Kolkata Court July 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.
Muhammad Abdul Khoyer Vs. Asgar Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.892
ORDER1. For the reasons set out in the letter of reference, we accept the reference and set aside the conviction and the sentence. The fines, if paid, will be refunded....
Shahebali and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal718,147Ind.Cas.79
Lort-Williams, J.1. The appellant Taki was convicted under Section 366, I.P.C., of kidnapping a minor girl named Puspalata in order that she might be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, Kalan under Section 368 for wrongfully concealing or confining the girl and Sabbal under Section 368/109 for abetting him.2. The case for the prosecution was that on 10th February 1932, Taki came to Puspalata's house in the evening when her parents were away from home, and on the pretext of taking her to her mother Matangini, who, he said, was ill, he induced her to accompany him. He put her into a motor car, and after going for some distance Sabbal and others got in. The girl grew suspicious, and was threatened by Taki with a knife. When they arrived at Shamnagar, she was taken to a house where she was kept for a month, during which time Taki cohabited with her on many occasions by threatening her with a knife and by gagging her. Next she was taken to Titagarh where she was kept for about 10 days...
Asgarali Pradhania Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal893
Lort-Williams, J.1. The appellant was convicted under Section 312/511, I.P.C., of an attempt to cause a miscarriage. The complainant was 20 years of age, and had been married but divorced by consent. She was living in her father's house, where she used to sleep in the cookshed. The appellant was a neighbour who had lent money to her father, and was on good terms with him. He was a married man with children. According to the complainant he gave her presents, and promised to marry her. As a result sexual intercourse took place and she became pregnant. She asked him to fulfil his promise, but he demurred and suggested that she should take drugs to procure a miscarriage. One night he brought her a bottle half full of a red liquid, and a paper packet containing a powder. After he had gone she tasted the powder, but finding it salty and strong, spat it out. She did not try the liquid. The following night the appellant came again and finding that she had not taken either the powder or the liq...
In Re: Two Pleaders
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal731
1. In this case a rule was issued by this Court on two pleaders practising in the District Judge's Court at Sylhet, to show cause why they should not be suspended or dismissed on the ground (among others) that they had been convicted of offences under Sections 145 and 151, I.P.C, as also under Section 3, Ordinance 6 of 1930, and that the offences of which they were convicted imply a defect of character which unfits them to be pleaders. The rule was issued in virtue of the powers vested in this Court by Section 12, Legal Practitioners Act 18 of 1879. The pleaders concerned have not thought it fit to appear before this Court, in showing cause, but have sent statements by way of explanation in writing. The gist of the statements so submitted is that the offences for which they were convicted do not imply any defect of character, inasmuch as they do not involve any moral turpitude. The pleaders have further stated that they have already been sufficiently punished in more ways than one, and...
Damodar Das Vs. Morgan and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal341
Panckridge, J.1. This is a suit transferred from the Small Cause Court, on the application of the defendants, under the provisions of Section 39, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The circumstances which have occasioned the suit are as follows: On 9th January 1923, one John Marchmont Gregory obtained a decree for Rs. 16,307 with interest and coats against three persons, of whom one was the plaintiff, and another a gentleman named Lala Raghumal. As security for his claim in that suit, Gregory held the title-deeds of a property, belonging to Lala Raghumal, known as 132, Harrison Road, Calcutta. After the decree, Gregory gave a warrant of attorney to the defendants, authorising them to act as his attorneys in the execution proceedings. On 14th May 1924, Lala Raghumal filed a suit, namely Suit No. 1302 of 1924, to set aside the decree obtained by Gregory and to obtain the return of the title deeds.2. In June 1924 the defendants filed a warrant of attorney on behalf of Gregory. Writi...
Sudhansudhar Roy and ors. Vs. Sasadhar Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal345,150Ind.Cas.364
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for the opening up of a pathway on the establishment of the right of the plaintiff and his men as well as the public; to pass along the disputed way. There was a compromise decree in Title Suit No. 617 of 1914 between the same parties and in execution of that decree a civil Court commissioner was appointed who gave delivery of possession of the pathway according to that decree. The present dispute is with regard to the same pathway. The plaintiff's case is that since then he used the pathway but towards the end of Agrahayan 1934, the defendants obstructed and stopped the pathway to the public as well as to the plaintiff by putting several bamboos across this pathway at the north-wes-tern corner of the defendants' tank as well as by extracting the bamboo pegs inserted by the side of the pathway by the civil Court commissioner. Hence this suit. The suit was decreed by the trial Court against defendants 1 to 4 but dismissed against defendant...
In the Matter of Babu Sashi Bhusan Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1933
Reported in: 145Ind.Cas.316
1. In this case a Rule was issued by this Court on two Pleaders practising in the District Judge's Court at Sylhet, to show cause why they should not be suspended or dismissed on the ground (among others) that they had been convicted of offences under Sections 145 and 151 of the Indian Penal Code, as also under Section 3 of Ordinance VI of 1980 and that the offences of which they were convicted imply a defect of character which unfits them to be Pleaders. The Rule was issued in virtue of the powers vested in this Court by Section 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act, XVII of 1879. The Pleaders concerned have not thought it fit to appear before this Court in showing cause; but have sent statements by way of explanation,' in writing. The gist of the statements so submitted is that the offences for which they were convicted, do not imply any defect of character, inasmuch as they do not involve any moral turpitude. The Pleaders have further stated that they have already been sufficiently puni...
Satish Chandra Sarkar and anr. Vs. Haridas Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal399
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Nadis granting letters of administration with the will annexed to the respondent Haridas Mitra. It appears that the case made by the propounder of the will is that a lady of the name of Thakamani Dasi died on 27th May 1929, and that some time before this she executed a will dated 24th October 1928 by which she bequeathed her estate to the respondent Haridas. The will recites that neither Thakamani nor her sister-in-law, that is, husband's brother's wife, one Tarangini, had any child born of their womb, and that consequently both she and her husband's brother's wife, Tarangini, took as their son Haridas, the present respondent, who is the youngest son of one Jogneswar Mitra of the village called Eruli. It is stated in this will that Jogneswar, the father of Haridas, was the son of the uncle of Tarangini, the husband's brother's wife of the testatrix, and that both of them brought up the respondent. It is stated furthe...
Arjun Kaibarta and ors. Vs. Manoranjan De Bhoumick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal461
1. These appeals are directed against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Third Court, Dacca, substantially affirming the decision of the Munsif, First Court, Narayanganj, in four suits instituted by the plaintiffs, for recovery of damages against the defendants, on the allegation that they caught fish in a part of the public navigable river Meghna, specifically described in the plaints, the exclusive fishery in which had been granted to Nawab Sir Ashanulla of Dacca, and of which the plaintiffs were in possession as patnidars. The case of the plaintiffs was that the Nawab had, by virtue of a grant from the Crown, an exclusive right of fishery in the part of the river in question. The defendants in the suits denied that plaintiffs right to the fishery and asserted that Nawab Sir Ashanulla had not obtained a grant from the Crown, so far as the exclusive fishery was concerned, and the plaintiffs could not therefore derive any title to the same by a settlement in their favour. I...
Khajer Naskar and anr. Vs. Tabrej Ali Naskar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal752
ORDER1. We have examined the terms of the judgments and having regard to the findings of fact arrived at by the Court of first instance, we do not think that this is a case which calls for our interference. There is one point, however, which we must notice. It is argued that having regard to the words in Clause (2), Section 147, Criminal P.C., as it now stands, the order of the Magistrate directing removal of the obstruction complained of is illegal. The words of the clause in Section 147 run as follows:If it appears to such Magistrate that such right exists, he may make an order prohibiting any interference with the exercise of such right.2. It is admitted that if the Magistrate had made an order in the terms of the section, no complaint could have been found with his order. Each case must depend upon its own facts and it is impossible to lay down a hard and fast rule that in every case the final order of the Magistrate should be in exactly the same words as are used in the section. H...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »