Kolkata Court May 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.
Netai Chandra Jana and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal529,165Ind.Cas.162
Cunliffe, J.1. These are 9 appeals from convictions and sentences passed by a Special Magistrate sitting at Hooghly. The accused persons were put upon their trial on a number of different charges. They included, conspiracy to engineer a rising against the Government, conspiracy to commit offences under the Arms Act and, as to five of them, charges of committing dacoity in furtherance of the aims attributed to the terrorist movement. On the appeal being opened, a preliminary point was put forward by Mr. Gupta, Senior Counsel for the appellants, with which the other advocates for the appellants associated themselves. This point was directed to an attack upon the jurisdiction of the learned Special Magistrate, having regard to the case advanced by the Crown against the five appellants implicated directly in the dacoity. It was contended that these five persons with regard to the dacoity were originally charged, not under Section 395 of the Code, but under Section 396, the difference betwe...
Ananda Lal Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Narayan Chandra Bhattacharji ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal481,166Ind.Cas.764
1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 106, Ben. Ten. Act. The plaintiff's predecessor in-interest Purna Chandra Dutta was recorded as an occupancy raiyat in respect of certain Jamas in the finally published Record of Rights. The plaintiff's case is that these Jamas are Maurashi Mokarari. He therefore prays for the correction of the Record of Rights. The defendants who are the landlords under whom these Jamas are held, contested the plaintiff's claim on the ground that these holdings were merely occupancy holdings and that the Record of Rights was correct. The Revenue Officer came to the conclusion that the disputed holdings were occupancy holdings and in that view dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff to the lower appellate Court the learned Special Judge has come to the conclusion that the holdings are Mokarari holdings. He has accordingly reversed the decision of the Revenue Officer and has decreed the plaintiff's suit. Hence this Second Appeal by the defendant l...
Sk. IlimaddIn Vs. Sk. Abidullah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal308
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. In this case I am convinced that the judgment is not a proper one and there has not been a proper trial. The plaintiff, who is the petitioner before me, sued the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 135 on the basis that he had deposited with the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 120 and Rs. 15 is claimed as compensation. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and two on behalf of the defendant. Their evidence as recorded by the Small Cause Court Judge runs as follows:Plaintiff Ilimaddi proves the claim, I made first demand after three years of the deposit, P.W. 2, Mahamad Ali: Plaintiff demanded. Defendant admitted in last Falgun. Defendant Abidali; denies the deposit and the liability. Defendant 2 denies the deposit and the liability.2. This is the whole of the evidence as recorded. In the judgment the learned Judge says this: 'Plaintiff during trial however makes out a case of his wages remaining due'. Then he makes another remark:Besides from the evid...
Emperor Vs. Abul HossaIn Sikdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal451,166Ind.Cas.286
Cunliffe, J.1. We cannot accept this reference which is put forward by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Faridpore. The learned Judge shows by the terms of his Letter of Reference that he has taken a very strong view in favour of the prosecution in this case. He asks us to consider his charge to the jury in which no doubt he brought to their notice once again the facts upon which the prosecution rested the case before him. The letter is divided into eight paragraphs; seven of these are concerned with surmises on the part of the learned Judge as to the exact view that the jury must have taken when they retired with regard to the evidence produced by the Crown.2. It is, however, in para. 8 of the letter that one finds, I think, the real reason that induced the learned Judge to bring this case before us. In that paragraph he said thatGiving effect to the verdict of the majority of the jury will lead to the anomalous result of letting off the principal offender who evaded a regular t...
Prithi Missir Vs. Harak Nath Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal450,166Ind.Cas.290
Henderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of the 24-Perganas to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner of an offence punishable under Section 498, Penal Code, should not be set aside. The case made by the complainant was one of enticement. But the Magistrate, who tried the case, was not satisfied that this had been made out; he, however, found the petitioner guilty of 'detaining' the complainant's wife. This decision was affirmed on appeal by Mr. N.N. Sen, a Magistrate of the First Class vested with appellate powers under Section 407 (2), Criminal P. C.2. The question that has been argued before us is the meaning of the word 'detain' in Section 498, Penal Code. In support of this rule, Mr. Mukerjea contended that detention implies that the woman is being kept against her will and in support of that proposition relied upon the judgment of Lort-Williams, J., in Criminal Revision Case No. 618 of 1935. I cannot find that this decision goes to such a lengt...
Secy. of State Vs. Joy NaraIn Chunder and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal525,165Ind.Cas.716
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. The case so far as this Court is concerned raises a question of first impression and involves a principle which would not only affect this particular case but may affect many other cases of the same description, and it is for this reason that I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at great length and have bestowed considerable attention to their arguments. The position is this: Premises No. 16 Bartala Street was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. It belonged to Babu Subal Chand Chunder, but at the time of the acquisition that gentleman was dead. He left a will, two executors being appointed, and probate has been taken by them out. The award was made on 27th March 1935 and a large sum of money, namely about a lac and twelve thousand of rupees, was awarded as compensation money. Before the Collector it seems that the executors produced the will and they wanted the money from the Collector, but the Collector being doubtful of their...
(Shebaits of Sree Sree Idol Issur) Sridhar Thakur and ors. Vs. Jamini ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal415,166Ind.Cas.485
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for a declaratory decree in respect of a revenue sale held on 24th June 1932, of Mahal Taraf Ratahar and others, appertaining to Touzi No. 365 of the Rajshahi Collectorate, after having the same determined to be bad and inoperative (illegal and ultra vires), and of no force and effect. In the plaint, there was also a prayer for temporary injunction against the defendant respondent, restraining her from taking possession of the disputed property till the disposal of the suit. The prayer for temporary injunction was withdrawn during the pendency of the suit. The case of the plaintiffs before the Court was that the revenue payable in respect of the Touzi in question for the March kist of 1932, became arrear only on 1st April 1932, and as such the sale that was held on 24th June 1932, was illegal and ultra vires; it was further stated by the plaintiffs that the revenue payable for the Mahal in suit was payable in four kists, namely, 12th January, 28t...
Hrishikesh Ray and ors. Vs. Upendra Nath Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal432,166Ind.Cas.757
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for enhancement of rent under Section 7, Ben. Ten. Act. The main question in appeal is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to enhance the rent under Section 7. The trial Court decided the issue in favour of the plaintiffs. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge has decided the issue in favour of the defendants holding that the defendants' tenure is held at a fixed rent and not liable to enhancement under Section 7.2. Upon hearing the learned advocates on both sides it appears that the tenure consists of land over 700 bighas in area. The defendants' predecessors obtained the tenure from the predecessors of the plaintiffs in the year 1855. Previously, before 1848, the estate was resumed by Government under Regn. 2 of 1819. Then it was settled to the plaintiffs' predecessors for a period of 20 years. Afterwards in March 1868 it was permanently settled with the plaintiffs' predecessors. Only...
Alkasulla and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal429,165Ind.Cas.6
Henderson, J.1. The appellants have all been convicted of rioting and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. Two of them were also convicted under Section 323 I. P. C., but no separate sentence was passed. Unfortunately when the case came on at the trial the learned Judge adopted a procedure which has given us trouble in one or two other cases and the result is that it is quite impossible to uphold this verdict. The learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer, however, asked us in view of the prosecution case that the appellants' party were mortgagees attempting to get possession without the assistance of the Court to order a new trial on a suitably framed charge.2. There can be as far as we can gather, no doubt whatever that this fight, in which persons on both sides were injured, took place in regard to the dispute about possession. The committing Magistrate took the commonsense view that if possession was really with the complainant, the common object of the accused was to take possessio...
Mohendra Chandra Dutta Roy Vs. BasiruddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal485,166Ind.Cas.103
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. The petitioner before me instituted a rent suit against the opposite parties in respect of an agricultural holding. The suit was valued at less than Rs. 50. None of the opposite parties appeared, so the said suit was decreed ex parte by the learned Munsif, Mr. S.C. Bose, who had been vested with final jurisdiction under Section 153 (b), Ben. Ten. Act. None of the questions coming within the proviso to that section was decided. Accordingly an appeal against his decree would not have been maintainable. Some of the defendants, namely opposite parties Nos. 1 to 15, applied to set aside the said ex parte decree by an application made under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code. The said application was heard by another learned Munsif, Mr. A.B. Ganguly, who had no final jurisdiction under Section 153 (b), Ben. Ten. Act. He dismissed it holding that the summons of the suit had been served on all the defendants and that it was time-barred. An appeal was taken against this order t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »