Kolkata Court July 1937 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.
Devi Sankar Banerjee Vs. Janendra Narayan Bagchi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1939Cal110
Costello, Ag.C.J.1. The rule which wee are now considering was issued as long ago as 3rd August 1936. It is directed against two orders made by the District Judge of Birbhum dated respectively 16th July 1936 and 30th July 1936. The matter came before the learned Judge in these circumstances. The present petitioner Debi Sankar Banerjee had purchased Dihi Baidora and certain other mehals appertaining to Touzi No. 1152/1 of the Birbhum Collectorate in Astham proceedings No. 15 and 72/93 of 1936-37 on 23rd May 1936 for Rs. 27,100 and he had obtained from the Collector a certificate vouching for the fact that he had made full payment of the purchase money. The subject-matter of the purchase was a patni taluk, and in the patni potta there was a covenant which as translated, reads as follows:If you create a darpatni, you must do so at the jama mentioned in the kobala and inform me at once. You must not create it at a lesser jama and if you do so, it shall be void.2. The patnidars against whom...
Bhagaban Das Shah Vs. First Land Acquisition Collector
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal705
Costello, Ag. C.J.1. This matter arises out of a petition affirmed by one Bhagaban Das Shah on 22nd April 1937 which was entitled 'In the matter of an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., and under Section 107, Government of India Act, and in the matter of Bhagaban Das Shah of 169 Ahiritola Street, Calcutta, Petitioner v. The First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta of 5 Bankshall Street, Calcutta, opposite party.' At the outset it may be said that one is surprised to find that the petition was headed with a reference to a section of a Government of India Act which had ceased to exist. One can only imagine that the petition as regards its captions had been drafted in the old common form, that the author of the petition was extremely dubious from the very commencement as to whether Section 115, Civil P. C, would be of any assistance to him. The petition was a belated one which again raises some doubt in the mind of the Court as to whether the petitioner had any real faith in his...
Ram Charita Ram Bhakat Vs. Chairman of District Board
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal710
ORDERBiswas, J.1. The petitioner is said to be a dealer in ghee at Nitpore in the District of Dinajpur. On 25th October 1935, a consignment of 25 tins of buffalo ghee admittedly meant for him was landed at Godagari Steamer Ghat and put into two carts for being conveyed to the Godagari Railway Station from where it was to be booked to Rohonpur Station where the petitioner was to take delivery. Godagari is within the District of Rajshahi and Rohonpur in Dinajpur. On the way the carts were stopped by the Sanitary Inspector of the Rajshahi District Board on suspicion, and some samples of the ghee taken by him from one of the tins which were all sealed up. The samples were sent to the public analyst for examination, and upon his report that ghee was 'highly adulterated', the present prosecution was started before a Magistrate of the First Class at Rajshahi. The complaint was filed by the Sanitary Inspector, and stated that the petitioner had on 25th October 1935 infringed Section 6, Bengal ...
Sm. Ayesha Khanum and ors. Vs. Commissioners for the Port of Chitagong
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal31
Nasim Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application filed by the respondents under Section 115-B, Bengal Tenancy Act for correction of an entry in the finally published E.S. record relating to Mouza Bhangachar No. 171 under Thana Patiya. in the District of Chittagong. The disputed lands were recorded in Khatian No. 532 of the R. S. records as being in the possession of the appellants as appertaining to their Sadharan Noabad Taluk No. 56 under Government. The rent for the taluk was settled at Rs. 95-8-0 under Part 2, Ch. 10, Bengal Tenancy Act, after the final publication of the Record of Eights. The bona fide mistakes alleged by the respondents are these : (1) although the respondents are the proprietors of the, disputed lands, Government has been wrongly recorded as proprietors; (2) al-though the lands were in the khas possession. of the respondents, they were not recorded in their khas khatian namely Khatian No. 252 but were wrongly recorded as being in the possession of the def...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Bangshidhar Bidasaria and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal36,173Ind.Cas.303
ORDERBiswas, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta and the opposite party to show cause why the order of the learned Magistrate dated 29th April 1937 should not be set aside. This order was made upon an application made by the Corporation of Calcutta under the provisions of Section 363, Calcutta Municipal Act (Bengal Act 3 of 1923), asking for demolition of certain structures at premises No. 23, Kalakar Street, alleged to have been constructed without sanction or in deviation of sanction. The infringements of the Building Rules complained of were of Rules 23, 29, 30 and 91 of Schedule 17 of the Act. In other words it was alleged that one-third open space had not been left in the premises, that the 'courtyard angle' had been cut, and that so also the 'back angle'. In accordance with the usual procedure, the case had been placed before one of the Buildings Standing Committees of the Corporation, and upon considering the departmental report, the Committee r...
Emperor Vs. Durga Charan Sing
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal6,173Ind.Cas.475
Guha, J.1. The accused Durga Charan Sing was charged under Section 302, I.P.C., for having committed the offence of murder on 18th February 1937, by intentionally causing the death of Mt. Raimoni, daughter of the complainant Ramu Khatri, with a dao, a dangerous weapon. He was placed on his trial before the learned Sessions Judge of the Assam Valley Districts and a jury. On the unanimious verdict of the jury, the learned Judge convicted the accused under Section 302, I.P.C., and sentenced him to death. The case of the accused is before us, under the provisions of Section 374, Criminal P.C.; the records have been submitted to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge for confirmation of the sentence of death passed on the accused person. There is also an appeal by the accused directed against the decision of the Sessions Judge convicting him under Section 302, I.P.C., and passing the sentence of death upon him. At the very-outset, our attention was drawn by the learned advocate appearing ...
Nrishingha Charan Nandi Choudhury Vs. Kedar Nath Chaudury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal713
Costello, Ag. C.J.1. This matter affords some illustration of what may be the amazing and unexpected results of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors' Act 1935, (Bengal Act 7 of 1936). It is not in my opinion putting the situation in too serious a light to say that the effects of the Act, unless the Courts are very careful to interpret its provisions with the utmost strictness, may be to work untold hardship to persons to whom money is owing and to entail much injustice. This case is concerned indirectly with a decree which was obtained by one Nrishingha Charan Nandi Choudhury described as a shebait of Sri Sri Raj Rajeswar Bigrahaya Thakur of Mohanganj, Dinajpur, against one Kedar Nath Choudhury of Kandi in the District) of Murshidabad. Nrishingha is the petitioner before us and as long ago as the year 1932 he instituted a suit for accounts against Kedar Nath Choudhury upon the footing that Kedar Nath Choudhury had been his patwari entrusted with the duty of collecting rents, cesses and so f...
Sailesh Kumar Singh Vs. Nursing Pandey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal271
Panckridge, J.1. In this case an order has been made by Ameer Ali J. that the question of the jurisdiction of the Court be tried as a preliminary issue. The defendant's contention is that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit because it is a suit for land within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, such land being situated wholly outside the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the Original Side. The words 'suits for land or other immovable property' in Clause 12 have given rise to a considerable number of divergent decisions in the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras which exercise original jurisdiction under their respective Charters. The plaintiff has framed his case in the following manner. In para. 1 of the plaint he states that he is the only son and sole heir of one Ram Kissore Singh, a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law, who died intestate on 2nd February 1919. He then alleges that many years prior to his death, Ram K...
SahabuddIn Sarkar and ors. Vs. Moulvi KafiluddIn Tapadar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1937
Reported in: 174Ind.Cas.301
Nasim Ali, J.1. The appellants instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif at Chandpur for a declaration of title to and for recovery of possession of a parcel of Char land which is admittedly a part of alluvial lands formed by the recess of the river Meghna towards the east. Their case is that the disputed land is a part of the accretions to C.S. No. 702 while the case of the defendants-respondents is that it is a part of the accretion to C.S. No. 717 belonging to them which lies to the north of the plaintiffs' C.S. No. 702.The trial Court determined the question of title on the basis of actual possession of the Char lands after their formation and decreed the suit in part. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 7 appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Tippera. The Subordinate Judge of Tippera who heard the appeal was of opinion that the determination of the question of title to the disputed land depended upon the right method of apportionment of the Char lands between the two rival riparian owners ...
Goloke Behari Takal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal51,173Ind.Cas.65
McNair, J.1. These three appeals have been heard together. Nine persons in all were put upon their trial in connection with the murder of a doctor named Amulya Sankar Chakravarti. There was a common charge against them all under Section 120-B read with Sections 302 and 201, Penal Code. Two of them were also charged with a substantive offence each, accused Upendra Nath Dutt, a Sub-Inspector of Police, under Section 204, and accused Bazlar Rahaman under Section 364. The trial was by jury. By a majority verdict, five of the accused, namely Upendra Nath Chakravarti (No. 2), Bazlar Rahaman (No. 6), Bejoy Kristo Roy (No. 7), Benoy Bhusan Roy (No. 8), and Upendra Nath Dutt (No. 9) were found not guilty of the main charge of conspiracy, but the remaining four, Goloke Behari Takal (No. l), Kalipada Bag (No. 3), Shamapada Bag (No. 4) and Khalil Mal (No. 5) were found guilty. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the verdict, and acquitted the first five, while he convicted the other four and sente...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »