Kolkata Court January 1935 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.
Kashiram Jhunjhunwalla Vs. (Firm) Hurdut Rai Gopal Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal312
Costello, J.1. This Rule is directed against a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Howrah dated 31st July 1934 affirming the decision of Mr. B.K. Ghose, Magistrate of the first class, Howrah, dated 28th May 1934. The petitioner Kashiram Jhunjhunwalla was convicted by the learned Magistrate on charges laid under Section 408, I.P.C., and under Section 477-A of that Code and was sentenced under the latter section to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. The case for the prosecution was briefly as follows: Kashiram in his capacity as manager and cashier of the complainant firm Hurdut Rai Golap Rai had in his charge certain cheque books which had been signed by the complainant for the purpose of the withdrawal of money from the bank when necessary. Taking advantage of the fact that these cheque-books were in his possession the accused drew from the bank certain sums of money and misappropriated a part of those sums and then sought to cover up the defalcat...
Manorama Debi Vs. Wajadi Acan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal559,157Ind.Cas.1038
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. In these cases the plaintiff instituted suits for recovery of money due on bonds. Defendants did not dispute the amount of claim. Still the Munsif has granted decrees in part. It is very difficult to follow how in these circumstances when there was no dispute as to the amount due the Munsif could have decreed the plaintiff's suit for amounts lesser than those claimed. The decrees will have to be modified accordingly and the plaintiff's claim decree in full. The defendants in these cases, as I have stated, admitted the claims but prayed for instalments spreading over a very long time as for instance, in Civil Revision Case No. 989, which corresponds to Suit No. 401 the claim was laid at Rs. 40 but the decree given was for Rs. 36 and this amount was directed to be paid in instalments of Rs. 3 in each quarter, that is to say, Rs. 3 in Ashar, Rs. 3 in Aswin, Rs. 3 in Pous and Rs. 3 in Chait. In making decrees for instalment the lower Court should not only look into c...
Bimal Krishna Biswas and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.566
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The appellants in these two appeals were tried 'before a Special Magistrate of Barakpore on charges under Section 19-A of the Arms Act as amended by-Bengal Act XXI of 1932 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. They have all been convicted under those sections and the appellant Aswini Kumar Ghose has also been convicted under Section 19-A of the Arms Act as amended by Bengal Act XXI of 1932. Bimal Krishna Biswas has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and each of the other two appellants has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. Besides these appellants four other persons were put on trial. Out of these three, namely Kalidas, Ghose, Lakshman Chandra Adhikary and Panehanan Samanta pleaded guilty and were convicted on that plea and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. They hive been examined as witnesses for the prosecution. Kalidas, prosecution witness No. 37, Lakshman prosecution w...
In Re: Sadhucharan Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal344
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case the facts found are that the assessee purchased the Sulkea Jute Press in 1907, and worked it until 1930. In 1931 he leased it out for a term of one year to the Sulkea Jute Pressing Company Limited, a private company in which he holds more than 60 per cent of the shares, and that lease is subsisting, the lessee holding over under the terms of the lease. Those terms, inter alia, are: (a) You shall pay us a net annual rent of Rs. 22,500 only payable as follows, i.e., Rs. 2,500 to be paid by 31st August 1931 and the balance by four instalments of Rs. 5,000 each, on 1st November 1931, 1st February, 1st May and 1st August 1932. (b) During the said period of one year, we shall only pay the rents payable to the superior landlords and you shall pay the Municipal taxes, Fire Brigade License and all other outgoings and public charges, (c) You shall carry out all repairs to the engines, machineries and plants, godowns and buildings during the said period at your ow...
Sarat Chandra Mukherjee Vs. Nerode Chandra Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal405
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs' right to use the land described in the plaint as a common passage way and for a decree against the defendant Sarat Chandra Mukherjee for the removal of 2 tin sheds erected by him thereon and for damages. The land in suit was included in the premises described as 134 Jan Bazar Street in a partition between those parties along with others in 1901. The total area of these premises was found to be 5 bighas and 16 cottas. Of this 9 cottahs was deducted as common passage leaving 5 bighas 7 cottahs to be divided. The learned Judge has decided that the land in suit is included within this 9 cottahs of passage land (as shown in map No. 5) annexed to the plaint separating the four parts into which the premises were then divided being a portion of the land separating part 1 from Part 4 of that award running east and west and terminating on the west in Grant Street.2. By an award in a subsequent partition suit betwe...
Sadhucharan Roy Chowdhry and Others, in Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1935
Reported in: [1935]3ITR114(Cal)
Lord Williams, J. - In the case the facts found are that the assessee purchased the Sulkea Jute Press is 1907, and worked it until 1930. In 1931 he leased it out for a term of one year to the Sulkea Jute Pressing Co., Ltd. - a private company in which he holds more than 60 per cent. of the shares, and that lease is subsisting, the lessee holding over under the terms of the lease. Those terms, inter alia, are :(a) You shall pay us a net annual of Rs. 22,500 only payable as follows, i.e. Rs 2,500 to be paid the 31st day of August, 1931 and the balance by four instalments of Rs. 5,000 each on the 1st November, 1931, 1st February, 1st May and 1st August, 1931.(b) During the said period of one year, we shall only pay the rents payable to the superior landlords and you shall pay the municipal taxes, Fire Brigade license and all other outgoing and public charges.(c) You shall carry out all repairs to the engines, machineries and plants, godowns and buildings during the said period at your own...
Biswambar Biswas Vs. Aparna Charan Mohary and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal290
Costello, J.1. This matier has been referred to a Full Bench by Jack and Khundkar, JJ. on the short point whether a Court acting under the provisions of Section 73, Civil P.C 1908, is entitled to inquire as to the validity of a decree put forward as the basis for claiming a share in the distribution of the assets of the judgment-debtor. The question we have to answer is whether that Court can go behind the decree and investigate the question whether that decree has been obtained by fraud or collusion. There are conflicting decisions upon this point. There are decisions of this Court which have laid it down that it is competent for a Court acting under the provisions of Section 73, Civil P. C, to go behind the decree. There is a number of decisions of other High Courts in the contrary sense. In order satisfactorily to determine the question it is necessary in the first place to examine the actual provisions of Section 73, Civil P.C. 1908. That;, section in Sub-section (1) provides thatw...
Nanda Lal Ganguly. Vs. Dasarathi Mukherjee.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal15
D.N. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of 24 Parganas, dated 19th September 1930, by which he granted probate in respect of a will of a lady of the name of Nitya Kali Debi. The will is said to have been executed on 25th May 1918 and was subsequently registered. The lady lived for nearly 11 years after the execution of the will, and died on 15th December 1929. The will is attested by a number of witnesses. Two of them were pleaders of Alipur Court and one of them was Dr. Satyendra Nath Roy a well--known physician of the city. The will is to be found printed at p. 50, part 2, of the paper book, and its provisions are to the effect that a small provision for maintenance should be left with regard to some members of the family of testatrix and the residue of the estate should go to the two daughters of her deceased brother, Sm. Malina Bala Debi and Sm. Latika Bala Debi. There is also a further provision for her son--in--law Dasarathi Mukherjee who is o...
Chandra Nath Das and ors. Vs. Puskar Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal165
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by some of the defendants in a suit for a declaration of fishery right of the fishermen of the village Manikpur in particular places (khaos) on the south bank of the tidal navigable river Lohar and for certain consequential reliefs. The plaintiffs' case is that they and their predecessors had been catching fish in those four khaos to the exclusion of all others from time immemorial peacefully and without interruption by placing stakenet, that the defendants who live in the village Budhanti lying on the north bank of the river dispossessed them from the first and second khaos in the month of Bhadra 1336 B.S. and were threatening to dispossess them from the other khaos. The defence of the defendants is that they have got exclusive right to fish in the disputed khaos and that the plaintiffs' story of possession and dispossession was absolutely false. The defendants also stated that the plaintiffs have got no khaos in the river Lohar. The learned Munsif he...
Abdul Rahman and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal316,165Ind.Cas.497
Cestello, J.1. In these Rules we are concerned with the trial of a number of persons who were tried before Mr. P.C. Ghose, Magistrate of the first class, at Alipore. In all forty six persons were tried before that Magistrate upon a charge under Section 120-13, I.P. C, read with Section 9, Opium Act, (Act 1 of 1878), Sections 13, 14-A and 19, Dangerous Drugs Act, (Act 2 of 1930), and Section 19(a) and (c), Arms. Act, (Act 2 of 1878.) The charge was that they were parties to a criminal conspiracy to export, import possess and sell opium, (that part had reference to Section 9, Opium Act), import into British India and export from British India and tranship dangerous drugs, i.e. opium and cocaine (Section 13, Dangerous Drugs Act) import and export interprovincially, transfer possess and sell manufactured goods, i.e. cocaine (that part had reference to Section 14(a), Dangerous Drugs Act), to hold and control a trade in dangerous drugs, i.e. opium and cocaine, obtained outside British India ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »