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.
Gani Mia and ors. Vs. Wajid Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal393
Mitter, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, first Court, Sylhet, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, second Court, of the same place. The plaintiff, who is the respondent before me and who is a minor, instituted the suit for ejecting the defendants, on the ground that they were the tenants of his predecessors-in-interest (defendant 13) but had forfeited their tenancy by denial of the title of the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest. The plaintiff's case is that the lands in suit belonged to his grandfather (original defendant 13) who had inducted the defendants on the land as tenants in the year 1322=1915. In the year 1919 he, defendant 13, instituted a suit against the defendants for recovery of arrears of rent, but on the defence taken by some of them that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant, he withdrew the said suit.2. The Records of Rights prepared under Chap. 10, Ben. Ten. Act, and...
Emperor Vs. Bent Pramanik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal407
Costello, J.1. This is a reference under Section 307, Criminal P.C., made by the Sessions Judge of Pabna by a letter of reference dated 23rd November 1934. Eight persons Benat Pramanik, Goyanath Sarkar, Kasi Pramanik, Baser Fakir Sukurali Sardar alias Sukra, Mallik Pramanik, Bhowani Charan Sarkar and Jagannath Chanda were put on their trial before a Jury on charges of murder and conspiracy. The jury unanimously acquitted all the eight accused persons of the charge of murder and also the last four out of the eight accused of the charge of conspiracy. But they convicted Benat Pramanik, Gayanath Sarkar, Kasi Pramanik and Baser Fakir of the charge of conspiracy to murder, and it is with regard to these four persons that this reference has been made to this Court.2. The learned Judge disagreed with the verdict of the Jury and he was very emphatically of opinion that these four persons ought not to have been found guilty of an offence under Section 120-B read with Section 302, I.P.C. In the ...
Dulal Chandra Chowdhury Vs. Atul Krishna Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal506,157Ind.Cas.876
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. This rule has been obtained by plaintiff 2 in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution instituted against the opposite party 1. It appears that opposite party 1 launched unsuccessfully a criminal prosecution against the petitioner and his father, Upendra Nath Chowdhury. On the termination of the criminal proceedings Upendra Nath Chowdhury, as plaintiff 1, and the petitioner, as plaintiff 2, instituted the said suit for damages. Opposite party 1 filed his written statement but on the date fixed for hearing (22nd May 1934) he failed to appear with the result that an ex parte decree was passed against him on the same date. On 26th May 1934, opposite party 1 made an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C, to set aside the ex parte decree. He mentioned in his application the number of the suit but in naming his opponents he mentioned the name of Upendra Nath Chowdhury only and omitted to put in the petitioner's name. Notice of the application was served on...
Ram Charan Chakraburty Vs. Raj Kumar Chakraburty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal29,160Ind.Cas.735
1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for recovery of rent. The question between the parties is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover at the present market rate the value of 6 bishes of paddy or at the rate of Rs. 20 per year. The present market value of 6 bishes is Rs. 70. The Court of first instance decreed the suit at the amount claimed by the plaintiff giving the defendant a credit to the extent of Rs. 20 on account of payment. The learned Subordinate Judge on appeal has held that the plaintiff is entitled to claim only at the rate of ESection 20 per year. The rights of the parties are governed by the terms of a registered kabuliyat dated 4th Baisakh 1295. The kabuliyat begins and ends by saying that it is a kabuliyat for lands let out at a produce rent. After stating that the tenant will have to deliver 6 bishes of paddy every year, it proceeds on to state that if the tenant fails to deliver the paddy, the landlord would be entitled to realiz...
John Earnest Edward and anr. Vs. Rai Jogendra Chandra Ghose Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal298
ORDERNasim Ali, J.1. These two rules were issued at the instance of the defendants upon the plaintiff opposite party in a suit instituted in the Court of the Small Causes, Sealdah for recovery of damages. The case of the plaintiff opposite party briefly stated is as follows: Plaintiff is the owner of Premises. 25 and 25 A Harish Mukerji Road Bhowanipur P.S. on 7th June 1933 and 8th June 1933 defendant 2 i.e., Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. served notices upon him demanding payment of the charge for supplying electric current and intimating that on failure thereof the supply would be cut off. The amounts covered by the said notices were paid in time by the plaintiff. No notice of discontinuing the current of the aforesaid premises on account of their arrears was ever served on him. He was never informed by defendant 2 that the electric connexion of the said premises would be cut off, for non-payment of the charges for supplying energy to his other premises. Though nothing was...
Firm, Banwarilal Jagannath. Vs. B. B. and C. I. Ry. Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal24,160Ind.Cas.728
Bartley, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the dismissal, by the Court below of their claim for damages. The suit was against the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway to recover Rs. 899-14-0, on the allegation of short delivery of 25 tins of ghee out of a consignment of 63 tins booked to the plaintiffs at Tinsukia from Malakhera station. The company denied liability, and the main issues for trial were whether the defendants were exempted from liability under the risk notes, A and H covering the consignment and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to sue. The Munsiff decided both points in favour of the plaintiffs, and decreed the suit. The Court, of appeal below reversed these findings and dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs have appealed to this Court. The contract between the parties is embodied in risk note H. It is a contract of carriage at a special reduced rate, in consideration of which the Company is exonerated from all liability for loss or damage to a consignmen...
Purna Chandra De Vs. Naran Chandra De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1935
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.150
ORDERNasim Ali, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant in S.A. No. 385 of 1932, upon the defendants respondents in the said appeal to show cause why the decree passed by this Court in the said appeal should not be reviewed.2. It appears that on May 13, 1926, the petitioner instituted a suit for partition in respect of a certain house in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bankura. One of the defences taken by the defendants opposite parties was that the brothers and nephews of the petitioner were necessary parties to the suit. The trial Court held that the suit was not bad for defect of parties and decreed the suit in part. On appeal by the defendants to the lower Appellate Court the learned District Judge held that the brother and nephews of the plaintiff were necessary parties to the suit and in that view dismissed the suit. The plaintiff thereupon took a Second Appeal to this Court, viz. S.A. No. 385 of 1932. This Court, held that the suit was bad for d...
Norman O'Connor Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal345,159Ind.Cas.314
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case the appellant was charged with and convicted, by the Additional Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, of an offence under Section 498, I.P.C. and sentenced to, rigorous imprisonment for 12 months. The accused is 19 and the married woman whom, it is alleged, he took or enticed away from her husband, is aged 25. In cases under this section consent is immaterial. But it is essential to see that there is evidence that the accused took or enticed away the woman, within the meaning of the section.2. The complainant and his wife and the accused have been on intimate terms of friendship for a considerable time. The accused was constantly at the complainant's house and there is no doubt, that he knew quite well that she was married to the complainant, and the marriage was sufficiently proved. The complainant was not able to give any evidence himself with regard to the taking away of his wife, because he was not present at the time. All that he could say was that sh...
Chandr Kanta Hazra Vs. Rajani Kanta Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.442
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed on appeal by the learned Additional District Judge of the Twenty-four parganas. The learned Munsif of Diamond Harbour decreed the same but the learned Additional Judge has held that it is barred by time.2. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants borrowed Rs. 200, from him on July 21, 1930, and that on the same date they executed a promissory note in his favour. The suit is on this promissory note, valued at Rs. 600, which includes the principal lent and the interest due at the date of the suit. The plaint was filed in Court on June 13, 1933, and if it was properly presented on that date it was within time, but there was a defect in the presentation of the plaint and how far the said defect is fatal to the plaintiff's claim was the controversy between the parties in the Courts below and is the controversy before me.3. The plaint was filed by a Pleader, but it was accompanied by a...
Sarada Prosad Ghose Vs. Rokeya Khatun Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.416
Costello, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan whereby he affirmed a decision of the Munsif of the third Court at Burdwan.2. The facts out of which these proceedings arose are stated by the learned Munsif in the early part of the judgment which he gave on January 15, 1934.3. The present appellant Sarada Prosad Ghose had made an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The present respondent Rokeya Bibi had obtained a decree against the appellant for a certain sum for rent. The decree was dated July 26, 1930, and that decree was put to execution, and proceedings which were described as Rent Execution Case No. 252 of 1930 in the Court of the Munsif at Burdwan, were started. Subsequently, on August 13, 1930, there was an agreement between the parties as to the method in which the decree was to be satisfied, or to put the matter in another way, there was an adjustment of the decree. By that agreement the amount due under the decree ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »