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.
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Khoda Baksha Shah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.808
1. Judgment. This is an appeal by the Local Government under Section 417 Criminal Procedure Code and is directed against an order of the Deputy Magistrate, First Class of Berhampur, district Murshidabad, dated January 13, 193%, acquitting the accused Khodabaksh Shah under Section 245, Criminal Procedure Code, of an offence punishable under Section 188 Indian Penal Code, 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 Procedure Code. 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 acqui...
Chowdhurani Vs. Promoda Sundari Rai Chowdhurani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.1203
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, 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 Nos. 1 and 2, mother and son, entered appearance, filed their written statement on August 15, 1931, and thereafter the suit went on for a long time on adjournments till on April 26, 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 June 8, 1932; that on June 8, 1932, the plaintiff was ready with her witnesses and defendant No. 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 engage...
Manar Ali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal124,147Ind.Cas.1203
1. The case for the prosecution against the accused appellants in this Court divulged a diabolical crime of murder, the occurrence having been traced after the dead body of one Abdul Rahaman was accidently discovered, after some time had elapsed from the date when the man was killed on 26th July 1931. An information to the police what is generally known as 'a missing information,' was lodged by one Makbul, nephew and son-in-law of the murdered man, on 27th July. The deceased Abdul Rahaman was last found going to the house of Abdul Gafur alias; Gauhar Ali, one of the appellants before us, and his dead body was found in a decomposed condition lying buried under earth on 2nd August, when dogs were found scratching the place, and a foul smell was coming through a hole made by the dogs.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bakarganj, against whose order of conviction and sentences passed on the appellants, the appeal to this Court is directed, accepted the verdict of eight of the juro...
Mohinimohan Shaha Vs. Binodebihari Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal43,147Ind.Cas.1076
Mallik, J.1. The main question that arises for consideration in this rule is whether the mortgagee of a non transferable under-raiyati holding has any locus standi to deposit money Under Section 66, Clause (2), Ben. Ten. Act, in order to stay execution of a decree for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. What happened in the case was this: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant, an under-raiyat, for recovery of arrears of rent and obtained a compromise decree, which laid down that in default of payment of a certain portion of the decretal money within a specified time, the defendant would be ejected from the holding. One Mohinimohan Shaha, a mortgagee of the under-raiyati holding, offered to deposit the money but was not allowed to do so. It was contended on his behalf that Mohinimohan Shaha, the mortgagee, had a locus standi to deposit the money, and in support of this contention reliance was placed on the decisions in the case of Kali Kishore Das v. G...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›