Kolkata Court March 1938 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.
Guru Prosad Ram Gupta and ors. Vs. Rameswar Marwari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal527
ORDER1. In this ease, a rule was issued upon the District Magistrate Burdwan, and also upon the complainant to show cause why the proceedings under Section 500, I.P.C., against the petitioners should not be quashed or such other order made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. The petitioner Ramkissen lodged an information at the thana on 19th July 1936 that he went to the firm of Keshabram and demanded some money due to his master; that he was an employee of the firm of Kuarram Jharilal of Ranigunge, an altercation ensued and Rameswar Lal Marwari snatched away his cloth bag containing. Rs. 378.4-6 and assaulted him. An enquiry was made and all the accused were charged under Section 323, I.P.C. and Rameswar Marwari was, in addition to that section, charged under Section 379, I.P.C. The Magistrate found the four accused guilty and sentenced them to pay fines of Rs. 50 each under Section 323,I.P.C. and found Rameswar Marwari guilty under Section 379,I.P.C. On appeal, the Sessions Jud...
Keshab Lal Bhattacharjee Vs. Provat Chandra Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal667
McNair, J.1. This is an action for libel. The plaintiff and the defendant were joint executors of the will of a lady of the town, Sreematy Kironsoshi Dassee. She left a daughter Shephalika Dassee, who was a minor seven years old at the time of her death in 1934. In 1935 her executors obtained probate of her will. In opening the case, allegations have been made on the one side that the defendant kept the girl in a disorderly quarter of the town, and on the- other side that the plaintiff took her to his own house to get hold of her property. There has been an acrimonious correspondence with regard to this property and both parties have made reckless accusations by letter and in the course of judicial proceedings. Eventually on the application of the defendant the plaintiff was removed from his office of executor. On 29th February 1936 the plaintiff wrote a letter headed 'In the goods of Sreematy Kironsoshi Das-see' to Mr. B. M. Das, the solicitor for the defendant, Dr. P.C. Sen. The lett...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. HosseIn Ali and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal439
M.C. Ghose, J.1. The two accused men in this case were tried by a Magistrate who convicted them under Sections 363 and 498, I. P. C, and sentenced them under Section 363 to rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months each and awarded no separate sentence under Section 498. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge found the two accused men not guilty under Section 363, but guilty under Section 498. He upheld the conviction under Section 498, but felt that he had no authority to pass a proper sentence as the Magistrate had not passed any sentence under that section.2. In our opinion the learned Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to pass appropriate sentence under Section 498 subject to the limit of one year and six months which the Magistrate had imposed. Under Section 423 (b) in an appeal from conviction the Appellate Court may alter the finding maintaining the sentence or with or without altering the finding reduce the sentence. In this case what the learned Sessions Judge did was to al...
Satyendra Nath Sinha Vs. Akhil Chandra Bagchi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal654
McNair, J.1. This is a suit for a declaration that a hire-purchase agreement dated 19th April 1937 has been determined by breach on the part of the defendant, and for an order that the defendant do make over to the plaintiffs certain machinery, the subject-matter of the agreement. The defendant admits having entered into the hire-purchase agreement, but he denies that the machinery which is the subject-matter of that agreement belonged to the plaintiffs. He also sets up an agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and himself and two other persons for the flotation of a limited company. He denies having committed any breach of the hire-purchase agreement, and contends that that agreement came to an end by reason of this alleged agreement for the flotation of a company.2. The defendant spent some time in Japan and while there he ordered machinery for tin printing, tin varnishing and zinc grinding, amongst other machinery, and intended to set up a factory on his return to India. He h...
Kissory Lall Basak and ors. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal870
ORDERAmeer Ali, J.1. This is an application under Section 45, Specific Relief Act, that is to say, by way of mandamus. It is necessary clearly to bear in mind the precise acts which the Court is asked to require the Corporation to carry out. Clause (a) of the, notice of motion is divided into three sub-clauses, which are as follows:(1) Granting necessary sanction to the applicants building plan on the land of the said premises No. 19/1, Ultadinghi Road. (2) Formally excluding the said land from the limits of bustee. (3) Showing the said land in the standard plan approved for the bustee as not being part of such bustee.2. Clause (b) of the summons reads 'that the Corporation of Calcutta do forthwith deal with the said matters mentioned in Clause (a) hereof according to law.' The facts are as follows : The applicants as executors to the estate of Babu Arun Bhusan Bysack own the premises 19/1, Ultadinghi Road. These premises, before the facts which I am about to mention, formed part of a ...
In the Matter Messrs. Chouthmal Golapchand.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1938
Reported in: [1938]6ITR733(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - The facts in this case are set out in the in Annexure A, dated January 8, 1936.The first question is whether on the facts of this case the assessees were entitled to claim a loss on shares by valuing the shares at their market price on the date on which they were divided up amongst the partners ?It has been contended by the assessees that these shares were sold by the partnership to the outgoing partners, and not partitioned as the case states. The case, in my opinion, is in accordance with the facts and is conclusive on that point. The shares in question were acquired sometime previous to the beginning of the accounting year, we are not told how long previous. It is common ground that they were acquired at a price higher than the price ruling on March 8 or March 30, 1936. They had been shown in the books of the partnership and carried forward from year to year at cost price.The assessees say that there was properly a loss on the disposal of those shares and that tha...
Nagendra Lal Pal Choudhury and ors. Vs. Hemanta Kumar Mukherjee and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal503
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Faridpur passed on 23rd September 1936, wherein he declared that an auction sale of certain immovable property held on 20th September 1935, was null and void. The learned Judge was sitting in Insolvency. The history of the matter is this : the decree, holder Nagendra Lal Pal Chowdhury on 8th March 1934, obtained a money decree against the judgment-debtors for Rupees 883 and costs. Execution proceedings were started in the first Munsif's Court at Chikandi in the district of Faridpur. On 17th May 1935 a notice was issued upon the judgment-debtor under Order 21, Rule 66, Civil P. C, fixing 2nd July 1935 as the date for hearing objections to the proposed proclamation of sale. On 2nd July 1935 proclamation of sale was drawn up, the date of sale being fixed for 12th August 1935. On 10th August 1935 the two judgment-debtors filed an insolvency petition in the Court of the District Judge of Faridpur. On 12th August, th...
Haradhone Ghose Vs. Dasarathi Mukherji and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal38
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This second appeal Raises a question of interpretation of a will. The appellant was the plaintiff in the suit. The will was executed by one Bihari Lai Ghose on 15th January 1921. He died on 24th March 1924. His widow Binodini died in 1927. He left two sons and three daughters of whom the eldest is Bonwari whose two sons Haradhan and Jibandhan (since dead) instituted the suit. The second son Bibhuti is named as executor in the will and is defendant 2. The present defendant 1 obtained a money decree against Bibhuti and in execution of that decree attached premises Nos. 37 and 39 Kalidas Patitundi Lane which belonged to Behari Lal Ghose and are mentioned in the will. Bonwari's two sons filed a claim case but it was dismissed for default. Thereupon 'they brought the present suit. Their case 'was that by the will, absolute interest in these two properties was bequeathed to them, that the interest that was bequeathed to Bibhuti was not absolutes and that therefore these prop...
Nibaran Chandra Shaha Vs. Lalit Mohan Brindaban Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal187
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted on 26th August 1931, by the plaintiffs-respondents for a declaration that the leasehold interest in premises Nos. 23 and 23/1, Canal West Road, belongs to them. The suit was originally filed with defendant 1, Heera Lal Shaha, as the only party defendant, but later on, on 12th January 1934, Nibaran Chandra Shaha and Jaga Bandhu Shaha were, on their own application, added as defendants 2 and 3, respectively. Heeralal had after the institution of the suit mortgaged the leasehold interest to them treating the same to be his property. The learned Subordinate Judge has granted a decree to the plaintiffs-respondents with a condition that they must pay to Heeralal the sums of money which the latter had paid as security deposit and as rent and taxes. Defendants 2 and 3 have preferred this appeal. Their advocate, Mr. Gopali Chandra Das, raises the following points it support of the appeal: (1) that the suit is premature; (2) that the pla...
Kali Charan Som Vs. Priya Nath Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal522
ORDERPatterson, J.1. This rule must be made absolute to this extent, that the judgment of the Court of Appeal must be set aside as not being in accordance with law. The main questions for decision were regarding the complainant's possession of the disputed land and regarding the facts of the alleged occurrence. On the first point, the Court of Appeal below has recorded a clear finding but has not discussed the evidence on which that finding is based. On the second point there is no finding and very little discussion of the evidence. It is in fact almost impossible to gather from the judgment of the Court of Appeal taken by itself, what the alleged occurrence was, and what was the real nature of the dispute between the parties. It is true that the judgment of the trial Court contains a fairly full discussion of the evidence, but that is not sufficient. It is the duty of the Appellate Court not merely to consider whether there are reasons for differing from the judgment of the trial Cour...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »