Kolkata Court February 1934 Judgments
Debendra Chandra Sarkar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal458
ORDER1. There are several reasons why we felt that we shall not be justified in interfering with the verdict of the majority of the jury in this case. In the first place, there appear to have been three persons, named Kandu, Gopal and Shib Charan, who were named as witnesses in the first information but they have not been called. No explanation worth the name has been given for the omission to call them ; the suggestion put forward by the prosecution being that they may have been gained over, but there is nothing on which such a suggestion could be supported. In a case like this, where the important witnesses examined are tenants either exclusively or, at any rate, partly of landlord interested in the prosecution, such an omission must necessarily tell very heavily on the prosecution case. Secondly a written Ejahar was produced at the Thana, the prosecution case being that it was written out, because the Police Officer concerned asked for a written Ejahar. The Police Officer has denied...
Tag this Judgment!Prosannadeb Raikat Vs. Purna Chandra Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal674,152Ind.Cas.753
Mukerji, J.1. In the suit which has given rise to this reference the plaintiff, the proprietor, prayed for enhancement of the rent of the defendants who are tenure-holders. The existing rent of the tenure was Rs. 32-14-0 as per year, and the prayer was to enhance it to rupees 2,000 a year. There was no prayer for recovery of rent for any period. The two rival contentions urged before me are as follows:2. On behalf of the Government it has been contended that the case comes Under Section 7(2), Court-fees Act, 1870; while it has been urged on behalf of the plaintiff, now appellant, that the computation should be as Under Section 7(11)(b) of the Act. The report of the Stamp Reporter was in these words:In such cases court-fees are payable Under Section 7, para. (1) as in the case of claims for money. The plaintiff having claimed rent at this rate can be said to be claiming that amount of money. If it be said that the rent is a periodical payment then it would come Under Section 7, para, (2...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Karim Vs. Eastern Bengal Ry.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal460
Buckland, Ag. C. J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Mr. Blank, Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bengal, dated 28th September 1931, on an application under Section 22, Workmen's Compensation Act, preferred by the appellant Abdul Karim. Upon the application there are endorsed by the Commissioner, first a note in which he writes 'where is the reasonable cause from 11th March till date' and below his order: 'Pleader states he has no further cause to show. Claim dismissed as not maintainable under Section 10(1) of the Act,' both dated 28th September 1931. The question to be decided is whether or not the application was barred by limitation which appears to have been the view which the Commissioner took under the section specified by him. Section 10(1) of the Act is as follows:No proceedings for the recovery of compensation shall be maintainable before a commissioner unless ...... the claim for compensation with respect to such an accident has been instituted within six mont...
Tag this Judgment!Radhasyam Dutta Vs. Ananga Munjari Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal626
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is a reference made Under Order 46, Rule 7, Civil P.C, by the learned District Judge of Birbhum. It refers to a suit filed before the Sadar Munsif of Suri. It appears that certain patnidars had filed a rent suit and got a decree against the plaintiff and his brothers as well as . others. The plaintiff's contention in the present suit is that he had no possession in any of the lands of the jote in question, because he and his brothers had separated a year before the period for which the rent was claimed and the joint properties had been divided, as a result of which the plaintiff ceased to have any interest in the jote and his brothers were liable for the entire rent. The patnidars however executed the rent decree against the plaintiff and as they were about to attach his moveable properties, he had perforce to satisfy the decree. Accordingly he has brought this suit for reimbursement of the amount with costs which he had to pay in respect of the patnidar's decr...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Saday Saha Vs. Mahendra NaraIn Raj
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal267,155Ind.Cas.702
Lort-Williams, J.1. This appeal arises out of a title suit brought by the plaintiff appellant after his Miscellaneous Case under Order 21, Rule 97, Civil P.C., was dismissed. The only point raised before us is upon the question of limitation. The petition under Order 21 was filed on 14th May 1925. On 15th August 1925 the order-sheet shows that the opposite party was ready, but the petitioner prayed for time to produce evidence and one Sheikh Habib, a civil Court peon, was examined on behalf of the opposite party and discharged. The case was then adjourned until 5th September for hearing. On 5th September the opposite party was ready, but the petitioner again prayed for time to produce evidence and it was ordered that the case be put up on 12th September for hearing. On 12th September the order-sheet reads as follows:The petition of the auction purchaser as regards Lot No. 15 is not opposed. A.P. adduces no evidence as regards Lot No. 17 claimed by the C.P. Mahendra N. Raj. Ordered the ...
Tag this Judgment!Makhanlal Basak Vs. Bashudharanjan Das Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal721,152Ind.Cas.33
Mallik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,099 as damages. The facts, which gave rise to the present litigation, were these. The plaintiff and defendant 1 are both contractors under the Dacca Municipality and both got contracts for the supply of alum to that Municipality. Defendant 1 went to Calcutta and entered in to a contract with defendant 2 for the supply of alum, which defendant 1 had contracted with the Municipality to supply. The plaintiff, on finding out that defendant 2's rate was fair, asked defendant 1 to place an order with defendant 2 on his (plaintiff's) behalf. Defendant 1 however instead of placing the order in the name of the plaintiff, took a contract in his own name, although the plaintiff paid in two instalments a sum of Rs. 500 which had to be paid in advance. Subsequently, when the plaintiff went to Calcutta to take delivery of the goods from defendant 2, defendant 2 refused to recognise him and refused to supply him the goods in question...
Tag this Judgment!Susil Chunder Neogy and ors. Vs. Birendrajit Shah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal837,153Ind.Cas.673
Buckland, J.1. This is a suit for ejectment. On 24th September 1932 plaintiff gave notice in writing to the defendant to quit and vacate the premises in, suit by 31st October 1932. The premises had been let to the defendant for a term of three years from 1st April 1918. According to the decision of the Judicial Committee in Benoy Krishna Das v. Salsiccioni, 1932 PC 279 the tenancy expired at midnight on 1st April 1921. The defendants held over as monthly tenants. Holding over as monthly tenants each month of their tenancy expired at midnight on the 1st of the succeeding month. Consequently a notice to quit expiring with the last day of a month is a bad notice. In these circumstances there is no necessity to consider the form of the notice or the other defence taken whether payment under the order of 6th December last of Rs. 330-8-3 month by month amounted to a waiver. But, quite shortly, though without deciding the case on those grounds, I should say that the notice to quit was good ac...
Tag this Judgment!Narayangunj Central Co-operative Sale and Supply Society Ltd. Vs. Mafi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal448
Mukerji, J.1. The two revision cases in connexion with which this reference has been made have arisen out of a suit, the facts of which, so far as they are necessary at the present stage, are the following: On the .10th January ' 1930, the Narayangunj Central Co-operative Sale and Supply Society Ltd., obtained an arbitration award under the provisions of Act 2 of 1912 against two persons, Moulvi Mafizuddin Ahmed and Jowad Ali Khondkar. The award was for an amount of Rs. 11,400. The company went into liquidation, and thereafter the award was put into execution. After failing in certain objections that were taken to the execution of the award, the former of the said defendants brought a suit in the Munsif's Court at Narayangunj to set aside the award on a declaration that it had been fraudulently obtained and also praying for a permanent injnuction to restrain the liquidator from proceeding with the execution. He valued the suit at Rs. 49 and paid court-fees on the plaint according to su...
Tag this Judgment!AmIn Shariff Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal580,150Ind.Cas.561
Mukerji, J.1. On receipt of some information an Excise Inspector with a raiding party went to a certain place and on making a search there seized a bundle which was found to contain seven seers of opium valued at Rs. 1,050. He arrested three persons one of whom was one Amin Shariff (appellant in appeal No. 262), and another, one Jahabir Singh (Appellant in appeal No. 379), both of whom have been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta under Section 9, Opium Act (l of 1878). These two men are said to have made confessions to the Excise Inspector. At the hearing of the appeals which the accused persons have preferred to this Court, a question having arisen as to whether the said confessions are admissible in law, in view of the provisions of Section 25, Evidence Act, the Division Bench which was dealing with the appeals, has made this reference.2. The question referred runs in these words:Is an Excise officer, who, in the conduct of investigation of an offence against th...
Tag this Judgment!Bagala Sundari Devi Vs. Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal640
Mallik, J.1. The petitioner Bagala Sundari Devi filed an application on 16th January 1933 for permission to sue as a pauper. In the application which she filed were given particulars that are required with regard to a plaint in a suit and the petition was duly signed and verified according to the prescribed rules and to the application was also attached a schedule wherein some moveable properties were mentioned with an estimated value thereof. This application of Bagala Sundari was opposed. 'When the matter was taken up for hearing on 26th June 1933 it was disclosed from the cross-examination of a witness examined on the side of Bagala that Bagala had inherited some property from a deceased son of hers, Thereupon within a couple of days, namely, on 28th June 1933 Bagala applied to have her application amended by including the property which had just been disclosed as having been inherited by her in the schedule which had been attached to her original application for permission to sue a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »