Kolkata Court April 1936 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.
Syed Fateh Ali Mirza Vs. Sahebzadi Meherunnessa Begum and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal420,165Ind.Cas.740
1. This appeal has arisen out of a proceeding under Act 42 of 1923 (the Mussalman Wakf Act), started on an application made to the learned District Judge of 24-Pargannas praying that a, mutawali in possession of wakf properties be directed to submit a statement of the particulars of the wakf as required by Section 3 of the Act, that the account submitted by the mutawali be examined and audited, and that the applicant be allowed to inspect and obtain copies of statements and particulars furnished by the mutawali. At a certain stage of the proceeding, parties other than the applicants who started the same, applied for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of all the wakf properties for reasons stated by them in their application before the Court. The application for appointment of a receiver was granted by the learned District Judge, and this appeal was directed against the orders appointing a receiver passed on 12th and 16th September 1935. An objection to the maintainability of ...
Commissioner of Wakfs Vs. Mahmuda Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal480,166Ind.Cas.212
D.N. Mitter, J.1. This is an application by the Commissioner of Wakfs, Bengal, who has been appointed under the Bengal Wakf Act (Bengal Act 13 of 1934). The application purports to be under Section 70 (4) of the said Act. It appears that two appeals are pending in this Court in which the question in controversy is as to the accuracy of the findings of the Subordinate Judge with regard to certain properties being wakf properties. In these two appeals by consent a receiver was appointed during the pendency of these two appeals. The application for appointment of a receiver was made on the 2nd March this year, a day after the Act in question came into force. The present application is for vacating the orders made by this Court on consent in those two appeals for the appointment of a receiver. By that order Mr. P.N. Tagore was appointed a receiver of rents, issues and profits of all the properties comprised in the Estate found to be the Wakf Estate of Prince Kamar Kader Mirza Bahadur excep...
Aswini Kumar Gupta Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal403,165Ind.Cas.505
ORDER1. The petitioner Aswini Kumar Gupta was charged with having committed offences under Sub-section 419 and 468, I. P. C., and on conviction was sentenced by the learned 3rd Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, to rigorous imprisonment for six months under each of the above provisions of the law: the sentences running concurrently. The charges against the petitioner were that he cheated the Registrar of the Calcutta University by pretending to be Samaresh Chandra Mukherjee, a candidate for B. A. examination for 1935, bearing Roll Call. No. 160, in the examination hall, and that he forged answer papers of the B. A. Economics, purporting to be answer papers by Samaresh Chandra Mukherjee, intending that they shall be used for the purpose of cheating as aforesaid. As has been indicated already, the conviction of the petitioner was under both the charges mentioned above. The Rule granted by this Court, on the application of the petitioner, was to show cause why the conviction and sentence ...
Roshan Lal Khetri Vs. S.Z. Ahamed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1936
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.996
Cunliffe, J.1. In this matter, we issued a Rule nisi calling upon the Magistrate who tried this case, to show cause why the acquittal of the respondent under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code should not be set aside. The reason we took this course was that on the facts found by the learned Magistrate, it seemed to us quite obvious that he had wrongfully applied the law in relation to obtaining money under false pretences by means of issuing a cheque to the lender which turned out to be without effect and was dishonoured by the Bank. It was not a case of a man discharging a past liability or endeavouring to discharge it by optimistically giving a post-dated cheque in the hope that his financial position would improve. It was, on the facts found by the Magistrate, a case, as 1 have indicated, of cash being obtained on the production of a cheque which could not possibly be honoured by the Bank upon which it was drawn. But when we came to consider the question of making the Rule absolut...
Simbhuram Beriwalla Vs. Gulzarilal Thakur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1936
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.1009
Panckridge, J.1. This is an application by one Onkermull Joshi, who is not a party to the suit, to be made a party thereto with liberty to file a written statement.2. The suit is on a mortgage dated September 18, 1929, the sum secured thereby being Rs. 21,975. The plaintiff is the assignee of the original mortgagee, and. in the suit he has impleaded certain puisne mortgagee as well as the mortgagors.3. The present applicant instituted a money suit against some at any rate of the mortgagor defendants in this suit, in which a consent decree was made on March 5, 1931.4. The terms of settlement were that there should be a decree for Rs. 4,000 payable after three years from the date of the decree, and if at the end of that period the defendants had not paid the decretal amount, it was to carry interest from the end of such period until satisfaction. For the purposes of this application the important term of the settlement is term (e) which is as follows:The shares of the defendants in the p...
Rai Nalinaksha Dutta Bahadur Vs. Kazi Abdul Jalil and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal398,166Ind.Cas.742
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal raises a question, so far as I am aware, of first impression. The position is that six persons, namely Surman Mondal Kola and five others, who may conveniently be called the Kolas, had an interest in an occupancy holding; Muhamed Soleman was their co-sharer in the said holding. They are all Muhamedans. On 4th April 1934 the Kolas sold their share in the holding to opposite parties 1 to 3 who are also Muhamedans. The notice of this transfer was served upon the landlord, the petitioner before me.2. On getting the notice the petitioner made an application for pre-emption under Section 26-F, Tenancy Act, in the Court of the Second Munsif at Krishnagar on 6th June 1934. The transferees, namely opposite parties 1 to 3, were made parties defendants to that application. While this application was pending Muhamad Soleman instituted in the same Court a suit to enforce the right which he had to pre-empt under the Mahomedanlaw. The landlord was made defendant 10. This...
Mayadas Bhagat Vs. Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1936
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.788
McNair, J.1. On November 12, 1935, a suit was filed by Maya Das Bhagat against the Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd. and Lloyds Bank, Ltd., for a declaration that the settlement effected between the defendant company and the defendant Bank in respect of the amount due under the plaintiff's policy of insurance with the defendant company was not binding on the plaintiff and for a decree for the amount claimed by the plaintiff under the said policy of insurance.2. The defendant company have brought the present application supported by the defendant Bank for an order that the plaint be rejected on the ground that it discloses no cause of action and is barred by limitation and res judicata.3. The plaint alleges that on January 22, 1930 the plaintiff insured his stock-in-trade at Srinagar in Kashmir with the defendant company for Rs. 10,000 and assigned the insurance policy to the defend-and Bank as additional security for the plaintiffs overdraft account.4. One week later, on January 29,...
Ram Gopal LuchminaraIn Vs. Baijnath Prasad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal396
Lord-Williams, J.1. This is a suit for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 31,983-5-9 being the balance of the amount due and owing to the plaintiffs in respect of money lent in the year 1934. There is no real dispute about the loans or the amount. As so often happens the pleadings do not fully and clearly set out the real dispute between the parties, but a number of particular issues were raised and settled. It is, however, necessary to consider only three, namely: (1) Was the originally joint family business of the defendants being carried on by them as a partnership business at the time when the loans were made? (2) Were the loans contracted in the ordinary course of business and for the benefit of the business so carried on? (3) Did the defendants hold out the managers of the branch of the business carried on under the firm name of Kishorilal Mukundlal as accredited agents and managers of the business carried on by the defendants?2. The main question to be decided is whether all or some...
Harihar Sinha and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal356,163Ind.Cas.9
Derbyshire, J.1. The history of the proceedings in this matter is briefly this: that three appellants together with two others, Nalini and Gouranga were put on their trial before a Special Magistrate acting under the powers conferred on him by Section 25, Bengal Suppression of Terrorist Outrages Act, 1932. The procedure to be followed in such cases is that prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates.2. The accused were eventually charged with conspiring to commit robbery and dacoity under Sub-section 120-B/392, and 395, Penal Code. At the outset of the proceedings the Public Prosecutor applied to the Special Magistrate for the discharge of Nalini under Section 494, Criminal P. C., so that Nalini might give evidence in the case. As no charge had then been framed against the accused, Nalini was discharged under Sub-section (a), Section 494. Thereupon Nalini went into the box and gave evidence. The accused, who included the three appellants, ...
Emperor Vs. Gostho Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal407,165Ind.Cas.438
Cunliffe, J.1. By the terms of the reference before us now, Mr. S.C. Chakravarty the Assistant Sessions Judge at Alipore, indicates that he is by no means in agreement with the decision of the Jury sitting with him, who acquitted three persons; Gosto Sardar, Ishan Sardar and Haran Sardar of the crime of dacoity. We are getting a good many of these references now, and I may say, at once, that if the phrase may be used with propriety where acquittals are concerned there is a much greater onus upon the learned Judge to convince an appellate Court with extreme particularity than there is when he makes a reference with regard to a conviction. Now, here it seems to me that the learned Judge has absolutely no right to put up to this Court a report which is intended to substitute his judgment on a pure question of fact, rather than the judgment and opinion of the jury, who was sitting with him.2. This dacoity case depended almost entirely upon tainted evidence. There was an approver, and two c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »