Kolkata Court June 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.
Khoda Bux Haji and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal105,147Ind.Cas.1121
Costello J.1. This is an appeal by five persons, Khoda Bux Haji (otherwise known as Khudu Haji) Sifat, Bocha, Saban and Khosal. All these five appellants were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge of the first Court, Mymen singh, sitting with a jury, for offences Under Section 147 and Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 302 read with Section 149, I. PC. The jury acquitted the accused of the more serious charges, but unanimously convicted them Under Section 325/149 and Section 147. The learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced all the five accused Under Section 325/149 to two and half years' rigorous imprisonment and in addition each of the four accused Sifat, Bocha, Saban and Khosal to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and in default of payment of that fine to undergo an additional term of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Khoda Bux Haji was sentenced in addition to the term of rigorous imprisonment to pay a fine of Rs 200 and in default to suffer rigorous imprison...
Utanka Lal Mukerjee and ors. Vs. Proprietors, (Firm) Nitai Chandra Sea ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal177,150Ind.Cas.69
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtors against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan dated 30th June 1932 by which he disallowed the objection of the judgment-debtors to the effect that the decree sought to be executed has been entirely satisfied. It appears that the respondents who carry on a business under the name and style of the late Nitai Chandra (Charan) Seal and another obtained a decree against the judgment-debtors for a considerable sum of money. They proceeded to execute the decree in respect of the amount due after certain payments had been made by their application which was filed on 20th ' October 1930. The amount for which the decree was sought to be executed came up to about Rs. 12,772-14-0. The judgment-debtors objected to the execution on the ground amongst others that one of the partners, Nagendra Nath 'Seal, by accepting a sum of Rs. 3,000, gave a release in respect of the entire decretal amount. The case made by the judgment-debtors...
Bhuban Bijay Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal600
Lort-Williams, J.1. The petitioner in this case held certain excise licenses in Moran near Dibrugarh and, according to his petition, used to help the officers of the Excise Department of Dibrugarh Sadar Circle in detecting excise cases for a number of years. On the morning of 24th July 1932, the petitioner was out with Mr. Baruah, a regular Excise Inspector of Dibrugarh, detecting certain illicit distillation cases in a Nepali village and returned to his shop at Moran at 12-30 p.m. At about 2 p.m. he went to see Mr. Baruah again, in the Moran Inspection Bungalow, about 500 yards away from his shop, and remained talking with him about the Nepali village case until 5 p.m., when a police constable from the officer in charge of the Moran Police Station asked him to go and see him at his shop. The petitioner went there and heard that there had been an occurrence during his absence between his servants and the Excise Officer who had attempted to test the liquor in the shop. The servants had ...
Haridas Haldar Vs. Charu Chandra Sircar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal757,147Ind.Cas.924
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant and is directed against an order made on 8th August 1932 under Order 38, Rule 5, Civil P.C. for attachment before judgment of certain palas, or turns of worship, of the famous shrine of Goddess Kali at Kalighat. The Subordinate Judge has directed, notwithstanding the objection taken by the defendant that a pala is not attachable having regard to the provisions of Section 60, Civil P.C., that the pala should be attached and in order to make the attachment effective it is stated that he has appointed two receivers, one the defendant himself, and the other the son of the plaintiff. Against this order the present appeal has been brought.2. Two preliminary objections have been raised on behalf of the respondent to the hearing of the appeal. It is argued that there is no appeal allowed by the Code because according to the provisions of Order 38, Rr. 5 and 6 an appeal could only lie on the points which are relevant. In other words, it ...
Ajit Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal63,147Ind.Cas.848
Costello, J.1. This appeal is, in my opinion, not properly constituted. It is somewhat difficult to understand how it came to be admitted in its present form. The memorandum of appeal reads thus: In the matter of Ajit Kumar Chatterjee, Managing Director, Eastern National Insurance Co, Ltd., appellant against The King Emperor ; and in the matter of convictions and sentence Under Section 32(4) and Section 134(4) Companies Act (Act 7 of 1913); and in the matter of an appeal Under Section 411, Criminal P. C. The convictions referred to were not of Ajit Kumar Chatterjee but of the Eastern National Insurance Co. Ltd. It is therefore obvious that the company should have been the appellant acting through a properly authorized agent. It is to be observed that in para. 6 of the memorandum of appeal it is stated: Being aggrieved by the said orders of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, your petitioner begs humbly to prefer this appeal in this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner,: as I have stated,...
Anilkumar Ghosh and ors. Vs. Hemantakumar Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal234
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree holders and arises out of an order dismissing their application for execution of a decree which they have attached. It appears that the decree, now under execution, was obtained by Munshi Moborak Ali Sardar and others against Hemantakumar Ghosh and others in the High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 25 of 1925. This decree, was obtained on 12th December 1927, and, the total amount of the decree including costs and interest came, to Rs.1,500 odd. This decree was attached at the instance of the present appellants Anilkumar Ghosh and others in execution of their own decree against the decree-holder of the High Court's decree on 10th December 1930. The order of attachment was passed by the Munsif's Court at Khulna on that date and was, communicated to the Court where the decree now sought to be executed, i.e., High Court's decree was pending for execution and the attachment was duly noted in the register of that Court. On 11th April 1931...
Asutosh Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Tarapada Mukherjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal308,150Ind.Cas.292
1. This is an appeal from a preliminary decree in a suit for partition. Defendants 1 and 2 and 4 to 8 are the appellants. There is a cross objection on behalf of the plaintiff who is one of the respondents in the appeal. The other respondent is defendant 3. To appreciate the relationship amongst the parties a reference to the following pedigree is necessary.2. Kali Prosanna Mukherjee died in 1888 (=1294). Of his sons, those who figure in this case are three: Tarapada the eldest ; Annada, the second ; and Jnan-endra, the third. Tarapada's four sons are Bibhuti, Gosta, Anil and Abani, and his daughter is Lilabati. His wife Sarojini alias Sarajubala died in 1927, while this suit was pending in the Court below. Annada died in 1903, leaving his widow Kironsashi who gave birth to a posthumous son Nirmal alias Khoka, who died in 1905. Jnanendra's first wife died in 1920, and by her he had a daughter Hemnalini alias Jhanu. Thereafter Jnanendra married his second wife Pannalata, and had, by her...
Barada Porsad Saha and anr. Vs. Krishna Chandra Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal414
Mitter, J.1. The suit in which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs, now respondents, for declaration of their right and title to hold possession on the basis of their purchase in execution of a decree on the original side of the High Court of the properties-mentioned in Ka, Kha and Gha Schedules to the plaint after setting aside' an order of the first Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca passed under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P. C., on 16th February 1927. The plaintiffs further-prayed that they may be put in possession of all the properties except pro-perty No. 4 of Ka Schedule of which they were in possession at the date of the plaint and in case they were dispossessed pending suit they prayed for recovery of possession of the said property also. The suit was contested by defendants 1 and 4. The Additional Subordinate Judge of Dacca has decreed the suit on contest against defendants 1 and 4 and ex parte against defendants 2 and 3, by declaring plaintiff's title to the ...
J.E. James Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal606a
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Additional Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta summoning the appellant under Section 193 I.P. C, on a complaint made by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 195(b), Criminal P.C. The case arises out of an unfortunate matrimonial trouble between the appellant and his wife. Apparently there had been unhappiness for some time between thorn, and mutual recrimination, which ultimately resulted in divorce proceedings instituted by her. The appellant went on leave in 1931, and when he returned to Calcutta he stayed with friends, and eventually with Mr. Hope Johnson whose name was mentioned in the matrimonial proceedings. This lady's husband was dead, and she used to take in paying guests. On 28th October 1932, the appellant was served with a notice in divorce proceedings.2. On 1st December he left Calcutta for Bandel, and on his return found that Mrs. James had entered Mrs. Hope Johnson's flat in the absence of her and her d...
Sarat Chandra Bhattacharjee Vs. Shambhu Nath Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal36
ORDER1. We have examined the record in this case carefully and we have considered since yesterday with equal care the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and also on behalf of the opposite party. The facts are not in dispute. The only question is whether the defendant, who is the petitioner before us, ought to be allowed to retain the landlord's fee which he has withdrawn from Court on the sale in question having taken place, or whether he ought to be made to refund the amount of the landlord's fee which he has withdrawn. In our opinion the defendant petitioner has made good Grounds Nos 12 and 15 taken in his petition before us; and, in that view of the matter, the Rule must be made absolute, but having regard to the special circumstance of this case there will be no order for costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »