Kolkata Court February 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.
The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Radha Kissen ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.147
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, against an order of the Deputy Commissionar of Sib-sagar dismissing a case brought against the respondents under Sections 5 and 6(1) of the Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929 and acquitting them.2. The case for the prosecution was that the accused who are residents of Golaghat, a Sub-Division in Assam, celebrated the marriage of the son of the first respondent a boy of about 15 years of age, with the daughter of second respondent, a girl aged about 11 years. The respondents admitted that the age of the bridegroom was below 18, and that the age of the bride was below 14. They stated that they were compelled to celebrate the marriage according to the custom of their society. They further stated that the law under which they had been summoned was strange to them and was not followed in their country. They also prayed for mercy.3. The Magistrate in his order dated September 3, 1934, say...
Upendra Nath Roy Vs. Jitendra Nath Kundu Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.61
Nasim Ali, J.1. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif at Howrah for declaration of their title to certain lands and for recovery of arrears of rent from the appellant. The plaintiffs' case shortly stated is as follows:The disputed land was originally niskar land of Khetra Mohan, Manik Chandra and Nafar Chandra. One Puran Chandra held these lands as a tenant under them. Bijoy Keshab, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, purchased the eight annas share of these lands, from Khetra and Manik and used to realise rent of Re. 1-4-0 in his share from Paran. Bijoy Keshab subsequently acquired 16 annas interest in the disputed land on Ashar 17, 1300, and raised rent of Paran to Rs. 6. Paran died leaving his son Gour. Bijoy Keshab instituted a rent suit against Gour in the year 1904, obtained a decree on contest and in execution of that decree purchased the lands on November 28, 1911, and got possession of the same though Court. Priya Nath, the father...
Mikse Marak and ors. Vs. Raja Jogendra Narayan Bhup Bahadur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.556
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs from a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Assam Valley Districts, dated January 27, 1932, by which he dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, plaintiffs who are some of the tenants of, the Bijini Raj, the defendant in the present suit, instituted a suit for several declarations. They asked in the first instance for a declaration, that (hey are entitled in accordance with local custom and longstanding usage to bring under cultivation khas patit or jungly lands, appertaining to Pergana Habraghat. They also asked for a declaration amongst others that the Garo tenants by virtue of local custom and long-standing usage have a right to cut down according to their pleasure and appropriate from the Bijni forest Sal trees, to catch fish from river Bil, etc. and grow Sal teak, etc., within the Elaka of the Bijni Estate appertaining to Pergana Habraghat. The suit was intituted so far back as in the year 1921. It was once allowed to go by default ...
The East Bengal Commercial Bank, Limited Vs. Prasanna Kumar Saha and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.775
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Officiating Sub-Judge of the 3rd Courts Mymensingh, dated May 29, 1930, in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs are a Banking Company which has its head office at Mymensingh and a branch at Sarisabari. The defendants are dealers in jute and other commodities carrying on business at Sarisabari. The defendants' business appears to be managed by Jatindra Narayan Saha who is one of the partners of the concern, and a son of the founder Prasanna Kumar Saha. The plaintiff's business premises at Sarisabari adjoin those of the defendants, and there have been from time to time business dealing between the parties in which the plaintiffs have lent money to the defendants. This suit arises out of an alleged transaction whereby the plaintiffs are said to have lent Rs. 7,000 to the defendants on certain terms which will appear below.2. The defendants deny that the loan alleged was ever made.3. Paragraph 2 of the plaint reads as follows ...
Mohesh Chandra Mali and ors. Vs. Gangamayee Mazumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal556,157Ind.Cas.1026
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the defendants against an order of the learned Additional District Judge of Mymensingh dated 31st July 1934 and also against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of that place passed in Money Appeal No. 210 of 1934. The point taken by the petitioners is that no appeal lay to the Court of the learned District Judge against the judgment and decree passed by Mr. J.P. Sen dated 30th April 1934. On considering the arguments advanced by the respective Advocates I am of opinion that the position taken by the petitioners is sound.2. The relevant facts are these. The plaintiff opposite party instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 145 said to be due to him from the defendants. At the time when the plaint was filed, there was a Munsif at Kishoreganj having Small Cause Court powers up to the sum Rs. 150. The suit was accordingly filed as a Small Cause Court suit and was numbered Small Cause Court Suit No. 2368 of 1933 and it...
Moti Lal Roy Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.779
Costello, J.1. These two appeals are from a judgment of the Special Tribunal of Sylhet, which tried the appellants by virtue of Gazette Notification No. 2517 G. I., dated June 28. 1934, under the provisions of the Assam Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1934.2. Under the terms of the notification originally five persons were to stand their trial, that is to say, the present three appellants and two others Benoy Bhusan Deb Roy and Digendra Nath Das Gupta The trial began on July 21, 1934, but only Ajit Kumar Chakravarti, Benoy Bhusan Laskar and Motilal Roy were put upon trial by reason of the fact that Digendra Nath Das Gupta had not been arrested, and a pardon was given to Benoy Bhusan Deb Roy under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, in order that he might be examined as a witness on behalf of the prosecution.3. All the three persons who were tried, were convicted upon charges made under Sections 382, 394 of the Indian Penal Code and upon a charge made under Section 392 read with Section...
Radhika Lal Gossami and ors. Vs. Satish Chandra Sen Majumdar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1935
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.348
ORDERS.N. Guha, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order passed by the Munsif, 1st Court at Maladh, in a proceeding under Section 26-F of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It was held by the Munsif. that the applicants for pre-emption, the petitioners in this Court, were liable to pay full consideration money for the holding transferred by the raiyat with a right of occupancy, as mentioned in the kobala. The consideration mentioned in the kobala was Rs. 300; Rs. 50 for land and Rs. 250 for the trees standing on the land.2. The applicants under Section 26-F, Bengal Tenancy Act, were under the law required to deposit the entire amount of consideration or value of the property sold, the holding of the transferor; and a holding must include all that is appurtenant to it; such appurtenances including structures on the holding which are improvements, (as in the case of Syed Abdul Hai v. Syed Abdur Rahman : AIR1935Cal258 and standing trees which cannot be separately considered from the tenancy. In t...
Birendra Nath Bakshi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal336a,155Ind.Cas.1120
Henderson, J.1. This is an application against an order of the learned additional Chief Presidency Magistrate forfeiting a bail bond which is said to have been executed by the petitioner. The petitioner himself denied that he had ever executed the bond. The Magistrate had an inquiry made by the police which did not really carry the matter very far. As a result the Magistrate passed an order forfeiting the bond without giving any reasons. In his explanation he says that the petitioner was picked out in a test identification held by the inquiring police officer. The Magistrate's order cannot possibly he supported. Since the petitioner denied the execution of the bond it was obviously necessary that there should be some evidence to prove that he did. The Magistrate took no evidence at all, with the result that he based his order on nothing. The Rule must therefore be made absolute. The Magistrates' order is set aside and anything paid in compliance with it will be refunded to the petition...
Krishna Chandra Dhenki Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal311,158Ind.Cas.843
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The petitioner in this Rule has been convicted under Section 379/511, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Rule was issued on the ground that the evidence of the so called test identification held by the police in course of the investigation was inadmissible in law in view of the provisions of Section 162, Criminal P.C. I may say that in this Court there is no appearance for the Crown although an explanation is submitted by the trial Magistrate. The prosecution case is that the petitioner in this case tried to pull out a churi from the hand of a girl of ten as she was returning home. She cried out and the man ran away and the present petitioner was apprehended afterwards. The question is one of identification. The only evidence on the point is that of the girl and she is sought to be corroborated by the fact that at the thana she was shown one Probhat whom she did not identify, but that subsequently she identified the petitioner at...
Asanulla and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal534,157Ind.Cas.837
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case 26 persons were charged with various offences of whom 7 were acquitted and 19 convicted, and all those convicted have appealed. Of the charges, all were accused of offences under Section 147, I.P.C. No. 1, Asanulla, was also charged under Section 304. The other 25 were all charged also under Section 304/149. Nine of them were also charged under Section 304/109. Of the appellants, Asanulla was convicted under Sections 326 and 148 and sentenced to four years and two years, respectively, to run concurrently. Sk. Bhola alias Soifulla was convicted under Sections 148 and 324 and sentenced to two years and three years respectively to run concurrently. Nos. 3 to 8 and 11 to 19 were convicted under Section 147 and sentenced each to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Nos. 9 and 10 were convicted under Sections 148 and 324 and sentenced to two years and three years respectively, to run concurrently.2. Abdul Majid had a plot of land in Dundurpur Kitta of Mauza Chan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »