Kolkata Court May 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.
Sachindra Kumar Roy and ors. Vs. Nabendra Kishore Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal155
Mukerji, J.1. The plaint in this suit out of which this appeal has arisen was headed as under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, a petition praying for relief by way of a declaration cancelling the order of the Revenue Court that a revenue paying estate is not liable to partition.2. The plaintiff is the owner of an eight annas share, and the defendants are the owners of the other eight annas share of an estate, bearing Towji No. 41 of the Noakhali Collectorate and named Kharija Taluk Gour Kishore Roy. The plaintiff applied to the Collector for partition of the estate under the Estates Partition Act (5 of 1897). To this the defendants objected on the ground of Section 7 of the Act, namely, that the lands of the estate had already been divided by private arrangement formally made and agreed to by all the proprietors, and each proprietor has, in pursuance of such arrangement, taken possession of separate lands to be held in severalty as representing his interest in the estate. Th...
Nagendrabala Dasee Vs. Panchanan Mourie
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal162,150Ind.Cas.42
Ameer Ali, J.1. In this suit, the matter in issue is what was purchased at a sale held on 7th May 1893, in execution of a decree for costs dated 17th May 1891, that is to say before I was born. In one event I shall have to dispossess the present holders. That such a case can arise I regard as a blot on our legal system. The facts in outline are as follows:2. The premises in question, now known as 12/1, 12/2, Umeshehandra Datta Lane, formed, at the date of sale (i.e., in 1893), the northern portion of 175, Maniktala Street. A man named Brahmabishnu Basak and his nephew, Jadunath Basak were entitled to this property in equal Shares. The property was undivided. Brahmabishnu Basak died before 1890, leaving a widow Kantamani. After his death, Kantamani filed a suit (Suit No. 61 of 1890) against Jadunath for the recovery of two promissory notes for Rs. 1,000, alleging that these two promissory notes formed part of the estate of her deceased husband and that the endorsements in favour of the ...
Parbhati Dasi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal198
Costello, J.1. This is an appeal against the conviction of one Parabati Dassi who was sentenced to one year's rigorous Imprisonment by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta for an offence Under Section 8, Calcutta Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act 13 of 1923. It appears that Parbati Dassi is the mother of a girl named Lakshi. They came together from Rangoon to Calcutta, arriving in this city on 12th July 1932. The prosecution was the outcome of certain investigations made by the police in consequence of an anonymous letter received by them in which it was stated that there was a girl named Lakshi, aged about 13, living with her mother Parbati and carrying on the business of prostitution at a house No. 219, Bow Bazar Street. On receipt of that letter which was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of the Detective Department of the Calcutta Police, and dated 3rd August 1932, an Inspector proceeded to No. 219, Bow Bazar Street, which is a three storeyed building at about 3 p.m., on...
Parbati Dasi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.597
Costello, J.1. This is an appeal against the conviction of one Parbati Dassi who was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta for an offence under Section 8, Calcutta Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, XIII of 1923. It appears that Parbati Dassi is the mother of a girl named Lakshi. They came together from Rangoon to Calcutta arriving in this city on July 12, 1932. The prosecution was the outcome of certain investigations made by the Police in consequence of an anonymous letter received by them in which it was stated that there was a girl named Lakshi aged about 13, living with her mother Parbati and carrying on the business of prostitution at a house No. 219, Bow Bazar Street. On receipt of that letter which was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of the Detective Department of the Calcutta Police and dated August 3, 1932, an Inspector proceeded to No. 219, Bow Bazar Street, which is a three storeyed building at about 3 P.M. on the...
Jiban Molla Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal551
Panckridge, J.1. The petitioner in this case was arrested in consequence of a search held on 23rd August 1931, in the course of which various explosive substances were discovered. On 4th January 1932, the Local Government by an order in writing made under Section 30, Bengal Emergency Powers Ordinance 1931, directed that he should be tried on charges under the Explosive Substances Act 1908, by Maulvi Abdul Majid, a Magistrate of the First Class invested with the powers of a Special Magistrate, under Section 29 of that Ordinance. The Magistrate-convicted the petitioner under Section 5, Explosive Substances Act, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. On 30th May 1932, the Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence and directed the retrial of the petitioner. The Magistrate retried the case and on 1st October 1932 again convicted the petitioner under Section 5 and imposed a sentence of two years and six months' rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner aga...
Bhairobux Mangilal Vs. Deokaran and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal253
Ameer Ali, J.1. This suit is a commercial case and, but for unforeseen events would have been tried by the Judge taking commercial caes. I desire to remind attorneys and the public that commercial cases that have come into this list, can on application to me be always marked as such, and it is better that all these cases should be tried as commercial cases.2. There are three real points in the case. The first is a technical point, that of parties. The second is whether there was a dissolution of a firm carrying on business under the name of Deokran Ramkissen in May 1926 coupled with an adjustment of accounts of that firm and the third is whether, if there was such an adjustment, the debt found due upon that adjustment was guaranteed by another firm Sumburam Protabmull in July 1928. There is a subsidiary point, whether the question of guarantee has not been already decided by the Jodhpur Court and whether that decision is binding under the provision of Section 13, Civil P. C.3. I will d...
Ebratannessa Bibi Vs. Sarat Chandra Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal14,150Ind.Cas.386
1. The plaintiff's title which has been found in his favour In the Court below rests for its validity upon the invalid character of a wakf which was executed by one Moriunnessa Bibi. The Subordinate Judge has found in favour of the plaintiff. Some of the defendants have preferred this appeal.2. The wakfnama, was executed by the lady on 24th January 1902, and was registered on her own admission on 28th January 1902. Upon the evidence which is on the record, the circumstances under which she executed it were the following: She was at first married to one Syed Mehdi, who was a Police Sub-Inspector. He died in July 1901, when she was about or a little over 20 years of age. In 1899 under a partition amongst the members of her father's family, her father having died before, she had got some properties of her father amongst which were two houses in the town of Hooghly. In respect of these two houses the wakf was created by her. By the terms of the deed she was to remain mutawalli so long as s...
Jogendra Krishna Banerjee and ors. Vs. Provash Chandra Laskar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal37
1. In this appeal, by the landlords who had applied Under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, for settlement of additional rent for additional area Under Section 52 as also for enhancement of rent Under Section 30(b), Ben. Ten. Act, after correction of the entry in the finally published record of-rights that the tenants, against whom the application Under Section 105 was directed, were mokarari tenants, the main question for consideration was whether the presumption in favour of the tenants arising out of the settlement records as also the presumption Under Section 50, Ben. Ten. Act, had or had not been rebutted. The landlords attempted to establish their case that the tenants were not mokarari tenants in various ways. It was sought to be established that there was variation in the rent payable in respect of the tenancy in question. The Assistant Settlement Officer and the Special Judge have considered the materials placed before the Court, bearing upon the question. There was apparently a cha...
Sahabati Gopini Vs. Mangturan Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal524
1. In this case what has happened is this: A suit which ordinarily would have been instituted in the Munsif' s Court was instituted in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Darjeeling. Both parties put in their pleadings; issues were settled and evidence was gone into on both sides. Thereafter the defendant proceeded to argue the case. While the argument was going on an objection was taken that the suit should have been instituted in the Munsif's Court. The argument on behalf of the defendant was interrupted and the matter was gone into and the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the only thing that could be done in the circumstances which had happened was to return the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, namely, the Court of the Munsif at Siliguri. It is against this order that the present appeal has been preferred.2. It is quite clear that the Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. No doubt it was an irregular thing on the part of the ...
Dacca Co-operative Industrial Union, Ltd. Vs. Dacca Co-operative Sankh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal23
ORDER1. The allegations of fact contained in the plaint in Suit No. 54 of 1932, in the First Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dacca, against an order passed in which the application to this Court on which this rule was issued, was directed, are set out in the affidavit filed in this Court on behalf of the opposite parties in this rule, the plaintiffs in the suit. The plaintiffs are firms eight in number carrying on business as Dacca Co-operative Sankha Silpa Samity Ltd., (Nos. 1 to 8), the defendants in the suit being the Dacca Co operative Industrial Union Ltd., the opposite parties in this rule. It appears that the plaintiffs became the share-holders of the defendant Union in the year 1924, on subscribing shares which were fully paid up. It was stated in the plaint that there was an agreement for reduction of shares of the plaintiffs in the defendants' business and for adjustment of accounts with a view to make the plaintiffs free from liability to the defendants. The accounts were, i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »