Kolkata Court January 1934 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.
KasimuddIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal31
1. The three appellants before us have been convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Dinajpur of the offences under Sections 366 and 147, I.P.C., on the unanimous verdict of the jury and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 366 and two years under Section 147, the sentences to run concurrently. The case for the prosecution is that on 25th April 1933 the appellants entered the hut of a young widow Khadija, caught hold of her person, dragged her out of the hut, began to carry her away forcibly whereupon she began to scream, that on hearing her cries P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 came out and rescued her, after she was taken about two rashis from her house. The defence of the appellants is that they knew nothing of this occurrence, that the girl was married to the appellant Kasimuddin on 24th April 1933 and that on 26th April 1933, the prosecution witnesses assaulted Kasimuddin and drove him away.2. By Section 418(1), Criminal P.C., an appeal to this Court ag...
Prokash Chandra Sircar Vs. MohIn Chand Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1934
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.736
Mukerji, J.1. This Rule has been issued at the instance of a complainant who instituted a complaint under Section 408, Indian Penal Code. The Complaint related to. a sum of Rs. 1,033 and odd and purported to be against the accused as a Gomastha attached to the Sudder Kutcherry of the estate of Sri Sri Radha Madan Mohan Jew which is situated at No. 3, Gokul Mitter Lane, Calcutta. The complainant's case is that the accused as such Gomastha in the said estate was m charge of collection from tenants in various Mouzas in the District of Burdwan and that it was his duty to remit all realizations made by him and to render an account in respect of the same in the said Sudder Kutchery. The complaint was based on the allegation that there was no account rendered in respect of the amount in question. After summons was issued the accused appeared and the case came on before Mr. H. K. De, fourth Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. Mr. De heard both sides on the question of jurisdiction and came to the...
In Re.:national Carbon Co. Incorporated.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal725,152Ind.Cas.914
Panckridge, J.1. The circumstances in which this Rule has been issued upon the National Carbon Company, Incorporated, and upon the Controller of Patents are as follows:The National Carbon Company, Incorporated, carry on business in New York, where they manufacture and export dry cell batteries for flashlights and electric torches. They are the grantees of Indian Patent No. 17148 of 1930. In the specification, which was accepted on 8th December 1930, the invention is described as relating 'to dry cells and particularly to improved means of closing and sealing such cells.' I shall hereafter refer to the National Carbon Company, Incorporated, as 'the patentees.2. The Bright Star Battery Company are incorporated in the United States of America, and they also manufacture and export dry cell batteries for flashlights. They offer their goods for sale in India through Messrs. Brough & Co., a firm carrying on business in Bombay. In December 1931, the patentees instituted a suit on the original ...
Akshoy Chandra Bose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal532,151Ind.Cas.22
1. This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, The appellant, an attorney-at-law, a member of the firm of Messrs. N. C. Bose & Co., was tried for the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust as an attorney in respect of money entrusted to him. The prosecution was started on a petition of complaint filed by Mr. A. L. Collect, Registrar of this Court, in its Original Jurisdiction, in pursuance of a direction of a Special Bench of this Court, given under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, relating to an offence of the following description. That the accused had been paid the sum of Rs. 16,500 by Gouri Shankar Tiberwalla and Fulchand Tiberwalla, on September 30, 1932, for the purpose of depositing the same in Court, in connection with the sale of a house in Calcutta by the Registrar, in the Original Side, at which the aforesaid two persons were the purchasers. That the accused had failed to deposit the said sum of m...
Rai Kiran Chandra Roy and ors. Vs. Prosanna Kumar Chakravarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal561,150Ind.Cas.723
Mallik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of some lands, about 150 bighas in area, on a declaration of title thereto. The allegations on which the suit was instituted were briefly these. The lands in suit were re-formations in situ of some lands in the plaintiff's state Towji No. 178 of the Jessore Collectorate in villages Sripur and Britti Bardaha which were on the left bank of the river Kumar, the village Fulbari being on the right bank thereof. A diluvion on the left bank of the river began in the year 1893 and the river Kumar began to wash away the lands in Sripur and Britti Bardaha. The diluvion continued till the lands diluviated began to reform on the other side of the river Kumar in 1904 and the lands in suit which were re-formed lands of the plaintiff's estate became fit for cultivation in 1915-16, In 1918 the plaintiffs settled tenants on the lands and these lands were in the possession of the tenants until they were dispossessed by the defendan...
S.M. Bose and ors. Vs. Hafiz Md. Fateh Nasib and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal623
Mallik, J.1. This rule is directed against an order dated 8th August 1933 made by the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court Alipur, setting aside an order rejecting a plaint on 17th January 1933. What happened in the case was this. One Hafiz Mahommed Fateh Nasim instituted a suit (being Title Suit No. 144 of 1931) in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge, Alipur, against the petitioners for declaration of his title to and for recovery of posses, sion of some lands valuing the property at Rs. 2,000 only and paying court-fees on that valuation. A written statement was filed in which the correctness of the valuation of the suit was questioned the property being alleged to be worth more than one lac of rupees. On 27th July 1932 the plaintiffs admitted the value of the property to be one lac of rupees and prayed for being allowed to continue the suit in forma pauperis. On 11th November 1932 the plaintiffs' petition to continue the suit in forma pauperis was dismissed for default. Fourte...
Brahmanbaria Loan Co., Ltd. Vs. in Re
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal624
ORDERBuckland, J.1. This is an application, made Under Section 76, Companies Act, 1913, for an order that the Court do direct the calling of a general meeting of the company. The grounds for the application are a petition verified by the affidavit of Gobindalal Datta, who is described as a member of the board of directors of the company. In his petition, he states that the last balance-sheet of the company up to 31st March 1932, was adopted at its general meeting held on 30th September in the same year. That, it appears, is the date when the last general meeting of the company was held. The section provides that a general meeting of every company shall be held once at the least in every year, and not more than 15 months after the holding of the last preceding general meeting.2. In the event of default, the company and every officer of the company, who is knowingly a party to the default, is liable to a fine. It is clear that the section has not been complied with, as more than 15 month...
Surendrakumar Chaudhury and ors. Vs. Gangachandra Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal627,152Ind.Cas.130
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of a 9 annas share into shikmi taluks described in the schedule to the plaint. The plaintiffs' case was that, in 1906, Hridaytara, from whom the plaintiffs purchased the property in suit, was a young widow and Ganga-sundari was her deceased husband's aunt and had been appointed her guardian by the District Judge under the Guardians and Wards Act; that, in that year, 1906, Gangasundari purchased the property in suit in her own name but the plaintiffs' case is that the purchase? was made in benami for Hridaytara with Hridaytara's money; that, further, in 1912, when Gangasundari was leaving the place and was going a way to Benares, she transferred the property to her son-in-law, defendant 1, and that, since then, defendant 1 really held, the property in trust for Hridaytara. But, in the year before the suit, which was instituted in 1928, defendant 1 denied the title of Hri...
Dindayal Shah Vs. Hara Prasad Jadav Chand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal780,153Ind.Cas.160
ORDER1. The petitioner who is the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of rent from one Narottam Lal and he applied to the Court for attachment before judgment of some moveable properties lying on the premises of Narottam. The Nazir of the Court went to the place and although the order of the Court was to attach the moveables that would be found there he wanted to take away the things, whereupon Harprasad Agarwalla, the opposite party who, I may mention here, is a brother of Narottam, paid down the entire amount claimed by the plaintiff against Narottam under protest claming the properties which were sought to be taken away by the Nazir as his and thereby saved the properties from being removed from the place. Thereafter Haraprasad applied to the Court for the refund of the money which had been paid by him and the learned Munsif allowed his prayer and directed a refund. It is against this order of the Munsif that the present Rule is directed.2. We do not think that this is a fit ca...
Keshardeo Goenka and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal387
ORDER1. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the owners of a colliery. They appointed one P. N. Ghose as the Manager of the Colliery in August 1932, but the appointment was rejected by the Chief Inspector of Mines on 16th September 1932 as Ghose was already Manager of another Colliery. The said two petitioners were therefore tried on the allegation that in spite of this rejection they allowed Ghose to continue as Manager of their Colliery from 16th to 30th September 1932.2. On 1st October 1932 petitioners 1 and 2 informed the Chief Inspector of Mines that they had appointed their Assistant Manager, petitioner 3, to act as Manager of their Colliery for one month from 1st October 1932, as a temporary Manager in a case of emergency. During the course of that month the Chief Inspector of Mines drew the attention of the first two petitioners to the fact that as Mukherji, the third petitioner, had already been appointed a temporary manager after the resignation of the last incumbent in July, he could not...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »