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.
Sachindra Kar Gupta Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal692
Lort-Williams, J.1. The appellant was charged as follows:First.-That you, on or about 17th December 1932, at the crossing of Grand Trunk Road and Boral Lane at Hooghly, Bally, P.S. Chinsura, were going armed in contravention of Section 13, Arms Act, 1878 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 19(c), Arms Act, 1878 and within my cognizance,Secondly,-That you, on or about 17th December 1932, at the same place had in your possession a fully loaded six chambered Revolver No. 78141 and four additional live cartridges in contravention of Sections 14 and 15, Arms Act, in such manner as to indicate an intention that the possession might not be known to any public servant as defined in the Indian Penal Code and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 20, Arms Act, 1878 and within my cognizance.2. He was convicted by the Special Magistrate of Chinsura under both Sections 19(e) and 20, Arms Act, 1878 and sentenced to six years' rigorous imprisonment under the latt...
Sudha Mukhi Debi Vs. Chairman of Commissioners of the Tollygunge Munic ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal148,150Ind.Cas.89
1. This appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for refund of money paid by him for the purchase of property, and which purchase could not be, and was not, completed by the defendant and of which possession could not be delivered, for the reason that the property became non-existent, must be allowed. The defendant was not either under law or equity entitled to retain the money paid by the plaintiff for purchase of property, without taking any step for completing the sale, and for putting the plaintiff in possession of the property sold.2. There is nothing contained in the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884, which militates against a sale held Under Section 361 of that Act being completed under the law, and the possession of the property being given to the purchaser, from whom purchase money has been received by the Municipality. The sale not having been completed in the case before us, and possession not having been delivered, the plaintiff was entitled to get refund of the purchase money with damag...
Haris Chandra Choudhury Vs. Nishi Kanta Nandy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal292
1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, the appellant in this Court, instituted a suit which has been described by the trial Court as a suit for assessment of rent of the land in suit and for recovery of arrears of rent. The claim in the suit appears to be for rent at the rate to be fixed by the Court and there was a further claim made by plaintiff for recovery of the rent so assessed by the Court. The plaintiff, as the superior landlord, instituted a suit for rent of a tenure mentioned as howla against two persons Satinath and Kshitinath. A decree was passed against these two persons who are brothers. In execution of the decree so passed, the plaintiff himself purchased the howla; and according to the plaintiff the land in suit in respect of which rent was claimed appertained to a subordinate interest described as mirash, an interest subordinate to the howla, which was said to have been purchased by the plaintiff. If the decree in the suit for rent could be t...
Naresh Chandra Lahiri Vs. Jogesh Chandra Majumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal251
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtor from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Rangpur dated 11th March 1933 by which he refused to set aside the sale held in execution of a money decree on 11th August 1932. In order to understand the contention of the appellant who is aggrieved by the order of the Subordinate Judge refusing to set aside the sale a few facts need be stated. It appears that on 9th September 1932 the judgment-debtor made an application of setting aside of a sale in which he alleged several grounds of irregularity. The petition is to be found at p. 29 part 1 of the paper book. It is not necessary to refer to all the grounds of irregularity alleged. Before us Mr. Bose who appears for the appellant has confined his argument mainly to one irregularity. He has argued that the sale is bad because there has been no attachment of the properties directed to be sold and consequently the sale cannot stand. It appears that before the money decree was pass...
Nijibal Islam Molla Vs. Golam Afsar Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal277
1. The plaintiff in the suit, in which this appeal has arisen, prayed for khas possession of the lands in suit, appertaining to a tenancy held at one time by Gandhari Bewa, predecessor-in-interest of defendants 2 and 3. According to the plaintiff, the lands appertaining to the tenancy were sold in execution of a rent decree obtained by him, in which defendant 1 in the present suit was made a defendant, as a co-sharer landlord, with a view to the plaintiff's obtaining an effective rent decree, in execution of which the tenancy could be sold. Defendant 1, it appears, obtained a kabula from Gandhari Bewa, the tenant, before the tenancy was put to sale in execution of the decree for rent obtained by the plaintiff against Gandhari Bewa. It further appears that a suit brought by defendant 1 for a declaration that the sale in execution of the decree for rent obtained by the plaintiff was not binding on him was dismissed. Defendant 1, however, succeeded in getting possession of the lands in su...
Jafar Ali and ors. Vs. James Finlay and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal647
ORDER1. We are of opinion that the order of the Magistrate must be set aside. The complaint was not under any provisions of the Penal Code or of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complaint, such as it was, assuming that the word 'complaint' can rightfully be applied to the application made by the petitioners before the Magistrate, was under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1923. It had to be inquired into in accordance with the provisions of that Act and it cannot be dismissed in the way in which it has been done under the provisions of Section 203, Criminal P.C. That section is not attracted at all to the application or the disposal thereof. In that view of the matter the case will go back in order that the Magistrate may inquire into the matter himself under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act and pass such orders as he may be advised....
MafizuddIn Mandal Vs. RahimA. Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal104
ORDER1. In this case the petitioner has moved against a declaration made by the District Judge of Rangpur that the opposite party Rahima Bibi had repudiated her marriage with him on attaining puberty on the grounds: (1) That the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to make such a declaration inasmuch as the option of puberty is a civil right for which a suit should have been, brought in a proper Court against the decision of which first and second appeals would lie. (2) From the statements of the opposite party herself and her witnesses the learned Judge ought to have concluded that there had been no-repudiation of the marriage of Rahima with the petitioner according to the-provisions of Mahomedan law.2. As regards the second point the Judge has come to a finding on the evidence that the marriage which was contracted by the girl's paternal uncle was in fact repudiated by her on her attaining puberty. This is a finding with which one cannot interfere in revision Under Section 115,...
Narayan Chandra Dutt and ors. Vs. Sm. Bhuban Mohini Basu Mallik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal244
S.K. Ghose, J.1. For the sake of convenience the volumes of printed paper books in this appeal will be referred to as follows:Group I Part I ... Appeal from Original ... ... ... 'A'Group I Part II ... Decree No. 252 of 1929 ... ... ... 'B'Group I Appeal from Original Order No. 2 of 1923 ... ... ... '0'Part II Appeal from Original Decree No. 252 of 1929 ... ... ... 'D'2. The parties to this litigation derive their interest from one Narendra Kumar Dutt, now deceased. According to the genealogical table in the written statement at Order 81 which is not now in dispute the original defendant Narayan Chandra Dutt was the son of a cousin of Narendra's. The original plaintiff Bhubanmohini Basu Mallik was the daughter and only child left by Narendra. The latter who was a very wealthy man, executed an arpannama on 18th April 1893 by which he dedicated the Ka schedule properties to the worship of twelve siba idols and provided for a line of shebaits of which he himself was to be the first and his...
Kangal Chandra Mondal and ors. Vs. Nandalal Marwari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal465
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtors and is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Asansol dated 4th January 1932 by which he disallowed the objection of the appellants to the execution of a decree obtained against them by the respondents decree-holders. The relevant facts may be briefly stated. On 4th March 1921 Ramkumar Marwari and Durgadas Marwari, father of Nandalal Marwari, the minor respondent to the present appeal, obtained a decree against the appellants for a sum of Rs. 23,000.2. The decree was by consent and the decretal money was payable by certain instalments. On 7th January 1925 an application for execution of this decree was made and the said execution case was dismissed in part satisfaction on 25th May 1925 and the sum of Rupees 3,282-8-0 was realized. The present application for execution was made by the minor son of Durgadas Marwari through his mother and guardian Narbuddi Marwari for realization of the sum of Rs. 13,374-8-10 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›