Kolkata Court May 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.
JagnaraIn Tewari Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal680,158Ind.Cas.840
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case the appellant was convicted of an offence under Section 411/75, I.P.C., after previous conviction, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default rigorous imprisonment for six months, and an order under Section 565, Criminal P. C, for three years. The complainant lived at 20 Corporation Street, and he alleged that on 2nd December 1933 he went to see his family at Deoghar and returned on 4th December, when he found that a box containing ornaments and precious stones had been broken open and jewellery valued at Rs. 60,000 or Rs. 70,000 had been stolen. He gave information to the police with a list of the stolen articles. Nothing more happened until 5th June 1934, six months afterwards, when the police upon receipt of certain information sent the complainant to Cuttack. There they showed him certain ornaments which he identified.2. The evidence of the police was that they went to the house of a woman named Nisham...
In Re: Upendra Kumar Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.415
Panokridge, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned Registrar in Insolvency and it arises in the following circumstances.2. One Upendra Kumar Mitra was adjudicated an insolvent on his own petition. Certain creditors, who had proved their claims before the Official Assignee applied for and obtained an order for the examination of one Salil Kumar Mitra under Section 36 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. Under that section a person whose examination has been ordered is entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner. Counsel appearing for Salil Kumar Mitra objected to the examination being conducted by Counsel representing the creditors. The learned Registrar in Insolvency upheld the objection and it is against this decision that the creditors have now appealed.3. Reading the section it appears to me that prima facie the intention of it is that the Court should examine the person summoned. My attention, however, has been drawn to various cases under the correspondi...
Dakshina Ranjan Choudhury Vs. Surendra Lal Das Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal310,163Ind.Cas.56
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendant, and is directed against an order of the Addl. Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated 18th June 1934, by which he reversed the judgment and decree of the Munsif, First Court, Chittagong, and remanded the case to the trial Court. The judgment is not very clear and the ordinary portion is ambiguous.2. One Uma Charan Choudhury and others were the owners of a long strip of land which is described as Dag 792. He divided this Dag into three portions, the eastern portion, middle portion and the western portion. On 27th April 1911 he sold the eastern portion to Tara Charan and Jogendra. The plaintiff purchased it from Tara Charan and Jogendra. The middle portion was sold to the defendant and the western one to one Ishan. There are measurements given in all these three conveyances, it being stated that the breadth of each of these parcels of land is eighteen cubits and four fingers. The defendant constructed his house and to the east o...
Abdul Majid and ors. Vs. Akhtar Nabi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal805,159Ind.Cas.893
D.N. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Dacca dated 21st April 1932, by which he dismissed the suit brought by the plaintiffs under Section 92, Civil P.C., in the following circumstances: It appears that the plaintiffs who are the appellants before us brought a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C., with the necessary sanction against the two defendants. The allegation against defendant 1 was that he was the sole mutwalli of the wakf property in question and he began to treat wakf property as his own and he did not properly look to the interest of the wakf. It was further stated that defendant 1 after having assumed the position of the, sole mutwalli mortgaged the wakf property and raised money for his own use in contravention of the terms of the wakfnama and against the directions and practices of the former mutwalli. In para. 13 of the plaint it was stated that defendant 1 in collusion with defendant 2 transferred the wakf property to defendant 2 mo...
Sylhet Co-operative Town Bank Limited Vs. Rasik Chandra Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1935
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.258
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the decree-holder. His application for execution has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The decree-holder obtained a decree for money against the judgment-debtor respondent in the year 1933 and applied for execution. The execution case was numbered 166 of 1933 and was registered on March 23, 1933. The decree-holder applied for bringing the property to sale, and on August 17, 1933, asked for permission to bid. This permission was given on condition that his bid was up to the decretal 1933, the sale was held, the bid of the decree-holder was the highest but it was not up to the decretal amount. On the following day the Nazir made a report to the Court. The Court said that the decree-holder's bid could not be accepted as there was a condition that he was to bid up to the decretal amount, but the Court passed orders dismissing the execution case. The case was accordingly struck off on August 23, 1933.2. There was a miscellaneous appeal by...
Khitish Chandra Bose Vs. Nanuram Maklania
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal548,157Ind.Cas.1042
Lort-Williams, J.1. These two cases were cross cases of assault. In Revision No. 354, the complainant was a Marwari gunny broker who held a monthly tramway pass. On 9th October, in the morning, he boarded a car from Sealdah to High Court as a first class passenger. The accused, who was a tramway conductor, asked for his ticket and the complainant showed him his pass. It was alleged that the accused suspected that the ticket was not the complainant's. At any rate, there was an altercation between them, during which, it is alleged, the accused abused the complainant and the complainant retaliated. Upon this, the accused is alleged to have called the complainant a swine and assaulted him. Afterwards, the complainant went to the thana and lodged a complaint. His pass which had been deposited by the accused at the thana was returned to him. Subsequently, the complainant went to the hospital. The accused, on the other hand, filed a complaint against the complainant, which is the subject matt...
Saroda Deyi Vs. Satyeswar Santra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal571,158Ind.Cas.384
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case the petitioner instituted a complaint against the accused and several others upon the allegation that on 11th November 1934, the accused persons, in collusion and conspiracy with each other induced the petitioner to go to a certain house and forced her to put her thumb impression on a number of stamp papers and blank demi papers. In doing so they abused her, and pushed her neck down, and forcibly kept her sitting there for an hour and slapped, pinched and threatened her.2. The Subdivisional Magistrate of Tamluk ordered an inquiry by the President of the Panchayat, who reported that the case was true. Thereupon the accused were summoned under Section 352. On 24th January 1935 which was the date fixed for hearing, the petitioner did not arrive in time and the accused were acquitted under Section 247, Criminal P.C. She filed a petition explaining that she lived 16 miles away from Tamluk Court, and had to come walking from her house to Court, and was a litt...
Sasthi Charan Barnik Vs. Mannidra Lal Singha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal168
Nasim Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for khas possession of a holding on declaration of the plaintiff's title thereto. The plaintiff's case briefly stated is as follows: One Man Gazi held the disputed holding under the plaintiff as an occupancy raiyat having no transferable right therein. He transferred the entire holding to the defendant in Asarh 1290 M. E. and abandoned the holding. The defendant is therefore a trespasser and is therefore liable to be evicted. The main defence of the defendant is that he is a purchaser only of a portion of the holding and that there had been no abandonment of the holding by the raiyat Man Gazi. The learned Munsif held that the defendant is the transferee of a portion of the holding and that there had been no abandonment of the holding by Man Gazi. He accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's claim for khas possession. On appeal by the plaintiff to the lower appellate Court the learned Judge has found that Man Gazi has sold the entire holding ...
Kristo Kamini Debi Vs. Girish Chandra Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal239
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the decree-holder and is directed against the order of the learned District Judge of Burdwan dated 10-2-1934 by which her application for execution of a decree for money which she had obtained against the respondents on 8th June 1920 has been dismissed. The appeal raises an important question of limitation on which not only the other High Courts have differed, but different views have been expressed by this Court on different occasions. The relevant facts are as follows: In 1921 the appellant applied to execute her decree. Her application for execution was numbered Title Execution No. 135 of 1921. Therein she applied for sale of some properties and in due course the said properties were attached. The judgment-debtors, however, instituted a suit against her in the year 1922 (Title Suit No 66 of 1922) in which they prayed for setting aside her decree. In the course of that suit an injunction was applied for and obtained by the judgment-debtor...
Haru Bepari and ors. Vs. Roy Kshitish Bhusan Roy Bahadur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal573,158Ind.Cas.780
Khundkar, J.1. This is a Rule to show cause why an appellate order of the learned District Judge of Pabna and Bogra, dated 22nd February 1934, disposing of an objection to the sufficiency of court-fees in connexion with the plaint in a suit, and the memorandum of the appeal, which arose out of that suit, should not be set aside. The suit was instituted by 73 persons who averred that they held each a separate jama as in Sch. 'Ka' of the plaint, consisting of 73 items, but that certain lands of each of these jamas as in Sch. 'Kha', also containing 73 items, were included within the subject matter of a suit under Bengal Act 5 of 1920, which was decreed on the basis of a compromise entered into by certain persons whom the 73 plaintiffs interpleaded as defendants in their suit. It was alleged that by virtue of the compromise decree to which the plaintiffs were not parties the defendants were trying to oust the plaintiffs from their holdings, and they prayed for the following reliefs:(1) A d...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »