149, I. PC. The accused have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment on a unanimous verdict of a jury.2. It appears to be perfectly clear that the facts of the case giving rise to the prosecution have been elaborately dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge in his careful charge to the jury and that all the salient features of the case for the prosecution as well as for the defence were placed before the jury with great care and attention. The defence case was laid before the jury in detail and all the main features of the defence so far as the evidence was concerned were placed before the jury by the learned Judge in his charge. After placing the material portions of the evidence before t...
Tag this Judgment!Misrilal Raidani Vs. Netaichand Nandi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal372,150Ind.Cas.389
C.C. Ghose, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of Roy, J., in the circumstances stated below: On 21st April 1931 the present appellant Misrilal Raidani entered into an agreement with one Netaichand Nandi for the sale to the latter of Premises No. 6, Temple Street, in the town of Calcutta. The agreement was reduced into writing and is printed on p. 5 of the paper-book. It was stated in the agreement that, subject to the approval of title to the premises by the purchaser's Solicitors, Messrs. G.C. Chunder and Co., these premises were to be purchased by Netaichand Nandi provided it was shown that the fee simple in possession was free from encumbrances, for a sum of Rs. 73,000. On the date of the agreement a sum of Rs. 1,001 was paid by way of earnest and in part payment of the purchase money to the vendor and the vendor agreed to deliver or cause to be delivered all the title-deeds of the said premises to the purchaser's Solicitors within seven days from the date of the agree...
Tag this Judgment!Kumud Nath Chaudhuri and anr. Vs. Brojendra Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal647a
ORDER1. In this ease the facts are as follows: On 20th May 1932 the complainant Brojendra Nath Boy, who was a depositor in the Manikganj Loan Office to the extent of a single rupee, filed a petition against the Directors and the Secretary of the Manikganj Loan Office making allegations on twelve charges noted in the petition before the Sub-divisional Officer of Manikganj. The Subdivisional Officer was pleased to direct a thorough investigation by the police and, under his orders, the case was examined by a Police Officer under the directions of the Superintendent of Police, Dacca. The police seized all the books of the Manikganj Loan Office, removed them to the police station and prepared a synopsis of evidence bearing on the said twelve charges which they submitted through the Superintendent of Police to the Public Prosecutor of Dacca for his considered opinion.2. The Public Prosecutor gave his opinion after going through the materials and the books of the company which were produced ...
Tag this Judgment!Shibadas Daw and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal114,147Ind.Cas.1172
Lort-Williams, J.1. The appellants Madhu Sudan Sen Gupta, Shiba Das Daw and Nikhil Chandra Guha Roy were tried with one Ramphal in the Court of the Special Judge of Murshidabad Under Sub-sections 4(a) and 5, Explosive Substances Act (6 of 1908) and Section 410 read with Section 120-B, I. PC. The trial was under Ordinance 2 of 1932. Ramphal was acquitted and the other three were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. It is unnecessary to deal in detail with the evidence, because the case turns almost entirely upon the evidence of the approver Kalu. This evidence was very full and, if it is believed, there can be no question about the guilt of all the three appellants. The real question therefore for us to decide is whether it is safe to allow the conviction to stand upon the evidence of the approver or, in other words, whether there is sufficient and proper corroboration in law of this evidence.2. The prosecution story begins with the association of some of the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Nath Das and ors. Vs. Daksha Yani Debya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal794
ORDER1. Besides the two questions which have been formulated in this reference, another question has arisen upon the arguments that we have heard. That question is of a general nature and has from time to time been raised, namely, whether, when a guardian has been appointed in respect of a minor in any of the Courts below and that guardian does not appear in this Court in a proceeding in connexion with which a notice has been served on him, he must be regarded as continuing and as a guardian in whose place a fresh guardian cannot or ought not to be appointed by this Court, on the view that his appointment enures for the whole list. There are decisions which lay down that if a guardian has been appointed by the Court his appointment continues for all purposes of the suit and that so long as no other guardian is appointed he and he alone is competent, in case the suit ends in a decree, to prefer an appeal from that decree and is also competent generally to represent the minor in such pro...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Nath Samaddar and ors. Vs. Anandachandra Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal60,147Ind.Cas.1031
1. The plaintiffs in the suit, in which this appeal has arisen, sought to have their title as tenants under the defendants declared in regard to lands comprised in four plots, C.S. plots Nos. 111, 114, 117 and 136, on the allegation that they appertained to a tenancy held by them under the defendants. The plaintiffs' case was that they had been dispossessed by the defendants from plot No. 114, and accordingly they prayed for possession of the same. In regard to the other three plots, the plaintiffs' prayer in the suit was for confirmation of possession. The claim in suit was resisted by the defendants, who asserted that the lands in suit were outside the tenancy of the plaintiffs, held under a kabuliyat executed in the year 1269 B.S., which included only C.S. plots Nos. 112, 113, 115 and 116. The Court below has passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs, negativing the defence of the defendants. The defendants have appealed to this Court.2. In view of the main ground urged in support...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath Kabashi and ors. Vs. Gostha Behari Kabashi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal139,147Ind.Cas.1090
ORDER1. In this case a Rule was issued upon the District Magistrate of the 24-Parganas and the opposite party named in the petition one Gostha Behari Kabashi to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside on the grounds that it was illegal and made without jurisdiction and that there was no sufficient evidence of emergency before the learned Magistrate. Gostha Behari is a resident of village Jadurati in the district of 24-Parganas and a member of the District Board Dispensary Managing Committee. The villagers raised funds to build a dispensary and steps were being taken to acquire a suitable site by means of the Land Acquisition Act. Among other sites the land in possession of the second party was selected. Subsequently the petitioner second party began to excavate a tank on his land. Thereupon Gostha Behari petitioned to the Magistrate stating these facts and saying that unless the petitioners second party were restrained from excavating a tank on the site, there wa...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendrachandra Sarkar Vs. Bipinchandra Shaha Bhaumik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal64
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtor and arises out of certain proceedings taken in the course of execution of a decree for money obtained against him. In order to appreciate the points in controversy in the present appeal a few facts must be stated. It appears that a suit was brought against the appellant for a certain sum of money of about Rs. 12,000 by the decree-holders-respondents. In that suit a rule was issued for attachment of the appellant's property before judgment. In pursuance of an order made in the course of the suit, under the provisions of Order 38, Rule 5, Civil P. C, certain properties were furnished as securities, in the event of a decree being ultimately obtained by the decree-holders. The security bond is to be found in the appendix to the paper-book. The only portion which is material and needs to be quoted is this:I, accordingly execute this security bond by hypothecating as security whatever right, title and interest I personally have ...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sunder Das Vs. L. Ivans and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal590
1. The plaintiff in the suit giving rise to this appeals claimed to have his title declared as the patnidar under defendants 13 and 14, the purchasers of Taluk Syed Natir, sold for arrears of revenue, on 11th January 1919 free from all incumbrances, and to have a decree passed in his favour for khas possession of an eight annas share of the lands in suit. According to the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 12 had no right to be in possession of those lands. In view of amicable settlement between parties concerned effected from time to time it is only necessary to take notice of the defence of defendants 3 to 5 and defendant 11 against whom this appeal is now directed. Defendants 3 to 5 claimed to be in possession as darpatnidar under defendant 2, who was a patnidar by virtue of a series of transfers in respect of 2 karas 2 powas 3 jastis of land out of the area described in the plaint created by defendant 1 Defendant 11 asserted that he was in possession of 1 kara and 1 powa of land in the nor...
Tag this Judgment!Official Assignee Vs. Ramchandra Kashera
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal54
Costello, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Lort-Williams, J., dated 21st March 1933. That judgment was given in an insolvency proceeding in which the Official Assignee was asking that a certain transaction between the insolvents and a man named Ramchandra Kashera should be set aside as being fraudulent and void. The notice of the application is dated 10th March 1933, and the transaction in question was described thus:The transfer of 35 bags of brass and bell-metal articles and ten bundles of brass and copper sheets by the insolvents in your favour be declared fraudulent and void as against the applicant.2. Lort-Williams, J., took the view that he was bound by the decision in the case of Official Beceiver v. Chettyar Firm , which decided that the onus Under Section 55, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, of proving that the transfer was not made in good faith or for valuable consideration, lay on the Official Assignee. The learned Judge upon that came to the -conclusion that the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »