Kolkata Court November 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.
ChamuddIn Sardar and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal18,160Ind.Cas.1028,160Ind.Cas.1028
Lort Williams, J.1. In this case, a rule was issued to show cause why the convictions and sentences passed upon the petitioners under Section 366, I. P. C., should not be set aside. The learned Sessions Judge was asked to submit his explanation of a statement made by him in para. 3 of his judgment to this effect: 'It has not been contended that there was any misdirection or non--direction on points of law' and with special reference to para. 2 of the petition in revision in which a number of points were specified, which had been pressed upon the attention of the learned Judge on behalf of the accused. The first of these points was that the Assistant Sessions Judge, when charging the jury, had failed to direct them on the question of necessity of corroboration of the girl's evidence; further, that the Assistant Sessions Judge had failed to direct the attention of the jury to certain evidence given by the girl to the effect that she had not objected to going with the two accused, which w...
Abinash Chandra Kumar Vs. Dhani Buksh Mahammad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal673,165Ind.Cas.905
Jack, J.1. This Rule was issued on the Deputy Commissioner of Jalpaiguri and the opposite party to show cause why the conviction of and the sentence imposed on the petitioner should not be set aside. The grounds set out in the petition are (1) that on the findings arrived at by the learned Magistrate himself the conviction is illegal, (2) that the Magistrate having in effect found breach of trust having been committed in respect of the pledged ornaments the conviction under Section 406, I. P. C., in respect of the charge as framed in the case is not maintainable; (3) that the Court should have treated the case as one of a civil nature; (4) that in the absence of a clear finding that the petitioner had acted dishonestly in violation of a trust the conviction under Section 406 is not sustainable; (5) that the learned Magistrate failed to consider if the facts and circumstances of the entire case precluded the possibility of the petitioner having acted in the bona fide belief that he had ...
Marwari Stores, Ltd. Vs. Gouri Shanker Goenka
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal327,165Ind.Cas.408
Costello, J.1. This matter comes before us by way of appeal from an order made by Cunliffe, J., on 18th March 1935, whereby he refused with costs an application made on behalf of the Marwari Stores Ltd. for permission to reduce the share capital of that company. The application was opposed by Gouri Shanker Goenka who is a shareholder of that company and the respondent in the present appeal. The Marwari Stores Ltd., was originally incorporated as a private company on 15th March 1919, having a nominal capital of Rupees two lacs divided into fifty shares of Rs. 4,000 each. On 22nd March 1921, by an extraordinary resolution, the capital of the company was increased by Rs. 3 lacs making a total capital of Rs. 5 lacs represented by 5,000 shares of Rs. 100 each. Shares of the value of rupees two lacs were applied for and issued and a sum of Rs. 1,92,000 was paid up. Shares out of the balance to the extent of Rs. 8,000 were forfeited. The present position, therefore, is this: that the paid up ...
ElimuddIn Sarkar Vs. Umed Ali Bepari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal659,165Ind.Cas.878
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is a Reference under Section 438, Criminal P. C., made by the Sessions Judge of Dacca. It relates to an order under Section 145 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Manikgunj on 7th December 1934 in respect of lands comprising Sheet No. 1 of the Cadastral Survey of Mouza Purulia. In 1919 the present applicant's mother-in-law Fakrunnessa Chaudhurany, who was the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant's son who is the present malik of Touzi No. 97 of the Pabna Collectorate to which the disputed property belonged, obtained an order under Section 145, Criminal P. C., declaring the possession of herself and her tenants to the entire area covered by Sheet No. 1 of Mouza Purulia. This order was the result of proceedings taken in respect of a dispute between her and her tenants on the one hand and U.N. Roy, the Malik of the property covered by the adjoining Sheet No. 2 of Mouza Purulia, on the other; Elimuddin, the principal member of the first party in the pre...
Rebati Mohan Bose Vs. Chottal Chandra Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal692,166Ind.Cas.221
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case, a rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why a certain order should not be set aside. It appears that an order was made under Section 133, Criminal P. C., directing the petitioner to remove certain obstruction in a Khal which was claimed to be a public Khal belonging to the Municipality. The petitioner proceeded under Section 135 and appeared in accordance with the order to show cause why the obstruction should not be removed. Subsequently and before hearing either the evidence or arguments, the Magistrate made an order under Section 142 and directed the petitioner immediately to remove the obstruction. Subsequently, he proceeded with the hearing and made a final order under Section 137 against the petitioner.2. The petitioner's present contention and the contention which he made before the learned Sessions Judge at Chittagong, is that owing to the fact that the Magistrate made an order under Section 1...
Dukhiram Madhu Vs. Ramlakshmi Falia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal780,166Ind.Cas.993
M.C. Ghose, J.1. The facts in short are that many years ago defendant 3 and another borrowed Rs. 100, from the plaintiff and executed a mortgage bond in respect of 12 bighas of the southern portion of the defendants' holding of 15 bighas of land which they held at a rent of Rs. 10-9-3. It was stated in the mortgage bond that the proportionate rent of the portion mortgaged would be Rs. 8-7-0. Many years afterwards the plaintiff sued on the mortgage bond. During the progress of the suit there was an agreement between the parties to compromise the litigation. The terms of the agreement were that the defendants would sell 10 bighas of the land to the plaintiff and mortgage 2 bighas in addition to that. But the defendants failed to carry out the agreement and thereafter the plaintiff got a mortgage decree for sale of the security. The mortgaged land was sold in auction and purchased by the plaintiff. His case is that he could keep possession of only 6 bighas of the land, but the defendants ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›