Kolkata Court March 1939 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.
Sm. Gumti Devi, Widow of Kamta Prosad Sukul and ors. Vs. Babu Jugal Ki ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal399
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the judgment-debtor and the principal point raised is one of limitation. The facts bearing upon the said point are as follows : One Kampta Persad, a person governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law mortgaged 12 annas share of some properties situated at Unao in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh to the respondent on 12th August 1920, for Rupees 60,000. He had at that time two sons of the names of Sheo Gobind and Tribhut Nath. Sheo Gobind had separated from him. Two more sons were born later, Biswambar and Biseswar, the latter being a posthumous one. In 1923, the mortgagee instituted his suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge at Unao to enforce the mortgage. Tribhut Nath was then dead, and Biseswar was not then born. The defendants were Kampta Persad and Biswambar, a minor, represented by his mother Gumti Debi as guardian ad litem. The preliminary decree was passed on 12th April 1924 and the final decree on 17th January 1925. The mor...
Giani Meher Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal714
ORDEREdgley, J.1. Criminal Revision No. 179 of 1939. - This Rule is directed against an order of the Additional District Magistrate of 24-Parganas dated 19th December 1938 in which he directed that a bond which had been executed by a man named Gyani Meher Singh should be forfeited and that he should pay a penalty of Rs. 200. It appears that the petitioner Gyani Meher Singh had been accused of an offence under Section 124-A, Penal Code. After his arrest he gave an undertaking to the effect that he 'would not deliver any speech and thereupon he was released on bail. The bail bond was executed by Gyani Meher Singh himself and Babu Girin Das Gupta executed the bond as a surety whereby he bound himself to forfeit to His Majesty the sum of Rs. 500 in the event of any breach of the bond. The conditions mentioned in the bond were to the effect that Gyani Meher Singh would give security for his attendance in Court on 5th August 1938 and on subsequent days fixed for the hearing of the case again...
Government of Bengal Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal706
Derbyshire, C.J.1. In these matters, on 6th January 1939, rules were issued at the instance of the Government of Bengal upon the Corporation of Calcutta to show cause why the orders complained of should not be set aside and the objections of the Government of Bengal decided. The matter arose in this way: There are three canals, first the Circular Canal which begins at the Hooghly in the northern part of Calcutta and continues in an easterly and southerly directions through the area in which Calcutta lies until it joins the Beliaghata Canal which continues in an easterly direction towards the salt lakes. From it, near the northern end, branches the new canal. The Circular Canal was formerly the boundary between the old Municipality of Calcutta, and the Municipalities of Cossipur and Maniktola previous to the incorporation of the two last-mentioned Municipalities with-in the Municipality of Calcutta, about 1922. It is stated that this Circular Canal does, not lie within any of the wards ...
J.E. Gubbay Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal205
Narsing Rau, J.1. The petitioner J.E. Gubbay in this case was granted a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of the 24-Parganas to show cause (1) why the conviction of the petitioner in respect of charges Nos. 13 and 16 in what is known as the Gariahat Excise Conspiracy case should not be set aside or otherwise varied (2) why the order of confiscation passed by the trying Magistrate in the same case in respect of the petitioner's stock of liquor at 8, Lindsay Street should not also be set aside and (3) why the sentence passed upon the petitioner should not be reduced. There were in all six charges against the petitioner: (a) A charge of criminal conspiracy to commit various excise offences and to cheat, (b) three charges of abetting various excise offences in pursuance of the conspiracy and (c) two charges of cheating under Section 420, I.P.C., in pursuance of the conspiracy. It is the last two charges of cheating that we are concerned with in this rule: they are numbered 13 and 1...
John Jiban Chandra Dutta Vs. Abinash Chandra Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal417
Henderson, J.1. This appeal raises an important and difficult; question of law. The facts are as follows: A man named Dukhiram, an Indian Christian, married an Indian Christian woman named Sudakhina. He was subsequently converted to Mahomedanism and contracted a marriage with a Mahomedan woman named Alfatan. nessa. They had a daughter who is defendant 3. After the death of her parents, she inherited a 15 annas share in the property under the Mahomedan law of inheritance. She sold her interest to the plaintiff. The appellant and the other contesting defendants are heirs of Sudakhina. The question for decision is whether an Indian Christian who becomes converted to Mahomedanism can take a second wife. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that he cannot, and that the union of Dukhiram with Alfatannessa was a mere adulterous connexion. On behalf of the respondent, an objection was taken to the effect that this point cannot be argued as it was not pressed at the trial. It is ...
Saurish Chandra Roy Vs. Sheikh Gopal Ostagar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal743
ORDEREdgley, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs instituted a suit against the Maharaj Kumar of Nadia for a declaration to the effect that they were entitled to perform certain religious ceremonies on the occasion of the Moharrum every year in one of the courtyards attached to the defendant's palace at Krishnagar and they also asked for a perpetual injunction prohibiting the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs by alleging his own title. The suit appears to have been one under Sections 74(C) and (D), Court-fee Act, and the relief sought by the plaintiffs was valued by them at Rs. 165. The defendant contended that the suit had been grossly undervalued and he maintained that, according to a proper valuation, the relief sought by the plaintiffs should have been valued at more than ten thousand rupees. The question was considered by the learned Munsif as to whether or not he should hold an enquiry under Section 8(C), Court-fees Act, but he decided not to adopt this course as he cons...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›