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.
Nayeb Shahana and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal636,152Ind.Cas.44
1. The eight appellants before us were tried by the Sessions Judge of Burdwan with the aid of a jury on a charge Under Section 302/120-B, I.P. C., i.e., conspiracy to murder, and were convicted on the majority verdict of the jury and sentenced to transportation for life. The case for the prosecution is that there was a conspiracy to murder one Dr. Akhtar Ali, in pursuance of which he was murdered by some men while he was returning home on the evening of 29th March 1932, and that the appellants were some of those conspirators. The appellants' defence was that they were not in the conspiracy and that they knew nothing of the conspiracy.2. The first ground urged in support of the appeal is that the trial has been vitiated by the non-compliance with the imperative provisions of Section 356, Criminal P.C. It appears that in this case the evidence was not taken down in writing by the Judge himself. It appears further that the learned Judge did not make a memorandum of the substance of what t...
Ganesh Chandra Khan Vs. Lalit Mohan Nayak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal513
1. This Rule is directed against an order which was originally made on 7th December 1933, and thereafter affirmed on 20th December 1933, by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. The order purports to have been made Under Section 144, Criminal P.C.2. The facts necessary to be stated are very few. The petitioner is erecting a building on plot No. 73-A, Bagbazar Street. His own house stands at a distance of about 10 feet from the place where the foundation is being constructed. The opposite party appears to have got a house which stands at a distance of about 20 feet from this place. The petitioner is driving piles into the soil apparently for the purpose of strengthening the foundation of his building. The opposite party thereupon applied to the Magistrate stating that the petitioner had started, to sink big wooden pins for laying the foundation without having taken proper precautions and that the result had been that on account of the jerk and impact due to the driving o...
Niladri Nath Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Madan theatres Ltd., and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal671,155Ind.Cas.867
Roy, J.1. This is another suit by the three grandsons of Rai Bahadur Bankim Chandra Chatterjee who were the plaintiffs in Suit No. 2400 of 1930, Niladri Nath Mukherjee v. Satish Chandra Mukherjee AIR 1931 Cal 668, for the recovery of damages for infringement of copyright. The facts are not in dispute. Counsel for the plaintiffs handed in to me a chronological list of events which was admitted by counsel for the defendants and which I have directed should be kept on the file. The issues submitted in this suit were practically the same as in suit No. 2400 of 1930 and were the following:2. (1) Have the plaintiffs any interest in the copyright in any of the books mentioned in the plaint? (2)Has the defendant company infringed the plaintiffs copyright as alleged in para. 5 of the plaint? (3) Is the suit barred by limitation? (4). What reliefs, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled to? (5). Is the suit maintainable having regard to the fact that the plaintiffs do not claim any right or declara...
Niladri Nath Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Satis Chandra Mukherjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal668,152Ind.Cas.835
Roy, J.1. The plaintiffs are grandsons of the late Rai Bahadur Bankim Chandra Chatterjee the well-known Bengali author and novelist, being the sons of his daughter Sreemati Nilabja Kumari Debi who died sometime in November 1910. The second defendant is the sole surviving son of another daughter of the late Rai Bahadur, Sreemati Sarat Kumari Debi who died on 17th December 1927. The first defendant is the proprietor of the Basumati and the Basumati Press and carried on business as a book seller and publisher in Calcutta. The plaintiffs claim that they along with the second defendant became the owners of the copyright in certain books of the late Rai Bahadur Bankim Chandra Chatterjee on the death of Sarat Kumari Debi and they complain in this suit of an infringement of their copyright by the first defendant on and from 23rd December 1927. The only allegation made against the second defendant in the plaint upon which it might band suggested some relief could be claimed against the second d...
Administrator General Vs. Lalbihari Dhar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal629,152Ind.Cas.710
Panckridge, J.1. This originating summons is concerned with the legality of certain dispositions in the will, dated 18th November 1923, of Lakshminarayan Dhar, who died on 26th March 1927. The testator left three sons, Ramchandra, Kartik, and Ganesh. Ramchandra and Kartik were appointed executors by the will. Kartik died before probate was obtained, and probate was granted on 13th March 1928, to the surviving executor Ramchandra, Ramchandra died on 17th October 1928, and on 25th April 1929, letters of administration deonis non were granted to the Administrator-General of Bengal. By Clauses 9 and 10 of the will, a religious endowment was created, and by 01. 11 of the will the following provisions were made for the devolution of the shebaitship:I appoint my sons Kartikachandra Dhar and Ramchandra Dhar to be the shebaits of the said Thakurs and I direct that, upon the death, retirement or refusal to act of any of them or any of the future shebaits, the then next eldest male lineal descend...
Kusha Mondal and ors. Vs. Emperer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal545
1. We are of opinion that this Rule should be made absolute. It appears that the order which the learned Deputy Magistrate made on 5th July 1933 was an order intended to be made Under Section 139-A, Sub-section (2) of the Code. This provision of the law has been expressly referred to by the learned Magistrate in his said order. Now, what happened was that on notice being served upon the petitioners, they denied that the alleged pathway was a public one and produced some evidence in support of such denial and the learned Magistrate, referring to that evidence and also to the evidence of the party who had moved the Court for proceedings Under Section 133 of the Code, came to the conclusion that it was not sufficiently established that there was a public pathway with regard to which proceedings Under Section 133 of the Code were necessary. He then passed an order in the following terms:The witnesses of the second party stated that there was no such public path there and that the villagers...
Sarat Chandra Dhupi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal719
Costello, J.1. The appellant Sarat Chandra Dhupi, otherwise known as Das, was convicted by a Special Tribunal at Mymensingh for an offence Under Section 396, I. P. C, and was sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. He was originally charged along with several other persons who were subsequentlyacquitted by the tribunal on the ground that there was no satisfactory and independent evidence to corroborate that given by the approver in the case. The judgment which we have now to consider deals only with the case of Sarat Chandra Dhupi, the present appellant. The only question in this appeal is whether or not the evidence of the approver ought to be accepted. He narrated a circumstantial and detailed story of an occurrence which took place on the night of Sunday, 5th June 1932. Put shortly, the story was that he was fetched from the place where he lived by Sarat Chandra Dhupi and taken to a spot where other men to the number of twelve or fourteen were assembled together armed with gu...
iswar Chandra Pal and ors. Vs. KabiruddIn Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal322,150Ind.Cas.77
Mallik, J.1. The facts which gave rise to the present litigation were briefly these: The plaintiffs who may be described as the Pals and two brothers Mahim Ghatak and Ramesh Ghatak and one Radharaman all got decrees against one Izzat Bux and when in an execution proceeding the property in suit which belonged to Izzat was put up to sale it was purchased in the name of Ramesh and Mahim alone in pursuance of an agreement that the property would belong to Mahim and Ramesh in 8 annas and to the Pals and Radharaman in 8 annas Mahim getting a 4 annas share, Ramesh another 4 annas share, the Pals 2/3rds of 8 annas and Radharaman l/3rd of 8 annas the parties having contributed in these shares to the fund with which the property was purchased at the sale. This took place in the year 1915 and the parties were put in joint possession of the property in 1918. Thereafter Ramesh sold three-fourths of his share in the property to defendants 1 to 7 in the name of defendant 9 and one-fourth share to def...
Jagadeshchandra Banerji and ors. Vs. Taiyab Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal644
Mitter, J.1. The action, out of which this appeal has arisen, was an action for partition of a certain shikmi taluk, which formed the estate of one Bochai Sardar, after whom the taluk was named. There were several defendants to the suit. The plaintiff, Sheik Taiyab Sardar, claimed 5 gandas 2 karhas 1 krant and 10 tils share in the taluk. According to the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 5, who are the appellants before us, namely the Banerjis of Muraparha, have only a six annas share of the taluk. According to the plaintiff, defendants 6 to 9 have got 19 gandas 3 karhas 7 tils share in the taluk. Defendants 10 and 11, according to the plaintiff's case, have got 3 gandas and 1 krant share and defendants 12 to 33 have got 8 annas 10 gandas 2 karhas 3 tils and the plaintiff himself has got 5 gandas 2 karhas 1 krant 10 tils share in the said taluk. The Subordinate Judge has granted a preliminary decree for partition and has directed a commissioner to make the allotments according to the respecti...
Ram Lal Ghose and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal717,152Ind.Cas.681
1. This is an appeal by nine persons who were convicted by the Sessions Judge of Faridpur, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, some of them Under Section 397 read with Section 395, and others Under Section 395, I.P.C. The jury before whom the trial was held were unanimous in their opinion that the appellants were guilty of the offences under the provisions of the law mentioned above. Two of the appellants were convicted Under Sections 397/395, I. P. C, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years each; the other seven were convicted Under Section 395, I. P. C., and sentenced to six years' rigorous imprisonment each. In support of the case for the prosecution, evidence was given in Court, which consisted mainly of oral evidence. In addition to the oral evidence, there were certain finds, in the shape of ornaments and other things which were removed by the dacoits as their booty, and there was also a confession by one of the accused persons, Ismail Sheikh, w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »