Kolkata Court August 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.
Kali Charan Haldar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal835,145Ind.Cas.863
Lort-Williams, J.1. The appellant Kali Charan Haldar was tried with one Afazuddin Sheikh by the Additional Sessions Judge at Malda and a jury of nine, charged with an offence under Section 396, I.P.C. The jury found the appellant guilty' unanimously. By a majority they found Afazuddin 'not guilty.' Thereupon the Judge acquitted Afazuddin, accepting the verdict of the jury and sentenced the appellant to death, saying that he had admitted several previous convictions in dacoity cases, that he was a hardened criminal, obviously dangerous, that he should be removed from further possibility of harming society and that he had withdrawn from his confessional statement which might have been regarded as a sign of grace. The appellant had no pleader to defend him and, therefore he was defended by a pleader appointed by Government.2. The facts cut of which this case arose are shortly as follows: On 2nd April 1932, there was a dacoity in the house of a man named Kristo Mandal. He and his son were ...
Sachai Gopinath Harish Chandra Bhagaban Chandra Saha Vs. Firm Kukari P ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal477,152Ind.Cas.219
Jack, J.1. This Rule has been issued on the decree-holder opposite party, a firm to show cause why an order of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Tipperah, holding that the petitioner-firm had no locus standi under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C., to apply for setting aside a sale inasmuch as they were not persons affected by the sale, should not be set aside.2. The petitioner-firm attached before judgment, the property in question on 20th December 1930. The sale took place on 24th March 1931. Subsequently the petitioners obtained a decree on 29th September 1931, and made the application under Order 21, Rule 90 for setting aside the sale on 10th February 1932. The only question to be decided in this Rule is whether in the circumstances the petitioners are 'persons affected by the sale' so as to be entitled to apply under Order 21, Rule 90. The petitioners rely on the widest interpretation of the words of Rule 90 pointing out that the wording of the old section has been changed. The cor...
In Re: Burn and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal515,150Ind.Cas.404
Costello, J.1. This matter came before us on a case stated by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, Under Section 66(2) Income-tax Act (11 of 1922). The assessments, out of which the questions at issue arise, are assessments of the years 1928-1929 and 1929-1930, said to have been made Under Section 34 of the Act on 19th February 1932. It is necessary to relate at some length the history of the matter, in order that it may be clear how the points, which we have to determine, have arisen. Down to the year 1927-1928, assessment was made on a firm named Messrs. Martin and Co., and upon the present applicants, Messrs. Burn and Co. as separate assesses, but in that year, when it came to the notice of the Income-tax Officer that Messrs Martin and Co. had apparently acquired by purchase the firm of Messrs. Burn and Co. the Income-tax Officer proceeded to make an assessment on Messrs. Martin and Co. on the total income of both these firms jointly. Messrs. Martin and Co., made an objection to ...
In the Matter of Messrs. Burn and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1933
Reported in: [1934]2ITR30(Cal)
- This matter came before us on a case stated by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal, under Section 66 (2) of the Income Tax Act (Act XI of 1922). The assessments out of which the questions at issue arise are assessments of the years 1928-29 and 1929-30 said to have been made under Section 34 of the Act on the 19th February, 1932. It is necessary to relate at some length the history of the matter in order that it may be clear how the points which have to determine have arisen. Down to the year 1927-28 assessment was made on a firm named Messrs.. Martin & Company, and upon the present applicants, Messrs. Burn & Company as separate assessees but in that year when it came to the notice of the Income Tax Officer that Messrs. Martin & Company, had apparently acquired by purchase the firm of Messrs. Burn & Company the Income Tax Officer proceeded to make an assessment on Messrs. Martin & Company, on the total income of both these firms jointly. Messrs. Martin & Company, made an objection...
Beer Bikramkishore Manikya Vs. Sonamani Sharma
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal530
1. These are appeals by the plaintiff in suits for ejectment on the ground that the defendants had not satisfied the previous decrees for rent for the period from 1332 to 1334 B.S., and also on the ground that rent for year 1336 B. S. had not been paid. It appears that the plaintiff in the suits obtained decrees for rent against the defendants for the years 1332 to 1335 B. S., and in the decrees passed in favour of the plaintiff it was mentioned that the defendants could avoid ejectment, if they' paid the plaintiff his dues for 1335 B.S. within the time mentioned in the decrees. The dues for the year 1335 B.S. were paid up within the time specified, but there was subsequent non-payment of rent by the defendants in the year 1336 B. S., and the dues on account of the years 1332 to 1334 were also not paid. In the suits, out of which these appeals have arisen, the plaintiff prayed for eviction of the defendants on account of non-payment of rent for the year 1336 as also for non-satisfactio...
Annadaprosad Adak Vs. Mihilal Adak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal650,152Ind.Cas.518
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 7 in a suit for declaration of the title of an idol Sridhar Jiu Bistu Thakur and for recovery and confirmation of possession. The suit was instituted by one of the Shebaits making the other Shebaits party defendants. The facts are not disputed. The property in suit is part of an ancient de-butter property of the idol. Umesh Chandra Adak, one of the Shebaits, in 1921, made a gift of his Shabayati rights to defendant 1, who in 1924 transferred the same to defendant 7. The present suit was instituted in 1928. The learned Advocate for the appellant urges that (1) the Court below has not decided what kind of debutter the property in question is whether it is an absolute debutter or whether it is less complete debutter, and that (2) assuming that the property to be debutter, whether the transfer in this case was valid. Now on question of the kind of dedication to an idol the learned Advocate has quoted the case of Jagadindra Nath Roy v. Hemanta...
Sheikh Fakir and ors. Vs. Moslem Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1935Cal253,155Ind.Cas.719
Jack, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of plaintiffs right to irrigate their lands ka (1) and ka (2) of the plaint, from the tank described in Sch. kha, by easement and prescription and as an ancient grant and also for an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting obstruction and further for compensation for loss caused by the defendants not allowing the plaintiffs to irrigate their lands from the tank. The trial Court decreed the suit in part against the contesting defendants 1 to 3 and ex parte against the rest, allowing the plaintiff to irrigate ka (2) land from the tank. This appeal is by the defendants as regards ka (1) land for which also the plaintiffs suit was decreed by the Court of appeal below. The lower appellate Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to irrigate the land ka (1) in consequence of a grant from the landlord to be inferred from immemorial user, the finding being that the land ka (1) is being irrigated from ...
Major Robert Stuart Wauchope Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal800
Lort-Williams, J.1. The appellant, Major Robert Stuart Wauchope, O.B.E., Indian Army, has bean convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of criminal breach of trust under Section 409, I.P.C., in respect of two sums of Rs. 1,500 each alleged to have been received by him on 4th March and 1st July 1929, respectively, from the Government of the Nizam of Hyderabad, in his official capacity as officer in charge of No 6 Survey Party of the Government of India, with headquarters at Bangalore and field headquarters at Secunderabad, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 on each of two counts, the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.2. The appellant is the son of the late Col. Wauchope, C.B., C.M.G., C.I.E., of the Survey of India, and is an officer of 27 years' standing. He joined the army in 1906, and was appointed to the Survey of India in 1910. Between 1914 and 1921 he was again employed on military duty, during which period he was appointed Assistant ...
Habibulla Gazi Vs. Ananda Charan Kajuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal269
1. S. A. No. 1883 to 1888-The plaintiffs in the suits out of which these appeals have arisen, prayed for khas possession of the lands in suit, on declaration of their title to the same. Halves of the lands cover the subject-matter of the suit in which Second Appeals Nos. 1884, 1885 and 1887 have arisen while the other halves were covered by suits giving rise to Second Appeals Nos. 1883, 1886 and 1888. The claims made by the plaintiffs in the suits were resisted by the contesting defendants, whose case was that the plaintiffs were not entitled to get khas possession of the lands in suit. According; to the defendants the decrees in execution of which the lands in suit were purchased by the plaintiffs were not rent decrees, and the sales held in execution of those decrees were not rent sales, and did not pass the tenures to which the lands in suit appertained. The defendants further contended that they had protected interests in the lands in suit, and their interests were not affected by ...
Sakti Saran Sinha and ors. Vs. Radha Raman Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal396
1. This rule is directed against an order of the Munsif of Sadar Court, Suri, dated 25th January 1933. The present applicants made an application to have that order reviewed by the learned Munsif himself, but on 29th April 1933 that application was rejected. The order complained of was made in connection with an application on the part of the present petitioners Under Section 26-J, Ben. Ten. Act. As the learned Munsif has put it the application was assailed by the other side on two grounds: first because it was not brought within two months of the date of service of the notice; and secondly, because the holding to which the notice referred was in fact a Mokarari holding and recorded as such in the Cadastral Survey Khatian.2. It appears that the holding in question consisted of some 11 bighas. Of these 11 bighas 7 were sold by the opposite parties 3 and 4 to the father of the opposite parties 1 and 2. The transferors purported to transfer a holding which was Mokarari. Notice of that tra...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »