Kolkata Court February 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.
In Re: S.M. Khatumennessa Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal659,153Ind.Cas.201
Mitter, J.1. This matter comes before us for consideration as to whether in the exercise of our discretion Under Section 149, Civil P.C., we should allow the appellant to put in the deficit court-fees. It appears that the appeal was filed with a court-fee of Rs. 2 only, whereas the court-fee payable is a much larger sum of Rs. 975, according to the Stamp Reporter's report. The ground as to why the appeal was filed with an extremely inadequate court-fee of Rs. 2 only, is set out in para. 5 of the petition of the appellant. It states that the said appeal was filed on affixing a court-fee of Rs. 2 only as the petitioner could not, in spite of all her attempts, raise money to pay for the full court-fee, inasmuch as almost all her landed properties were covered by the mortgage decree, and that she had no other means left to meet the same. In other words the petitioner pleaded poverty and her inability on that ground to pay the court-fees on the day the memorandum of appeal was presented. It...
Bagala Sundari Devi Vs. River Steam Navigation Co., Ltd., and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1934
Reported in: 151Ind.Cas.635
Mallik, J.1. The petitioner Bagala Sundari Devi filed an application on January 16, 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 June 26, 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 June 28, 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...
Akhoy Chand Begwani Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal409
Mukerji. J.1. The petitioner, Akhoy Chand Begwani and his partners were adjudged insolvents by the District Judge on 26th September 1931, on the application of a creditor, and their properties vested in a Receiver appointed by him. On 2lst March 1932 they were ordered by the learned Judge to file the books of account of their businesses at Sherpur and Jhinai-gati but they failed to do so. On 25th April 1932, the learned Judge examined the petitioner and on the next day laid a complaint for his prosecution under Section 69 (a), Provincial Insolvency Act. On this complaint the petitioner was tried by a Deputy Magistrate who convicted him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. He preferred an appeal which was heard and dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge who held that the petitioner was liable not only under Clause (a) but also under Clause (b), Section 69 of the said Act. The charge on which the petitioner was tried was in these words:That you, on or ab...
Bibhuti Bhusan Adhikary Vs. Khem Chand Churoria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal457
Mukerji, J.1. In the case of Raghoobuns Sahay v. Kokil Singh (1890) 17 Cal 872, it was pointed out that the word 'Court' as used in Section 195, Criminal P. C' has a wider meaning than 'Court of Justice' as defined in the Penal Code, and that, as therein used, it would include a tribunal empowered to deal with a particular matter and authorised to receive evidence bearing on that matter. The summary investigation which a Collector holds under Section 14, Putni Regulation (8 of 1819) and in the present case that is the investigation that was held by the Officer concerned, is one in the course of which proofs can be called for and as the result of which an award may be made. The Collector holding the investigation therefore was a tribunal which would come within the meaning of the word 'Court' as explained in the aforesaid case. That being the position, we think the ground on which this reference has been made is well founded, and the complaint under Section 193, I. P. C, against the pet...
Tarak Gobinda Choudhury Vs. Tara Gobinda Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal566
Lort. Williams, J.1. This is a reference purporting to be Under Order 46, Rule 1, Civil P. C. That order provides that where, before or on the hearing of a suit or an appeal in which the decree is not subject to appeal any question of law arises on which doubt is entertained, a Court may draw up a statement of facts on any point of doubt arising and refer it for decision to the High Court. This reference arises out of an application Under Section 93, Ben. Ten. Act, for appointment of a common manager. Although it is true, as the learned Judge states in his letter of reference, that the Civil Procedure Code applies to proceedings Under Section 93, Ben. Ten. Act, yet it is clear that the proceedings under that section do no amount to a suit, but are in the nature of an application, as has been pointed out by the learned advocate. In every suit there must be a plaint and there must be a decree, and both these are absent in an application Under Section 93, Ben. Ten. Act. It is clear theref...
Basudeb Maity Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal763,152Ind.Cas.341
ORDERMallik, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order by which the petitioner who had executed a surety bond has been held to have forfeited it. What happened in the case was this. One Bhagbat Bhanja was a man against whom proceedings under Section 110, Criminal P. C, had been started. The hearing of the case was fixed for 8th, 9th and 10th August 1933 at Khakurda camp and the petitioner Basudeb Maity, a muktear stood surety for the appearance of Bhagbat Bhanja on those three days at Khakurda camp and executed a bond to that effect. On 7th August 1933, there was an application made before the Magistrate alleging that Bhagbat Bhanja had fallen ill whereupon the learned Magistrate adjourned the hearing of the case to 5th and 6th September. Two days later, namely on 9th August the Court officer informed the Magistrate that Bhagbat had absconded whereupon the Magistrate directed the petitioner Basudeb to produce Bhagbat on 15th August 1933. The petitioner appeared before the Magistrate ...
Nagen Kundu and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal428
1. The appellants were tried for having committed an offence under Section 395, I. P. C., by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Khulna, and a jury twice, and at the second trial were, on the unanimous verdict of the jury, recorded by the Judge on 27th July 1933, convicted and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment each. At the first trial, at which the jurors empanelled unanimously brought in a verdict of not guilty, on 30th June 1933; after the verdict was recorded by the Judge, the Public Prosecutor filed a petition stating that after the charge to the jury, when the jury retired for deliberation for their verdict, one of the jurors had without leave of the Court separated from the rest of the jury, and went to say his Jumma prayer, and was away from the retiring room of the jurors for about an hour, and the Public Prosecutor urged that the trial was vitiated on account of the same. The Judge recorded in the order sheet that the juror in question was especially enjoined by...
Abdul Aziz and ors. Vs. Rahimullah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal667,152Ind.Cas.167
Mallik, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order made by the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Chittagong, exercising Small Cause Court powers whereby the petitioners' suit for contribution was dismissed. The facts on which the petitioners brought the suit were briefly these: The petitioners had a raiyati holding at a fixed rate in a tenure of the principal defendants. In execution of a rent decree obtained by the superior landlord against the principal defendants the tenure was put up to sale and was sold. The petitioners who as stated before had a raiyati holding at a fixed rate in the tenure deposited the decretal money plus 5 par cent of that amount and thereby had the sale set aside. On these facts the plaintiffs instituted a suit for contribution against the principal defendants, namely, the tenure holders, and it was the dismissal of that suit that has given rise to the present Rule.2. The ground on which the learned Judge dismissed the plaintiff's claim was that the payment m...
Jogendra Nath Banerjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal724,152Ind.Cas.924
1. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, exercising jurisdiction as a Special Magistrate Under Section 24,Bengal Act 12 of 1932, for commission of offences Under Section 4(b) and Section 5, Explosive Substances Act (Act 6 of 1908). The offences charged in this case and in regard to which evidence was placed before the Court was very serious. It appears to be clear that the conviction of the appellant is based mainly upon the statement of a co-accused Taraprasanna Ghatak, who has been acquitted by the learned Magistrate; reference has been made to his statement at different places in the judgment recorded by the Magistrate; and it has been treated as evidence furnishing corroboration of the most material evidence in the case, a note alleged to be in the handwriting of the appellant (Ex. 3 in the case). The learned Magistrate in dealing with Ex. 3 has observed that there was no escape from the fact that Taraprasanna's stateme...
Official Assignee Vs. Jagabandhu Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal552,150Ind.Cas.321
Patterson, J.1. This is an appeal by the Official Assignee, representing one of the defendants and arises out of a suit for declaration of title in, and recovery of possession of a one-third share of a certain tank. The facts leading up to the institution of this suit are no longer in dispute, and may be briefly stated as follows: The property in suit belonged originally to one Gopesh Pada Datta who mortgaged it to the plaintiff Jagabandhu Mallik along with other properties on 29th June 1909. On 20th April 1920, the plaintiff instituted a mortgage suit against Gopesh, and obtained a decree sometime in 1922, and on 7th November of that year purchased the property in suit in execution of his decree. Meanwhile on 28th October 1920 (that is to say, after the plaintiff had instituted his mortgage suit, but before he had obtained his decree), Gopesh mortgaged the property to the defendant Apurba Krista Roy, (now represented by the Official Assignee) and on 17th July 1924, Apurba instituted a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »