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.
Kamiraddi Sheik and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal77,147Ind.Cas.832
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case the three appellants were charged with abduction and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. The woman abducted was aged about 22 and was the wife of a chaukidar. Her husband was away from time to time and she lived with her brother-in law who was an invalid. The case for the prosecution was that on one night the accused with a number of others entered the hut, dragged her out and took her away. They moved her from place to place and eventually took her to a prostitute. There seems to be some suggestion that she was to be sold for purposes of prostitution. While with this woman, she came across a daffadar to whom she told her story and eventually she was brought home.2. The case for the defence was that two of the accused were not there at all and that the first accused Kamiraddi had gone with her at her own wish, because she was not happy with her husband. The case for the defence is confirmed in rather a startling manner by the diary of a daroga to w...
(Khondkar) Muhammad Amirul Islam Vs. Muhammad Abdul Hamid
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal238
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for recovery of certain amounts-alleged to have been realized by the defendant as the plaintiff's dewan and misappropriated by him. We are concerned with four items. The trial Court-decreed these items in favour of the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court has allowed the appeal in part and decreed the suit for Rs. 60 only in place of Rs. 600 decreed by the trial Court. The four items in question are: first of all, Rs. 240 alleged to have been realized by the defendant as the price of mangoes on 6th Jaistha 1326, and Rs. 60 on 29th Jaistha 1326, on account of which he-only paid Rs. 150; then (second item) Rs. 100 said to have been realized by the defendant as the price of mangoes on 10th Jaistha 1328; third item Rs. 250; said to have been realized by the defendant as the price of fish in Baisakh 1326;: and fourth item Rs. 100 said to have been realized from Gangagobinda Chakrabarty on 10th Jaistha 1328, as kharij dakhil. As regards items 2...
Akshoy Kumar Nandi Vs. S.C. Dass and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1935Cal359
ORDERCestello, J.1. This is an application to set aside an award which was filed on 12th May 1933. The application is made by a firm named S.C. Dass & Co., who were the defendants in the suit (being Suit No. 421 of 1932) out of which the matter arises. That suit was instituted by the plaintiff Akshoy Kumar Nandi on 27th February 1932 to recover from the defendant firm the sum of Rs. 9969-9-0 being monies alleged to have been lent to the defendant firm on 27th February 1929 and 10th June 1929.2. The present applicants as the defendants in that suit by their defence denied that sum was due to the plaintiff, and to their written statement they annexed statements of account which purported to show that after giving credit for the sums of Rs. 2951-7-0 and Rs. 5000 which were sums alleged to have been advanced by way of principal, a sum of Rs. 21,016-4-0 was still due by the plaintiff to the defendant firm in respect of certain dealings and transactions between them and the plaintiff. The de...
Davis Hewlet and Co. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal598
1. This appeal arises out of a conviction under Section 406 read with Section 488, Calcutta Municipal Act. There is some question as to whether the conviction was under Section 407, read with Section 488; but it is not necessary at this moment to refer to that question because it will be dealt with later.2. The facts giving rise to this prosecution, shortly stated, are as follows: The accused firm carry on business as Chemists and Druggists. An employee of the Corporation of Calcutta went on 2nd November 1932 to the shop of the accused firm and asked to be supplied with a certain quantity of sodium citrate. Instead of sodium citrate being supplied to the Corporation employee potassium nitrate in which there was some sodium chloride was supplied. The article sold was found on analysis to contain potassium nitrate and also a little of sodium chloride. It is common knowledge that potassium nitrate with Sodium chloride thrown is something very different from sodium citrate. Sodium citrate ...
Molla Khan Kabuli Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal169
Lort-Williams, J.1. The appellant Molla Khan Kabuli alias Munna Khan Kabuli alias Hamidullah was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of the 24-Pargannas and a jury on a charge Under Section 302, I.P.C, and convicted by a majority of 7 to 2. The learned Judge accepted the verdict of the jury and sentenced the appellant to be hanged, subject to confirmation by this Court.2. The case is somewhat unusual. On the evening of 15th October 1930 one Abdul Gani was in a Panshop with a man named Hanif generally known as Mohammad Hanif. There was present In the Panshop another Hanif called 'Bara Hanif,' apparently because he was bigger than the other Hanif. A man named Molla Khan Kabuli well-known in the neighbourhood, who used to hawk articles round the adjoining villages, came into the shop. He was known to Abdul Gani and had made improper overtures to him a few days before and had been refused. Abdul Gani and Mohammad Hanif left the shop and proceeded a little way when Molla Khan followed an...
Saroj Ranjan Sinha and ors. Vs. Joy Durga Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal140
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia dated 9th July 1931 made in the course of execution of a decree. It is necessary to state a few facts in order to determine the soundness or otherwise of the contentions raised on behalf of the judgment-debtors who are appellants before us. It appears that the decree-holder in the present execution case, Joy Durga Dasi, obtained a decree against the appellants for a sum of Rs. 6,093 odd. It further appears that the judgment debtors Saroj Ranjan Sinha and others obtained against the decree-holder Joy Durga Dasi a decree for a certain sum of money. Joy Durga put her decree into execution on 15th November 1929. In that execution case she calculated the amount which was due to her and allowed a set-off and the total sum after allowing the set-off due to her came to about Rs. 6,156 odd. Then Joy Durga instituted a title suit against the present judgment-debtors but she failed in all Courts including the Privy Cou...
Bhupendra Nath Sinha Vs. Giridharilal Nagar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal582,145Ind.Cas.416
Lort-Williams, J.1. The appellant was convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of offences under Section 406, I.P. C, and sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. The case for the prosecution was as follows: the joint family firm of Baldeoram Behari Lal, now consisting of Murari, Giridharilal and three minors, have carried on business for many years as Bankers and Banias at 49 Strand Road. In 1929 they started another business in hessians and gunnies under the name of Giridharilal & Co. at 135 Canning Street. The accused Sinha was a partner in a firm called Ram Sarup Mamchand, who were sole guaranteed brokers, for hessians and gunnies of David Sassoon & Co. Early in 1930 Girrdharilal proposed to Sinha that he should leave Ram Sarup Mamchand, join Giridharilal and Murari as a partner in their firm of Giridharilal & Co. and induce Sassoon & Co. to give them the appointment of sole guaranteed bazar gunny brokers.2. Sinha consented, and it w...
Mozam Dafadar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal563
1. The appellants, six in number, have been convicted by that learned Additional Sessions Judge Jessore, on a verdict of the jury divided in the proportion of three to two. The Appellants 1 to 5 have been convicted under Section 366, I.P.C., and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, while appellant 6 has been convicted under Section 368, I.P.C., and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The charge on which appellants 1 and 4 were tried was for kidnapping and abduction. The charge against appellant was for abduction only, as mentioned in Section 366, I.P.C. Appellant & was jointly tried with the other five, for the offence under Section 368, I.P.C., as mentioned already. The first question that arises for consideration in the case before us is, whether the charges as framed and which the first four appellants had to meet were properly and legally framed. The question of framing of charges under 18. 366, I.P.C., has received the consideration of this Court on variou...
Jnanda Sundari Rai Chowdhurani Vs. Promada Sundari Rai Chowdhurani and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal116
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application Under Section 115, Civil PC, by the plaintiff in a title suit. The plaintiff's case is that in June 1931 the plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants for declaration of her title to a plot of land with huts thereon and for recovery of possession of the same, that defendants 1 and 2, mother and son, entered appearance, filed their written statement on 15th August 1931 and thereafter the suit went on for a long time on adjournments till on 26th April 1932 the Court warned the parties to come ready on the next date when the case would be positively heard, and the next date fixed was 8th June 1932; that on 8th June 1932 the plaintiff was ready with her witnesses and defendant 2 along with his junior pleader was present but they did not file any list of witnesses, although some of the defence witnesses themselves filed their hajiras; the defence prayed for one day's time on the ground that their senior pleader was engaged at Dacca and w...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Khodabaksha Shah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal242
1. This is an appeal by the Local Government under Section 417, Criminal P. C, and is directed against an order of the Deputy Magistrate, First Glass of Berhampur, district Murshidabad, dated 13th January 1933, acquitting the accused Khodabaksha Shah, under Section 245, Criminal P. C., of an offence punishable under Section 188, I. P. C., that is, disobedience of an order duly promulgated by a public servant. The order which was promulgated in this case and which was a valid and operative order, so far as the respondent was concerned, was made by a competent authority under Section 133, Criminal P. C. The fact of the promulgation of the order made under Section 133 was not denied, and was duly proved before the trying Magistrate in the case. That a public servant can promulgate an order lawfully empowered to promulgate the same is not denied before us. On the evidence to which reference has been made by the learned Magistrate in his order of acquittal, there was clearly a direction on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »