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.
Jatindra Kumar Chakravarty Vs. Chandra Kumar Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal661,153Ind.Cas.509
Mallik, J.1. These three Rules are directed against three orders made by the Munsif of Nabinagar in the District of Tippera by which three applications made on behalf of the landlords for the exercise of their right of pre-emption; Under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act, were granted. The three holdings in connection with which the applications were made were all within the Nabinagar Munsifi. The holdings however had been sold by the Munsif, first Court, Brahmanberia, in execution of a decree for money exceeding Rs. 1,000. When the applications Under Section 26-F were filed before the Munsif of Nabinagar the landlords were ready with the money that was required by law to be deposited along with challans in triplicate. For some reason or other the challans could not be passed on that date but were passed on the next working day. When the applications were considered there was opposition coming from the side of the auction-purchasers and the applications were resisted on two grounds. The two ...
indra Bhusan (Roy) Sardar Vs. Ram Kissen Bindhani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal541,150Ind.Cas.313
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the opposite party No. 1 in an application by the decree-holders in a Title Execution Case Under Order 21, Rule 97, Civil P.C. The decree was obtained against Kali Pada Roy Sardar who had borrowed goods from the decree-holders upon leaving in deposit the title-deed of a shop, house and land. As the deed appeared to be in the name of Kali Pada's wife's brother, Surendra, the said Surendra was impleaded but he did not appear and defend the suit. Kali Pada's son Indra Bbusan, the present appellant, was also impleaded in the suit. He filed a written statement disclaiming any interest in the shop. In the result, the suit against him was dismissed and the suit was decreed against Kali Pada who however did not pay the decretal sum. Then the shop and the land on which it stood, were sold in execution of the decree. Thereupon the judgment-debtor Kali Pada vainly applied to set aside the sale. After he had failed, his son, the present appellant, opposed the ...
Nagendra Chandra Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal705,153Ind.Cas.529
1. The appellant was tried by a Special Magistrate at Dacca, appointed Under Section 24, Bengal Act 12 of 1932, for the commission of offences Under Section 19(f) and Section 20, Arms Act, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and five years respectively, under the above provisions of law, the sentences so passed running concurrently. The charge against the appellant who was tried along with two other persons was, first, that he had in his possession or under his control twenty live rifle cartridges without license and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 19(f), Arms Act; secondly, that he had in his possession or under his control twenty live rifle cartridges without license in such a manner as to indicate an intention that such Act may not be known to any public servant (viz., police officer) and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 20, Arms Act.2. It appears that the prosecution was started with the previous sanction of the Dist...
Kashim Ali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal651,152Ind.Cas.234
1. The appellants were tried for the commission of offences Under Sub-section 395 and 120.B/395, I.P.C., and were, on the unanimous verdict of the jury, before whom the trial was held, convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Tipperah, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The learned Judge has in his charge to the jury, dealt with the case very fully but we regret to notice that there are certain misdirections in the charge on account of which the verdict of the jury has to be set aside and a retrial of the case against the appellants directed by us. It may be mentioned at the outset that the case for the prosecution depended mainly, if not solely, upon the statements of an approver and those of an accused person who had at one time confessed his guilt, but had subsequently retracted confession.2. In regard to the confessional statement of the accused Roshan Ali, which was retracted at the trial, what was stated by the learned Judge in his charge to the jury was that the s...
Kashiram Budhia Vs. Chajuram Budhia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal737,152Ind.Cas.73
Panckridge, J.1. This application is made in a family partition suit which was instituted in 1929. The parties agreed to terms of settlement on 13th February 1930. In pursuance of those terms, an order was made on 28th July 1930, that Mr. J.M. Ghose, Barrister-at-law, should be appointed Special Referee to take the accounts and should also be appointed Commissioner of Partition. The order proceeded to give the commissioner liberty to examine witnesses upon oath or solemn affirmation, and to take depositions in writing and return the same with the commission. The order further directed the Special Referee to report whether or not there were any fluid assets belonging to the joint estate in the hands of the defendant which ought to be invested. The Special Referee entered upon the reference both as to accounts generally, and as to the fluid assets specified in the order. I understand that the evidence with regard to the fluid assets is now complete, but the reference, so far as it concer...
Nanda Lal Saha Vs. Sailesh Nath Bishi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal617
Patterson, J.1. These two appeals are by the plaintiffs and arise out of two suits for declaration of the plaintiffs' title in and recovery of possession of certain lands. The lands in suit were claimed by the plaintiffs as reversionary heirs of one Krishna Nath Saha, on the allegation that their title had accrued on the death of Krishna Nath Saha's widow Mukta Sundari. The defences raised were different in respect of different portions of the lands in suit, but it is not necessary at the present stage to set forth the various allegations in the written statements in detail. In respect of the cultivated lands, the only question which has been submitted to this Court for decision is whether the Courts below were right in holding that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by the special rule of limitation contained in Article 3, Schedule 3, Ben. Ten. Act, while in respect of the homestead portions of the lands in suit, the only question for decision is whether the Courts below were right in hol...
Dwijabar Das Vs. Haripada Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal770,152Ind.Cas.112
Mallik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for setting aside an election of the defendant as the Chairman of the Barrackpur Union Board within the district of Khulna. The suit was instituted by two persons, Krishnagopal Das and Dwijabar Das, and the grounds, on which the election of the defendant, Haripada, was sought to be set aside, were, among others, that Haripada had not had the requisite qualifications of a voter according to the provisions of Section 7, Bengal Village Self-Government Act, 1919 and that he was nob a resident of the Union as contemplated by Section 7, sub-section (2) of that Act. The Court of first instance found both these points against the defendant and decreed the plaintiffs' suit. On appeal, this decision was reversed by the Court of appeal below, and the learned Subordinate Judge, who heard the appeal, dismissed the suit holding that Haripada had the requisite qualifications of a voter and that he was a resident within the Union. Dwijabar, Plaintiff 2, is...
Hem Chandra Haldar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal407
1. The appellant, Hem Chandra Haldar was, on the complaint of Mr. H. Nicholas, Presidency Postmaster Calcutta, charged with the commission of an offense under Section 409, I. P. C, and the offence committed was specified in the manner following: That he, on or about 25th July 1933, being a Government servant employed in the General Post Office, as a postman, and in such capacity entrusted with or having dominion over property, to wit, rupees 1,165-8-0 the amount collected by him from different firms in Calcutta committed criminal breach of trust as a public servant. Upon the materials placed before the Court on behalf of the prosecution, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta by whom the appellant was tried, convicted him of the offence charged, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years, by judgment passed on 18th September 1933.2. The entrustment of the money, the amount of Rs. 1,165-8-0 was not in question; and what had to be decided in the case was whethe...
Durga Das De Vs. Bagalananda De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal567,150Ind.Cas.1051
Lort.Williams, J.1. For the purpose of this appeal the facts may be stated as follows: Plaintiff claims a declaration of title to certain property which he alleges to be joint, and recovery of possession thereof. Defendant 1 is his uncle, and defendant 2 is the son of defendant 1. All three used to live jointly, plaintiff and defendant 1 each having an eight annas share in the Ejmall property. Defendant 1 was karta of the joint Hindu family. According to the Dayabhaga system, defendant 2 was not in law a member of the joint family. In 1324 B. S. plaintiff and defendant 1 jointly purchased the property in suit, in adjustment of a debt due on a mortgage bond for a loan made by the plaintiff's grandfather. The property was subject to a rent charge, and was sold in execution of a rent decree.2. As karta, it was the duty of defendant 1 to see that the rent was paid. At the auction sale, the property was purchased by defendant 1 benami in the name of defendant 2. In 1331 the parties separate...
HossaIn Ali Mir Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal757,152Ind.Cas.40
1. The appellant was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge (1st Court), Dacca, and a jury for the commission of offences mentioned in Sections 458 and 148, I. P. C., and on the unanimous verdict of the jury has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and two years respectively, under the above provisions of the law, the sentences so passed running concurrently. The case for the appellant has been argued before us by Mr. Jatis Chandra Guha, Advocate, with care and ability, and various points were raised in support of the appeal relating to the learned Sessions Judge's misdirection to the jury in matters of law and fact. The material portions of the evidence on the record bearing upon those points were also placed before us for our consideration.2. It was in the first place, argued generally that the Judge has expressed his own views on the evidence in the case too strongly. It appears that there are expressions of opinion by the Judge at places, on matters o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »