Kolkata Court August 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.
Akhil Bandhu Ray and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal258
Lethbridge, J.1. This case comes before us on reference by the learned Sessions-Judge of Jalpaiguri, and also on a rule, issued by this Court in revision. The material facts are shortly as follows: On 6th June 1936 a shareholder of the Kohinoor Tea Co. of Jalpaiguri sent a complaint against the directors of the Company to the Deputy Inspector General, C. I. D. at Calcutta. The police investigated his allegations, and reported that nine persons including the directors of the Kohinoor Tea Company, the Bengal Dooars Tea Company, the Arya Bank and the Nor. them Tea Company were members of a criminal conspiracy during the years 1930.35 to commit cheating and criminal breach of trust, and that in pursuance of this conspiracy they actually committed various such offences. The report goes on to enumerate specific offences under these sections in respect of money, committed during those years, and also one ease of offences under Sections 380, 409 and 411,I.P.C., in respect of green tea, for whi...
Surendra Nath Mondal and ors. Vs. Bhudar Chandra Safui and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal690
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of defendants 3 and 4 who are the heirs of one Ramdas Mandal. The questions raised in this appeal are two in number, namely (1) what is the amount of rent which the defendants are to pay for the period in suit, namely for the years 1336 to 1339 B. S. and (2) whether the tenancy which is described in the plaint has been split up into two tenancies, one belonging to defendants 3 and 4 and the other belonging to defendants 1 and 2. In the year 1889, a potta was granted by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs to two persons Fatu Safui and Ganesh Mandal. The land mentioned in the potta was 130 bighas and the rent was fixed at Re. 1 per bigha. Defendants 1 and 2 are the heirs of Ganesh Mandal. Defendants 3's and 4's father Ramdas purchased the interest of Fatu Safui. In the year 1909 the landlords instituted a suit for increase of rent on account of increase in area. That suit ended in a compromise decree. The tenants admitted that the area...
Sufal Golai Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal205
ORDERBiswas, J.1. The petitioner in this case has, to my mind, made out a case for re-trial. He succeeds on the point of law, but whether on the merits he will at the end of the day have to rue his success is another matter. He was charged with an offence under Section 46, Clause (a), Bengal Excise Act, for being in possession of illicit liquor. The maximum punishment provided for an offence under this section is imprison-ment for a term of six months or, and a fine of Rs. 1000. Obviously, an offence under this section should be triable as a summons case under the Criminal Procedure Code. Under Section 4, Clause (v), of the Code a 'summons case' is defined to be a case relating to an offence, and not being a warrant case, and Clause (w) says that 'warrant case' means a case relating to an offence punishable with death, transportation, or imprisonment for a term exceeding six months. The procedure for the trial of a summons case is laid down in Ch. 20 while that for a warrant case is la...
imarat Mallik and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal255
ORDERBiswas, J.1. The six petitioners in this case have had their bonds forfeited under Section 514, Criminal P.C. The bonds were for appearance before the Union Bench of Biur in the District of Bankura in two oases Nos. 4 and 7 of 1937. The bonds were in the prescribed form as given in form No. 6 of Schedule B of the Union Board and Union Court Rules framed by the Local Government under the Village Self. Government Act. The ground on which the forfeiture order is challenged is that the bonds did not specify the place where the accused were required to appear. It appears that the trial was held at a place Bitur, that being the usual place for the sitting of the Bench. On the particular date on which the petitioners are charged as having been absent, the Bench sat not at this place but at another village called Biur where the Bench met for the purpose of local enquiry. The petitioners say that in view of this local enquiry they waited in their respective homes, but not being informed ab...
Sewalram Agarwalla and anr. Vs. Abdul Majid and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal177
1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs from the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Rangpur, dated 28th August 1936, affirming a decision of the Munsif, Second Court of that place, dated 9th April 1936. The facts of the case are these: Defendant 1 was the Subdivisional Officer of Gaibanda in the year 1933. Defendant 2 was the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police posted at Gaibanda Police Station in the same year. Defendant 1 received complaints from certain persons about noxious and adulterated mustard oil and ghee being sold and being exposed to sale by several traders in the Gaibanda town. He also received an anonymous petition to the same effect. The plaintiffs' firm was named in the petition as one of those dealing in these offensive articles. Defendant 1 thereupon made an order for a search and seizure of these articles at the premises of the plaintiffs' firm. He made this order in writing on the body of the anonymous petition. No search warrant however was issued in ...
Ram Krishna Sinha and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal195
Biswas, J.1. These are three rules arising out of the same trial which were heard together. The petitioner in Rule 265 is Ram Krishna Sinha, a pleader practising in the Burdwan Courts, that in Rule 266 is Tarak Nath Das, a Bench clerk of the Second Munsif's Court at Burdwan and that in Rule 267 is a clerk of the said pleader, Radhaballav Samanta. The main charge against them was one of conspiracy on several counts, the conspiracy being one to abstract court-fee stamps from Court records and use them again, knowing that they had been used before. The removal of such a stamp from a document with intent to cause loss to Government is made an offence under Section 261, I.P.C., while the using of a stamp known to have been used before is an offence under Section 262. A common charge of conspiracy was laid against all the three accused under Section 120-B read with either of these sections and with Section 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant). Against the Bench Clerk, there was...
Jonabali Sardar and ors. Vs. Sm. Saleha Khatun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal257
1. This appeal arises out of a representative suit under Order 1. Rule 8, Civil P.C., instituted on behalf of the members of the Mahomedan public for a declaration that certain properties were validly dedicated as wakf by one Tossadak Hossain on 10th Asar 1324 B. S. corresponding to 24th June 1917. The Courts below have dismissed the suit. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff.2. The only point for determination in this appeal is whether the disputed properties are wakf properties. In support of their case the plaintiffs produced a wakfnama which was admittedly executed by Tossadak Hossain on 24th June 1917. It is stated in that document that Tossadak had retired from Government service at the time and that he had a wife but no children. It further appears that he wanted to make some provisions regarding his properties as he apprehended that there would be dispute regarding the properties after his death amongst) the persons who would inherit the major portion of his property as re...
Richard Bruce Whigham Teasdale Vs. Florence Teasdale
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal623
ORDERBiswas, J.1. This rule arises out of a wife's petition for maintenance under Section 488, Criminal P.C. The Chief Presidency Magistrate made an order on the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35 per month for the wife and Rs. 15 per month for child. The ground on which the rule was issued was that the order was passed without coming to a proper finding as to the petitioner's defence under Sub-section (4). Sub-section (4) says that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this Section if she is living in adultery, or if without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. Adultery is not alleged, but at the time I issued the rule I was persuaded that the petitioner's case in answer to the wife's claim was two-fold, that she was staying away from her husband without any sufficient reason, and also that they were living separately by mutual consent. The Magistrate's order ap...
Kumar Gohul Chandra Law Vs. Haji Mohammad Din
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal136
Nasim Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of contract and in the alternative for recovery of compensation and for arrears of rent. The plaintiff's case briefly stated is as follows:The plaintiff is the lessee under Govern-ment of premises No. 33 Canal East Road. By a letter dated 20th February 1932 the defendant offered to take lease from the plaintiff of the said premises for a term of five years at a monthly rent of Rs. 150. He also offered to pay the occupier's share of the Municipal taxes in respect of the said premises. This offer of the defendant was accepted by the plaintiff and that upon the basis of this agreement the defendant was put into possession of the said premises from 1st March 1932. The defendant also agreed to execute a formal registered lease embodying these terms. Subsequently he refused to execute the lease although he was repeatedly asked by the plaintiff to do so. On 25th January 1935 the defendant gave a notice to the plaintiff ...
Gangadhar Nathmull Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal15
ORDERBiswas, J.1. The prosecution in this case is wholly misconceived. It is a prosecution by the Corporation of Calcutta under Section 488 read with Section 412 (1), Calcutta Municipal Act (Bengal Act 3 of 1923) for selling tea unfit for human consumption. The accused are a firm of tea dealers Gangadhur Nathmull, and they have been found guilty by the Municipal Magistrate and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150. In default one of the partners Nathmull has been ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Hence this Rule. Before dealing with the Rule, it is necessary to refer to a preliminary matter. The conviction and sentence were passed on 8th May 1937. On 13th May, the petitioners through their pleader applied for a copy of the order with a view to moving this Court. Instead of granting the copy for which the petitioners had annexed 8 folios with their petition, the Magistrate ordered Nathmull to attend personally, and then issued a distress warrant for realization of the f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »