Kolkata Court July 1933 Judgments
Abani Mohan Bhattcharjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal368
Mitter, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading beforehand the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver in these two appeals; I entirely agree with him in the conclusions reached by him in the reasonings on which those conclusions are based, and in the order which he proposes to make in these two appeals.Henderson, J.2. The facts of the case out of which these appeals have arisen are briefly as follows: The appellant Probhat is a detenu who was interned at Faridpur, a village in the District of Burdwan. He ran away on 9th January 1932, and disappeared. On receipt of certain information a party of Police Officers raided No. 4 Ahiritola 1st lane the room where the absconder was expected to be found was vacant. The owner of the house Dhakaram made some inquiries and informed the Inspector P. W. 1 that the occupants of the room in question had removed to the house of Nagen Das (P.W. 6) in Sitala lane. The Inspector and some other Police Officers went there. On being summoned ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Nur Ahmed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal7,155Ind.Cas.584
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case Ohajuddin Molla and Nur Ahmed alias Nonia were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge at Alipore and a jury which consisted of three Hindus and two Mahomedans. They were convicted Under Sections 366 and 376, I. P. C, by a majority of 3 to 2. The learned Judge considers that the verdict against Nur Ahmed was against the weight of evidence and unreasonable and that he ought to be acquitted under both the sections.2. The facts were that a girl named Kiron Bala Dassi of the Bairagi caste lives in a small village near to a much larger Mahomedan village. According to her story, some time before the date of the offence alleged in this case, Ohajuddin made immoral suggestions to her, asking her to go and live with him. She said that she was highly shocked and screamed out with fear. This is alleged to have taken place at midday, while she was working in her hut and Ohajuddin is alleged to have called her from outside. Further, it is suggested that before this i...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Arunchandra Singha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal325
McNair, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff Corporation for Rs. 134-4-9, on account of consolidated rates payable in respect of premises No. 2, Pyari Das Lane, Calcutta, which is a debuttar property, of which defendant 1 is the shebait. Defendant 2 is a lessee of the property under a lease for 70 years granted by the then shebait on 29th November 1917, and defendant 3 is a mortgagee from defendant 2. Defendant 1 alone contests the suit. He contends that the suit is not maintainable, as the plaintiff Corporation is a charge-holder Under Section 205, Calcutta Municipal Act, over the property in suit, and also has charges over other properties belonging to the same defendant, for the enforcement of which it has brought five other suits, some of which have been decreed. His contention is that Section 67-A, T. P. Act, which was inserted by the amending Act 20 of 1929, makes it compulsory for a mortgagee or chargee, who holds several mortgages or charges over the same or different propertie...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. P., a
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal272
1. On the facts of the case we are not inclined to accept the recommendation made by the learned District Judge for suspension of the pleader concerned. The facts of the case as also the decision recorded by the learned Judge make it clear that the misconduct for which the pleader was charged rendered him liable to criminal prosecution. In consonance with the view taken by this Court in cases of this description, we hold that where the allegation against a legal practitioner amounted to a charge of criminal prosecution, the correct procedure to be followed is that these proceedings should not be taken but that, if it was thought necessary to take action, it should be by way of criminal prosecution. We are clearly of opinion that the facts and circumstances of the ease as they appear from the materials placed before us, do not justify institution of criminal proceedings against the pleader. In our judgment the proceedings initiated by the learned District Judge under the Legal Practitio...
Tag this Judgment!Kusum Kumari Debi and anr. Vs. Hem Nalini Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal724
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case a Rule was issued calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why certain orders should not be set aside. These orders were made under Section 144, Criminal P.C., and Section 188, I.P.C.2. It appears that petitioner 1 is the owner of premises Nos. 23-A and 23-B Masjid Bari Street, Calcutta, and the opposite party is the owner of 24/3, Masjidbari Street. Between the premises there was a passage. This originally had been six feet wide. On about two feet of this the opposite party had built a wall; but she claimed that the whole six feet belonged to her Petitioner 1 claimed that the balance of four feet odd belonged to her. She became apprehensive that the opposite party was making a hole in this wall, so that they could use this remaining part of the original passage claimed by her. Instead of waiting until any such hole was made and then asking the Court for an injunction, she was advised to build a wall of her own u...
Tag this Judgment!Chundy Churan Law Vs. Abbas Ali Bhuya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal213
1. These are three appeals before us: Appeals Nos. 988, 989 and 990 of 1931. These appeals have arisen out of three suits. Appeal No. 988 arises out of Suit No. 232 of 1929 and the corresponding appeal to the lower appellate Court was appeal No. 17 of 193Order Appeal No. 989 arises out of Suit No. 107 of 1929 and the corresponding appeal in the lower appellate Court was Appeal No. 24 of 1930. Appeal No. 990 arises out of Suit No. 109 of 1929 and the corresponding appeal in the lower appellate Court was Appeal No. 25 of 1930.2. In appeal No. 988 there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. In Appeals Nos. 989 and 990 some of the respondents are represented by the learned Advocate Mr. Amarendra Mohan Mitter. The learned Advocate has pointed out to us that respondent 6, Ansar Ali, died some time ago and no substitution having been effected on the record of his legal representatives within time the appeals so far as he is concerned abated. He has also pointed out to us that in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sumer Ahir and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal273
Lort Williams, J.1. The appellants were charged with offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 147/109, Penal Code. They were tried with two other accused by the Additional Sessions Judge at Alipore and a jury. Ram Sumer Ahir alias Matabadal was convicted of offences under Sections 148 and 323, and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and one year respectively, to run consecutively; the other appellants were convicted under Section 147 and sentenced each to imprisonment for two years, and the other two accused were acquitted.2. The case for the prosecution was, that the complainant Mr. J. Choudhury, who is a member of the English Bar, an Advocate of the Calcutta High Court, Editor of the Calcutta Weekly Notes and a respected citizen of Calcutta, is the owner of certain property called Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Sarba Mangala, Hat Lane. He obtained a civil Court decree for ejectment and vacant possession against one Ram Gopal, and on 3rd July 1932 the Nazir having obtained specific instructions...
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Hurst Vs. Shyamsundarlal Khandelwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal441
Ameer Ali, J.1. This matter is before me on a further hearing under the following circumstances: This was a suit against a share broker for damages for conversion of certain shares left with that broker as security for the amounts standing to the debit of the plaintiff's account with him. I held that there was such conversion and that the plaintiff would be entitled to damages for conversion on a certain basis. The shares however being pledged shares, it was common ground that as between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant would have to be credited with the amount due to him on the account, that is to say, the plaintiff would only be entitled to the value of the shares less what he owed to the defendant. Now, at the hearing, Mr. Isaacs for the plaintiff sought to prove that the amount due to the defendant was a certain sum of, I think, Rs. 1,4.00 odd, which sum, if credited to the defendant, would entitle the plaintiff to the balance of the value of the shares, which would b...
Tag this Judgment!Loke Nath Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Abani Nath Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal102
ORDER1. The matter out of which this rule has arisen was an application made to the District Judge of Hooghly for amendment of a certain plaint in a certain suit filed before him. The suit in question is numbered as suit No 12 of 1931 in the Court of the District Judge of Hooghly and it was a suit filed by the plaintiffs Under Section 93, Civil P.C., under a sanction granted by the Collector of Hooghly. The suit was filed in November 1931 and after various proceedings had been had, it appears that on 17th November 1932, an application was made to the District Judge for permission to amend the plaint in certain particulars mentioned in the application. The original application has now come up to this Court as part of the record and it appears from the endorsement on the original application that the application for amendment of the plaint was made with the sanction of the Collector of Hooghly the latter having been authorised to give sanction by virtue of and under the authority of the ...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Dastoor Vs. S.A. Kandawalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal327
Panckridge, J.1. In this case the only question is one with regard to procedure. The plaintiff brought a suit for dissolution of partnership and for accounts and the appointment of a receiver. On 8th June 1932, a consent decree was passed. The relevant paragraphs of the terms of settlement annexed to the decree are term (a), which provides that the defendant shall pay the sum of Rs. 4,000 with interest at 6 per cent, until payment, and term (b), which provides that the principal sum with interest shall form a first charge on the assets including the goodwill, stock-in-trade, and outstandings, present and future, of the business in question. The terms of settlement also include liberty to apply.2. The present suit has been brought for the purpose of enforcing the charge created by the second term in the terms of settlement. The defendant maintains that the suit is unnecessary, and that the plaintiff could have obtained all the relief to which he is entitled by executing the consent decr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »