Kolkata Court June 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.
Nabi Khan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal186
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case the appellants were charged with two others under Sub-section 364 and 302/120-B, I. P. C. 'Two of the accused were acquitted by the jury and the others, who are the present appellants, were found guilty under both sections by a majority of 6 to 3. This is a case in which, though it cannot be said that there is a actual misdirection of the jury, the Judge has failed almost entirely to give the jury the help and guidance which they are entitled to expect from the Judge, and which it is his duty to give. The charge consists of a long, rambling repetition of the evidence, without any attempt to marshall the facts under appropriate heads, or to assist the jury to sift and weigh the evidence, so that they will be in a position to understand which are the really important parts of the evidence and which are of secondary importance. Especially, the learned Judge has failed altogether to deal with the case of each of the accused separately, that is to say, he ha...
Jogendra Nath Kundu and anr. Vs. Jogneswar Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal612,158Ind.Cas.574
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal against an order under Section 4, Provincial Insolvency Act. The appellants obtained a decree for money against one Jagat. On 6th January 1928 Jagat applied to the District Judge of Pabna for being adjudged an insolvent. On 11th January 1928 the appellants applied to execute their decree against Jagat in the Court of the Munsif at Pabna. On 16th January 1928 they received notice of Jagat's application for insolvency. On 11th February 1928 certain huts belonging to the debtor were attached by the executing Court. On 18th March 1928 the appellants appeared before the Insolvency Court and filed objections to the application for Insolvency. On 19th May 1928 the debtor informed the executing Court that his application for insolvency was admitted and prayed for stay of sale of the properties attached. This application however was dismissed for non-prosecution. The attached huts were sold on 23rd May 1928 and were purchased by the appellants for Rs. 200 paid ...
Mohammad Soleman Molla and ors. Vs. Tasadduq HossaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal623,158Ind.Cas.544
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The four plaintiffs who are the appellants in this Court sued as mutawallis to recover a parcel of land in the possession of the defendants on the ground that it appertains to a wakf. The defendants denied that they were mutawallis, set up one Abdur Rahaman as the sole mutawalli and denied the right of the plaintiffs to maintain the suit. They also stated that the land is not a part of the wakf estate at all, but their own property. Both the Courts below have found the property in suit to be part of the wakf estate, but the Courts below have differed on the question as to the right of the plaintiffs to maintain the suit. It has been found by the lower appellate Court that at one time four brothers, Sanitulla, Nayeam, Jafar and Hamid were mutawallis. Abdur Bahaman who is the grandson of Jafar has been found to be a de facto mutawalli along with the plaintiffs and defendant 4. He has not been made a party to the suit. The contesting defendants' case that Abdur Bahaman i...
Banka Nath Vs. Abdul Kadir and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1935
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.154
R.C. Mitter, J.1. Three persons, Abdul Kadir, Maghful Kha and Majaf Kha have been convicted at a summary trial held by an Honorary Magistrate, Mr. S.M. Chaudhury, under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, for theft of paddy worth Rs. 20. Each of the said three persons has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15, in default to suffer five weeks' rigorous imprisonment.2. The case of the complainant, Banka Nath, is that the said three persons had cut and removed paddy from a plot of land (plot No. 180) which was in his possession as a bhagidar under one Hem Nalini De, wife of Devendra Chandra Dey, the paddy having been grown by him. He produced documentary evidence to show that the land belonged, to Hem Nalini and to prove his possession, he examined some witness and proved a registered kabuliyat given by him in favour of Hem Nalini.3. The defence proved the following facts. Rashid Khan and others instituted a suit for partition against Abdul Kadir and others and by the decree passed the...
Umesh Chandra Goldar Vs. Shamsur Rahman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal611,158Ind.Cas.433
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration that defendant 1 was not qualified to be elected as a member of the District Board of Khulna. The facts are as follows: There was an election for the Local Board at Khulna in 1931. Certain members were elected by the Union Boards of the Sub-Division and certain members were nominated by the Government constituting the Khulna Sadar Local Board. Then the members of the Local Board proceeded to elect six members to the Khulna District Board. This election took place on 11th August 1931. There were seven candidates for election in the District Board. Defendant 1 was No. 6 and just managed to get elected and the plaintiff was No. 7 who failed to get elected. Thereafter he complained to the District Magistrate that defendant 1 was not qualified to be elected as a member of the District Board and failing there he instituted the present suit.2. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the plaintiff and upon perusing the...
Piramal Goenka and ors. Vs. Basanti Das Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal614,158Ind.Cas.556
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the auction purchasers (who are also the decree-holders) and is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Asansol, dated 26th June 1933, by which he has set aside the auction sale. The appellants before us lent to one Pran Kissen Chatterjee, father of respondents 1 to 3, Karali Prosad Chatterjee, father of respondents 4(a) to 4(c) and to the other respondents large sums of money on the security of immovable properties, mostly coal lands. On 9th December 1925 they obtained a preliminary decree for sale of the mortgaged properties, the amount due to them up to the day of grace being found to be Rs. 2,66,783-13-6. The final decree for sale was passed on 9th June 1926, the mortgaged properties were put up for sale on 9th November 1926, and were purchased, some by the decree-holders and some by a stranger, at the price of Rs. 20,000. An application to set aside the said sale by the judgment-debtors was dismissed for default by the S...
Bibhuti Bhusan Khan Vs. Birendra Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal558,158Ind.Cas.704
Henderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon an interim receiver appointed by the Additional District Judge at Howrah in connexion with certain Insolvency proceedings to show cause why an order directing him to enter upon certain property and make an inventory should not be set aside. The relevant facts are these: Certain members of firm applied to be adjudicated insolvents. The petition was admitted and the opposite party was appointed interim receiver and directed to take possession of the property of the applicants. Accordingly he attempted to take possession of a Mill in the District of Balasore. This Mill had been purchased by the present petitioner on 4th January 1934. He accordingly objected to the action of the receiver and the learned Judge upheld his objection. About five months later on 24th May 1935 the receiver applied to the Court with a prayer that 'a case may be started under Section 4, Provincial Insolvency Act.' Next day he asked that an inventory might be made. It app...
Luxman Chandra Mistry and anr. Vs. Charu Chandra Mittra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal783
1. The only question in this appeal is whether the appellants had such rights in certain lands which have been acquired tinder the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as would entitle them to a part of the compensation money. The lands were acquired under a declaration dated 31st January 1927 and the appellants were claimants Nos. 4 and 5 in the land acquisition proceedings, the former being the tenants in respect of two land acquisition plots 8 and 9, plot 8 being a piece of land and plot 9 a doba. Claimant No. 5 was the tenant in respect of two other land acquisition plots 13 and 14, the former being a piece of land and the latter a tank. The Collector had divided the compensation money equally between the two claimants on the one side and their landlords, the Lakhrajdars, on the other. On a reference which arose out of an application made by the landlord and also out of an application which the appellants made, the learned Judge has awarded the whole of the compensation money to ...
Madras and Southern Mahratta Ry. Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Shing Deepsing and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal811
ORDERLodge, J.1. This Rule arises out of a suit instituted in the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah. The plaintiff's case was that 214 bags of tobacco were booked from Nepani, an out-station of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway, to Shalimar on the Bengal-Nagpur Railway, and that owing to the misconduct and gross negligence of the railway officers 37 of the bags of tobacco were damaged by water. He accordingly claimed damage with interest. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes held that the servants of the Railway Company were guilty of gross negligence and that the plaintiff was entitled to the value of the tobacco damaged but not to interest and his claim was decreed in part. Hence this Rule. It is urged that the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, was wrong in applying the law; that he assumed that the responsibility of the Railway Company was the responsibility of a carrier under the Carriers Act; that he wrongly found that the parties were not bound by the Risk-notes e...
Mohammad Gorib HossaIn Mia Vs. Sm. Halimannessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal231
ORDERLodge, J.1. This rule arises out of an order passed in a proceeding under Section 26-F Ben. Ten. Act. Opposite party No. 1 is the transferee of an occupancy raiyati holding. Petitioner is one of the immediate cosharer landlords of that holding. On 14th May 1934 petitioner made an application under Section 26-F (1) praying that the holding be transferred to himself. The transferee and five of the petitioner's co-sharers, were made defendants in that application. On 21st June 1934 the transferee filed a petition of objection and pointed out therein that there were 23 co-sharers of the petitioner of whom only 5 had been made parties.2. On 30th July 1934 petitioner applied to add the 18 co-sharers named in the transferees's objection, as parties defendants and was permitted to do so. The Munsif who heard the application held that petitioner was well aware that he had co-sharers who were not made parties before 30th July 1934, and that as all the co-sharers were not made parties within...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »