Kolkata Court June 1933 Judgments
RajabuddIn Mondal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal676
Lort-Williams, J.1. The appellant and another accused were charged with offences under Sections 366, 376, 497 and 498, I.P.C., and were convicted of offences under Sections 366 and 376 and sentenced each to five and seven years respectively, to run concurrently. The only point of substance raised on this appeal is, that the charge under Section 366 was in form illegal, and that the appellant was prejudiced thereby. The charge read as follows:That you on or about 29th May 1932, at Makharpur, Nowgaon P.S., kidnapped or abducted a woman, to wit, Bela Bibi, in order that the said woman may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 366, I.P.C.2. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that Section 233, Criminal P.C., provides that for every distinct offence there shall be a separate charge, and that kidnapping and abducting are distinct offences. Section 236, Criminal P.C., provides that if a single act or series of acts is of...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bisnoo Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal665
M.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case, four men, Dulapada, Purna, Charu, and Bishnu were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Howrah and a jury of nine persons. Each of them was charged under Section 364(abduction with intent to murder), Section 394(causing hurt in committing robbery) and Section 302(murder) and also criminal conspiracy to commit each of the above three offences. The jury unanimously found Dulapada Mal 'not guilty' of all the six charges. They by a majority returned a verdict of not guilty' as against Purna Chandra Kanrar and Charu Chandra Palain in respect of all the charges. With regard to Bishnu Chandra Das, in respect of abduction and conspiracy for abduction, they unanimously found him 'not guilty;' in respect of murder and conspiracy to murder they found him 'not guilty', by a divided verdict of 6 against 3. In respect of conspiracy for robbery, they found him 'not guilty' by a divided verdict of 7 against 2. In respect of Section 394, they found him 'not gu...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendrabala Dasee Vs. Panchanan Mourie and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal290
Ameer Ali, J.1. In this suit the two matters in issue are: (1) whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the premises in question and (2) whether under the provisions of Section 51, T. P. Act, or upon general equitable principles, the defendants, if dispossessed, are entitled to compensation. At the hearing, the attention of counsel and of the Court, was mainly directed to the first question, which involved the discussion of a number of authorities on Hindu law. For this reason, although the evidence was given, I adjourned the case for an opportunity for further argument on the second question, namely the right to compensation, and that question has been discussed before me to-day. Mr. S. N. Banerjee (Jr.) appeared for one of the defendants Charupanna Seal whose position will appear, I think, from the facts given in the early part of my judgment [Nagendrabala Dasee v. Panchanan Mourie : AIR1934Cal162 ]. He is a purchaser at a Court sale held in the suit against Saratchandra Mo...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bishnu Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1933
Reported in: 145Ind.Cas.236
M.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case four men Dulapado, Purna, Charu and Bishnu were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Howrah and a Jury of nine persons Each of them was charged under section. 364 (abduction with intent to murder), Section 394 (causing hurt in committing robbery) and Section 302 (murder) and also criminal conspiracy to commit each of the above three offences. The Jury unanimously found Dulapado Mal 'not guilty' of all the six charges. They by a majority returned a verdict of 'not guilty' as against Purna Chandra Kanrar and Charu Chandra Palain in respect of all the charges. With regard to Bishnu Chandra Das, in respect of abduction and conspiracy for abduction they unanimously found him 'not guilty;' in respect of murder and conspiracy to murder they found him 'not guilty' by a divided verdict of 6 against 3. In respect of conspiracy for robbery, they found him 'not guilty' by a divided verdict of 7 against 2. In respect of Section 394, they found him 'not gui...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Sree Goddess Pitha Kali Matha Thakurani Vs. Surendra Nath Tagore ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal192,150Ind.Cas.617
1. The lands which form the subject matter of this suit were recorded in the finally published C.S. Khatians of 1917, No. 632 of Mauza Kaligram or Kaligaon, No. 186 of Mauza Gopalpur and No. 123 of Mauza Kaya, as appertaining' to a debuttar in the name of Sree Sree Iswar Peeth Kali Mata Thaku-rani, who, represented by her shebait, is the plaintiff in this suit. In the Khatians the plaintiff's interest has been recorded as that of a permanent tenure-holder within Touzi No. 141 of the Collectorate of Rajshahi of which the defendants are the present proprietors the tenure being described therein as rent-free tenures for which certain cesses only were payable. In 1915 objection had been taken on behalf of the plaintiff Under Section 103-A, Ben. Ten. Act, on the ground that the tenures did not lie within Touzi No. 141 but were Nishkar (revenue free) lands comprised in Touzi No. 47-B of the B Register; but this objection had been overruled. Subsequently in November 1917 an application for co...
Tag this Judgment!Nippon Yusen Kaisha Vs. Marienfels
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal438
C. C. Ghose, Ag. C. J.1. This appeal arises out of an application made by the plaintiffs in Suit No. 2 of 1932 in the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court, and the facts which gave rise to that application, shortly stated, are as follows: It appears that, on 16th March 1930, two steamships, namely, the 'Marienfels,' belonging to the Hansa line, and the 'Malacca Maru,' belonging to the Nippon Yusen Kaisha, were proceeding down the Hooghly and that, at a point named Pukuria Point, where, it is alleged, that the waters are of a shallow character, a collision took place between the 'Marienfels' and the 'Malacca Maru.' The 'Marienfels' was in charge of Mr. King as pilot and the 'Malacca Maru' was in charge of another pilot named Mr. Halford. The collision having taken place on 16th March 1930, the 'Marienfels' alleged that the 'Malacca Maru' was to blame. The 'Malacca Maru,' on the other hand, alleged that the 'Marienfels' was to blame. On 7th May 1930, the owners of the 'Malacca Maru' wrot...
Tag this Judgment!Secy. of State Vs. Ramdhan Das Dwarka Das Firm
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal151,150Ind.Cas.189
1. These two appeals and the application in revision have arisen out of three suits which were instituted for recovery of damages for non-delivery of goods, which ware entrusted for carriage to the Eastern Bengal Railway. Appeal No. 259 of 1929 has arisen out of Suit No. 3 of 1929, Appeal No. 49 of 1930 out of Suit No. 1 of 1929, and the revision petition out of Suit No. 7 of 1929. Suit No. 3 was instituted in respect of 285 half-bales of jute consigned on 16th March 1927 from Station Bogra to be delivered at the Coasipore Road Station. Suits Nos. 1 and 7 were for damages for loss of 82 half-bales and 20 half-bales of jute, respectively, consigned on 17th March 1927 from Station Sitalda for the same destination. In Suit No. 3 it was alleged that on 21st March 1927 the agent of the plaintiffs in that suit paid down the freight and obtained tickets and gate passes but no delivery could be had. In Suits Nos. 1 and 7 it was alleged that on 20th and 21st March 1927 attempts were made to obt...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeoprasad Vs. Siemens (India) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal285
Ameer Ali, J.1. (After stating facts and holding that there was a breach of guarantee His Lordship discussed the question of damages.) The question involves a point of law, namely the effect of Section 74, Contract Act. Speaking for myself, I have never understood Section 74. I am always convinced of the difficulty of a particular point when both sides say it is perfectly simple. I will deal first with the point of law involved and then with the main question of fact which underlies every issue as to damages, including the question of mitigation. What is the effect in Indian law of 'naming a figure?' I should perhaps say now that I have no doubt that these parties at the time of the compromise fully considered their position. The figures named are undoubtedly large, but I have no doubt that they were arrived at after consideration, and I think the harshness of the contract (if you can call it that) is not so much the fixing of these particular figures as the unconditional undertaking t...
Tag this Judgment!G.G. Ritchson Vs. W.L.D.Ritchson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal570,152Ind.Cas.32
ORDERAmeer Ali, J.1. This petition was filed in January 1932 for the relief of judicial separation and for permanent alimony. The parties were married in Calcutta, but the husband's employment is on the E. I. Railway in connection with the permanent way and as such he has no permanent place of residence. In point of fact his last period of duty appears to have been in Bihar. In August 1932 he was under orders for transfer, he took leave and came to Calcutta and spent that leave with the parents of his wife, the petitioner. The parties had previously done so on several occasions. Although the parties had in tended to spend the whole month's leave as stated the parties separated, the husband leaving the house after five days.2. The point arises whether this Court has Jurisdiction Under Section 3, Divorce Act. Mr. Barwell appearing for the petitioner has called evidence and has put before me the reported cases and also an unreported case of this Court Boss Hurst v. Boss Hurst, the other c...
Tag this Judgment!Subimalchandra Chatterji Vs. Radhanath Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal235
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for ejectment after service of notice to quit. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant was a monthly tenant, whose tenancy had been determined by notice to vacate the premises. The claim for ejectment: was resisted by the defendant, on the ground that there was a registered agreement for lease dated 20th April 1917, for a term of 21 years, and that the defendant was not therefore liable,, to be ejected. It is necessary to mention in this connexion that the plaintiffs in the suit were the purchasers at a sale held on 13th November 1928, in execution of a mortgage decree passed on the basis of a mortgage of the premises in question, in possession of the defendant, executed by Jugalkrishna Mallik and Phulkumari Dasee on 25th February 1924. The property in suit belonged originally to one Shyamlal Mallik, who died intestate in the year 1901, leaving him surviving his widow, Phulkumari, who obtained letters of administration, and subse...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »