Kolkata Court July 1936 Judgments
Radha Gobinda Sen and anr. Vs. Ram Brahma Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal814
ORDER1. The question for consideration in these cases is whether vakalatnamas containing stipulations to the following effect are required to be stamped as agreement under the Stamp Act, as also as vakalatnamas under the Court Fees Act: (1) The pleader is to receive certain fees for work to be done for his client in Court in a case before the Court in which the vakalatnama is filed. (2) The pleader is not bound to appear and act, if fees are not paid in advance. In view of the provisions contained in the Stamp Act, an instrument comprising or relating to several distinct matters is chargeable with aggregate amount of duties with which separate instrument each comprising or relating to one of such matters would be chargeable (Section 5). In applying this provision of law, there can be no doubt that what has to be taken into, account is what the parties concerned purported to provide for, by an instrument, and not whether any particular provision was necessary or might have been dispense...
Tag this Judgment!Samser Ali Choudhury and ors. Vs. Haji Araf Muhammad Talukdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1936
Reported in: 167Ind.Cas.404
1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent, directed against. the decision of cur learned brother Mr. Justice Jack, dated February 25, 1936, affirming the decrees passed by the lower Courts in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent with interest, on the basis of a patni patta. The question for consideration before the lower Courts and before our learned brother Mr. Justice Jack in second appeal, related only to the question as to whether the plaintiff in the suit in which this appeal arises was entitled to interest on the patni rent at the rate stipulated in the kaubliyat, that is, at the rate of 6.1/2 per cent, per month or 75 per cent, per annum. The question resolved itself into this whether the landlord of a patni could realise more than 12.1/2 per cent, as interest on arrears of rent, regard being had to the provisions contained in Section 67 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It appears to us that the decision on the question raised in this appeal is concluded by authority, so far as ...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Nath Gupta and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal99
1. The appellants in these appeals, 29 persons, were tried by a Special Tribunal, constituted by the Government of Bengal under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, on a charge of conspiracy under Section 121-A.I.P. C The charge as drawn up by the learned Commissioners constituting the Tribunal was of the following description: That the accused persons, between 1930 and December 1933, at Munshiganj Road, Watgunge Police Station, and other 70 places, (mentioned in a schedule to the charge), along with Jiten Naha (an approver, examined as a witness for the prosecution) and other persons, five hundred and thirty-seven of whom were named in the schedule to the charge were parties to a criminal conspiracy to wage war against the King or to deprive the King of the Sovereignty of British India, or of some part thereof, or to overawe, by means of criminal force or show of criminal force, the Government of India or the Local Governments.2. It may be noticed that the mention of so many names i...
Tag this Judgment!Samarali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal675,166Ind.Cas.323
Cunliffe, J.1. These appeals have been ably argued before us and are put forward on behalf of three men who were convicted by a Judge and jury at Mymensingh for crimes of abduction and rape upon a young Hindu married woman. The appellants are Mohammedans. In my opinion, this was a false case and it was made no more easy before the jury to come to a correct conclusion by the manner in which it was handled by the learned Judge. As the learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer pointed out, it is perhaps difficult to put one's finger upon any striking piece of misdirection: but the whole of the summing up, in my opinion, was apt to mislead the jury by the learned Judge's misappreciation of the evidence which was laid before the Court. One of the most striking features of the case was that the witnesses whom one might have expected to have been called for the prosecution were called for the defence, while other witnesses whose names were originally mentioned as being prosecution witnesses concernin...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Shahedan Bibi Vs. Mir Ali and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal31
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against an order passed on appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Hooghli, by which the order passed by the learned Munsiff, Second Court, Serampore, has been affirmed. The said orders have overruled the judgment-debtor's objection and have allowed the execution to proceed against her.2. On 20th December 1926, one Harihar Banerjee obtained a decree for money against the appellant in the Second Court of the Munsiff at Serampore. That decree was affirmed on appeal on 6th January 1928 and thereafter some lands belonging to the appellant were attached by Harihar. At the time when the lands were under attachment, one Abdul Gaffur purchased the attached lands in benami of his wife from the appellant. Harihar Banerjee had obtained a decree for money against Abdul Gaffur also. When Abdul Gaffur found that the lands purchased by him from the appellant were under attachment he proposed a compromise with Harihar Banerjee. ...
Tag this Judgment!Probhabati Ray Vs. Gourisankar Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal219
Ameer Ali, J.1. In this matter I am going to give directions to the Administrator-General. Normally of course such a matter is dealt with in Chambers, and as it involves no point of law there would be no question of publicity. In this case I have asked the Reporter to be present; I am not asking that the matter should be reported. I shall simply state the facts. I think it right to state the reasons for this unusual course. I have been on this Bench nearly half my time. I have dealt exclusively with the interlocutory list or the C list; in other words, with what may be called indigenous or social litigation with which at the Bar I had nothing at all to do. Since I have taken this list dealing with infant matters, trust matters, administration suits and partition suits I have realized what an amount of suffering our system is responsible for. I have not been able to do anything to assist and I do not expect that during the rest of my time I shall be able to do anything to assist. Result...
Tag this Judgment!Amitava Ghose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal693,166Ind.Cas.384
Cunliffe, J.1. The appellant Amitava Ghose, an undischarged insolvent, was tried before Mr. H.K. De, 4th Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, on 14 charges comprising both cheating and criminal breach of trust as a banker, together with allegations of conspiracy in relation to these two types of charges with two named persons, one, Kalimuddin and the other Banerjee, with certain other unnamed conspirators. He was convicted and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment in all, such sentence comprising separate convictions under both criminal breach of trust with conspiracy and cheating with conspiracy, the sentences to run concurrently. Now, the sole ground on which this appeal has been argued before us is a technical one. The learned Advocate for the appellant has confined himself to a criticism of the manner in which this man was tried in law. The complaint is that there was no evidence before the Court whatever to support the charges of conspiracy to which I have already referred....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: a Petition in Sm. Mahamaya Dassi Vs. Shaik Munshi Abdur Rahim a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal752
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This application, to vary a report of the Registrar dated 11th September 1934, comes before me in the following circumstances: A Hindu woman, Kishori Bala Dasi, owned No. 38/3-A, Nilmoni Mitter Street, and Jalilur Rahaman, whose mistress Kishoribala was, owned the adjoining premises No. 6-A, Gouri Sankar Lane. On 27th January 1927 Kishoribala and Jalilur, to secure Rs. 4,000 borrowed by them jointly, mortgaged these premises to Kishory Mohan Dutt. On 20th April 1927 Kishoribala and Jalilur further charged the premises to secure Rs. 2,000 borrowed by them jointly in favour of Baidya Nath Pal. The plaintiff Mahamaya Dasi is the assignee of this charge. On 8th June 1927 Kishoribala and Jalilur further charged the premises to secure Rs. 800 borrowed by them jointly in favour of Prasanna Kumar Das. In para. 5 of the petition used in support of this application it is stated:In all the indentures of mortgage and further charge although the consideration was paid to both ...
Tag this Judgment!Majaharali and anr. Vs. Mafijaddi Sardar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal706,166Ind.Cas.127
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case the petitioners were mortgagees of certain tenure. Opposite party No. 1, the landlord, instituted a rent suit, got a decree and in execution of that decree put up the tenure to sale. It was sold at auction and purchased by another person, opposite party No. 2, wife of opposite No. 3, and not the decree-holder. After about six months the petitioners applied to set aside the sale on the grounds that sale processes had been fraudulently suppressed by the decree-holder and that by such sale the petitioners had suffered substantial loss. The trial Court set aside the sale. In appeal the findings were reversed and the petition was dismissed.2. It is urged in this Court that the learned Munsif, carefully considered all the evidence on the issue of the service of the sale proclamation. He noticed that the witnesses named in the peon's report were not examined but other persons were brought in to prove the service of the sale proclamation and that a person was...
Tag this Judgment!Jagat Kishore Acharya Choudhury Vs. Badan Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal702,166Ind.Cas.82
ORDERNasim Ali, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the Second Sadar Munsif, Mymensingh, dated 6th May 1936, in rent Suit No. 34 of 1936 now pending before him. The petitioner is the plaintiff in that suit. He applied to the learned Munsif under Section 148 (h), Ben. Ten. Act, to serve on defendant 1 the elder brother of minor defendant 6, a notice informing him that he will be treated as the guardian of the minor defendant in respect of the suit. That prayer was allowed and the notice was served. He, however, did not appear and object to his being treated as guardian for the suit within the time prescribed by that section. On 21st April 1936, the learned Munsif directed the petitioner to deposit requisite fees for the appointment of a Court guardian. The petitioner thereafter prayed for reconsideration of that order on the ground that defendant 1 who was the natural guardian of defendant 6 did not object to his being appointed guardian and consequently must be deemed to be ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »