Skip to content

Kolkata Court August 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.

Aug 19 1936

Rani Mohini Sundari Vs. Dist. Judge

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Aug-19-1936

Reported in: AIR1937Cal424

ORDER1. This rule was issued on the learned District Judge, Murshidabad, calling upon him to show cause why an order passed by him in a guardianship proceeding should not be set aside.2. The order was made by the Judge on 20th July 1936 in connection with an appointment of a Manager by the guardian appointed by the Court, and the direction contained in the order was that the guardian should deposit within a fortnight Rs. 1,500 representing six months' pay of the Manager proposed to be appointed but whose appointment to the office was not completed for the reason that he was not able to secure a Fidelity Bond as he was required to do by the terms of an agreement. The learned District Judge has in the case before us shown more than usual interest in the matter of appointment of Manager by the guardian for reasons best known to him; and has used language in his order against which this Rule is directed as also in his explanation submitted to this Court, which cannot be said to be well bal...


Aug 19 1936

Rani Mohini Sundari Vs. District Judge

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Aug-19-1936

Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.912

ORDER1. This Rule was issued on the learned District Judge, Murshidabad, calling upon him to show cause why an order passed by him in a guardianship proceeding should not be set aside.2. The order was made by the Judge on July 20, 1936, in connection with an appointment of a Manager by the guardian appointed by the Court, and the direction contained in the order was that the guardian should deposit within a fortnight Rs. 1,500 representing six months' pay of the Manager proposed to be appointed but whose appointment to the office was not completed for the reason that he was not able to secure a Fidelity Bond as he was required to do by the terms of an agreement. The learned District Judge has in the case before us shown more than usual interest in the matter of appointment of Manager by the guardian for reasons best known to him and has used language in his order against which this Rule is directed as also in his explanation submitted to this Court, which cannot be said to be well bala...


Aug 17 1936

Chhoteram Sarup Sha Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Aug-17-1936

Reported in: AIR1936Cal801

Cunliffe, J.1. This Rule raises a short point of law on its own facts. The petitioner was convicted under Section 199, I. P. C., for making a false statement. Section 199 is a provision of the Code which deals with a very specialised form of perjury. This section which is not very often used is, in the following terms:Whoever in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to bo false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.2. The fact was that the petitioner put in a petition in insolvency and in his petition he made a false statement to the effect that he had never been an insolvent before. This was proved to be untrue and hence t...


Aug 14 1936

Ananda Lal Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Sm. Katyani Debi and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Aug-14-1936

Reported in: AIR1937Cal16

R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal which is on behalf of the decree-holders involves the question as to whether their application for execution, filed on 22nd March 1935, was barred by limitation or not. Both the Courts have answered the question in the affirmative and have dismissed the application for execution. In my judgment, the point of limitation has been wrongly decided and that the application for execution filed on the said date by the decree-holders is not barred by time. The decree-holders, who are large in number, obtained a final decree for mesne profits against the judgment-debtors on the 3rd December 1929. It is this decree which is sought to be executed. All of them filed an application for execution in the year 1931. That application for execution was numbered Execution Case No. 5 of 1931, It is admitted that, that was an application in accordance with law filed in the proper Court. The final order on the said application was passed on 27th January 1931. The decree-holders...


Aug 14 1936

Serajganj Loan Office Co. Ltd. Vs. Sasimukhi Debi and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Aug-14-1936

Reported in: AIR1937Cal36

R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of defendant 9, in a suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent to enforce her charge for maintenance on the properties described in Sch. Ka of the plaint which consists of many items of property. In this appeal I am only concerned with item 11 of the said schedule. Jadav, Satish and Purna, the husband of the plaintiff, were brothers. They had inherited from their father immoveable properties, which included a patni taluk held under Jogesh Chandra Chowdhury. On Purna's death his widow, the plaintiff, inherited his properties in which she had the estate of a Hindu widow. Jadav and Satish were her husband's reversioners. On 23rd January 1890 she surrendered her estate in favour of Jadav and Satish. Whether the deed operates as a complete relinquishment under the Hindu law or not is not material for this appeal, for by the document of transfer it cannot be doubted that she at least transferred her life estate in favour of Jadav and Satish. In co...


Aug 14 1936

Krishna Kanta Ghose and ors. Vs. Rajeswar Ghosh and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Aug-14-1936

Reported in: AIR1937Cal656

Edgley, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff sought to eject the defendants from an under-raiyati holding under Section 48-C, Ben. Ten. Act. The main defence of the defendants was that they had been in continuous possession of the land in suit for more than 12 years and this defence was accepted in the Court of first instance. The lower Appellate Court held that the period of 12 years' continuous possession by which an under-raiyat is protected from ejectment on the grounds specified in Clauses (c) and (d) of Section 48-C, Ben. Ten. Act, must exclude the period covered by the ejectment notice and in this view of the case, the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the decision of the first Court.2. It appears from the facts as stated in the judgments of the Courts below that on 2nd May 1920, Kisto Bandhu Ghose, the father of the present defendants died. It had been contended in the first Court on behalf of the defendants that the possession of Kisto Bandhu Ghose i...


Aug 12 1936

K.C. De Vs. Hira Bewa and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Aug-12-1936

Reported in: AIR1937Cal51

Edgley, J.1. In the suits out of which these appeals arise, the plaintiff sued the defendants for arrears of rent. It was the plaintiff's case that, at the inception of the tenancies falkar was assessed as part of the rent for the demised land. The case for the defendants appears to have been that the falkar in question did not form part of the rent of the holdings in suit but was realised by the plaintiff as an abwab against the will of the defendants. The learned Munsiff dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that there was no contract for the payment of falkar between the parties at the time of the inception of the tenancies. The finding of the learned Munsiff was, however, reversed on appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge whose findings were: (1) that the defendants had paid the falkar just as regularly as rent since the inception of the tenancies; (2) that the falkar claimed had been in existence from the time of the inception of the tenancies; and (3) that these tenancie...


Aug 12 1936

In Re Upendra Nath Kar. Bhowanipore Banking Corporation Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Aug-12-1936

Reported in: AIR1937Cal336,173Ind.Cas.906

ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This is an application by the Bhowanipore Banking Corporation, Ltd. for an order that the proof of debt lodged by the applicant with the trustees of a certain deed of composition should be admitted, and for an order that the trustees should pay to the applicant the dividends payable on the applicant's claim on the basis of the dividends already issued. The circumstances which give rise to this application are as follows: A company called 'Kar's Bricks and Tiles Ltd.' obtained an advance of a lac of rupees from the applicant (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') on the 27th September 1927. That advance was secured by a deed of mortgage to which the limited company and one Upendra Nath Kar (hereinafter referred to as 'the insolvent'), who was the proprietor of a business known as Kar & Co. were parties. The mortgage security consisted of immovable property belonging to the limited company. The papers before me do not contain a complete translation of the mortgage-...


Aug 12 1936

Alimjan Bibi and ors. Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Aug-12-1936

Reported in: AIR1937Cal578

Cunliffe, J.1. The trial out of which this appeal has arisen was one of arsenic poisoning. Six persons were originally brought before a Magistrate and accused of being concerned in the death of a man called Keramat Ali who has been described both by the Magistrate and by the Judge presiding at the Sessions as a man who was a simpleton or almost half-witted. It appears that his wife, one of the accused by the name of Alimjan Bibi, had an intrigue with a neighbour, also one of the accused by the name of Abdul Ali. These two tried to trick the husband into living all three together and made him some kind of a bogus offer for sharing their property. Somehow or other it appears that Abdul Ali and the wife did get hold of some property and then doubtless the husband's relative woke up to the position and he resisted the efforts of his wife and her lover and went off to live by himself. The prosecution story was that subsequently some cakes were made up into which arsenic had been introduced....


Aug 12 1936

NaimuddIn Biswas and ors. Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Aug-12-1936

Reported in: AIR1936Cal793,166Ind.Cas.625

Henderson, J.1. The four appellants have been convicted of offences punishable under Section 326, I. P. C., and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The first two were convicted in connexion with an assault upon one Kalachand which eventually resulted in his death. The other two were convicted in connexion with an assault upon two persons named Meru and Palan. Various points have been taken by Mr. Basu on behalf of the appellants two of which deal with the general aspect of the case and the remainder of which relate to objections against specific portions of the charge delivered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. The first point taken is that the learned Judge ought to have proceeded with the case on the footing that the previous trial had finally delivered certain matters. What happened was that the appellants and various other persons were put on their trial not only on the present charges, but on charges under Section 148 and Section 304/ 149, I. P. C. The result was th...


  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial