Kolkata Court March 1877 Judgments
The Empress Vs. Jyadulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal436
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We are of opinion that an appeal from an order of acquittal is within time if presented within six months from the date of the order of acquittal. The sixty days' rule does not apply.[1][1] Ed Note. In 'Reg. V. Dorabji Balabhai' (11 Bom. Rep. P. 117) it was held, that Section 272 of Act X of 1872 must be read by itself....
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Burah and Book Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal64
Markby, J.1. Two persons, Burah and Book Singh, have been convicted on a charge of murder by the Deputy Commissioner of the Cossyah and Jynteeah Hills and sentenced to death. The sentence was commuted to transportation for life by the Chief Commissioner of Assam on the 23rd April 1876.2. On the 9th July, 1870 the officer, in charge of the Kamrup jail forwarded to this Court petitions of appeal from these prisoners, unaccompanied by copies of the judgment.3. The first question which arises in the case is, whether the High Court has any power to entertain these applications; and this question is one of so much importance that it has been referred to a Full Bench, and has been on two occasions very fully argued.4. The Cossyah and Jynteeah Kills comprise a considerable tract of country on the eastern frontier of Bengal, and they contain a population which, in 1862, was estimated at 120,000. The Jynteeah Hills were formerly under the independent Rajah of Jynteeah. The Cossyah Hills were div...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Empress of India on the Prosecution of Malcolm Vs. Gasper and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal278
White, J.1. I have, in the course of the argument, stated my views so fully that it is unnecessary to do more than recapitulate the reasons for my decision.2. Mr. Phillips, on behalf of the prosecution, applies, on affidavit, for one of two orders--either for a rule under Section 147 of the High Courts' Criminal Procedure Act (X of 1875), calling on the Magistrate to show cause why these proceedings should not be transferred to this Court for hearing and final determination; or for a mandamus to compel the Magistrate to commit on a charge of being a member of an unlawful assembly under Section 141 of the Penal Code.3. When the case came before me on the first occasion, I was informed that the Police Magistrate, having heard the evidence, did not disbelieve the facts proved, but thought that they did not amount to the offence with which the defendants were charged, and, therefore, declined to commit them for trial. When I heard that such was the nature of the case, I requested Mr. Phill...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Soorjmukhi Koer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal272
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We consider that we may answer both those questions by saying that the requirements of Section 11 as to the deposit of costs are not absolutely imperative. Had they been so, this Court would not have any power to modify them. But we think they are not so. There is no provision similar to that in Section 10 requiring the petition to be dismissed in case of default. We think, therefore, that the Court has some discretion, and that it would be in all cases a reasonable exercise of that discretion, if, when the period for making the deposit expires on a day when the offices of the Court are closed, the deposit were allowed to be made on the day that the offices re-open....
Tag this Judgment!The Bank of Hindoostan, China and Japan Limited Vs. Shoroshibala Debee ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal311
Kemp, J.1. The main point argued before us for the Bank, the plaintiff's, appellants, was, whether there had been a legal service upon the defendants. Section 8, Reg. XVII of 1806, provides, 'that whenever the receiver of holder of a deed of mortgage and conditional sale may be desirous of foreclosing the mortgage, and rendering the sale conclusive on the expiration of the stipulated period, or at any time subsequent before the sum lent is repaid, ho shall, after demanding payment from the borrower, or his representative; apply for that purpose by a written petition, to be presented by himself, or by one of the authorized vakeels of the Court, to the Judge of the shall or city in which the mortgaged land or other property may be situated; and that the Judge, on receiving such application, shall cause the mortgagor or his legal representative to be furnished, as soon as possible, with a copy of it, and shall at the same time notify to him, by a perwanna under his seal and official signa...
Tag this Judgment!Watson and Co. Vs. Dhonendra Chunder Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal7
Markby, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff on behalf of the zemindars to recover arrears of rent due in respect of certain estates in the Zilla of Midnapore, held by the defendants as patnidars. The rents claimed were those which fell due between Bysack 1275 and Aughran 1281. The defence set up was, fist, that as to the rent which fell due in 1275, the suit was barred by Section 2 of Act VII of 1859; secondly; that as to all the rent which foil due prior to the 30th of Cheyt 1277, the claim was barred by limitation; thirdly, that the defendants had paid to one Captain Murray Rs. 2,500 out of the rent due by the order of the plaintiff. The defendants contended that if these deductions were made, only Rs. 2,780-3 remained due for rent, which amount they had deposited in the Collectorate.2. It appears that the zemindars of this property and their patnidars have been for a long time in litigation with each other. In the year 1271 some opposition was made by the zemindars to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kally Prosonno Ghose Vs. Gocool Chunder Mitter and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal296
Mitter, J.1. The following genealogical table will materially help in setting out the facts of this case:PTTAMBUB GHOSH.Died August 1825.|-----------------------------------------------------| |Parbutty Churn Ghose, Bhugoban Chunder Ghose,(Died 1851) (Died October 1855)Married Bindadeboo Dossee Married Potitpaboni Dessee(Died 1804) || Khetter Mohun GhoseDaughter (Died 1855)Kristo Mohiny Dosseo, Married Bamasoondery Dossee,Died childless between the deaths who, after her husband's death,of Parbutty and Bindadehee. in August 1870, adoptedKALLY PBOSONNO GHOSM, the plaintiff'. 2. The plaintiff in this case is the alleged adopted son of Khetter Mohun, and the defendant is the brother of Bindadebee, widow of Parbutty, whose property is the subject-matter of dispute in the present case. Parbutty died in 1851, leaving him surviving Bindadebeo his widow, Kristo Mohiney a daughter, and Khetter Mohun his brothor's son he executed a will before his death, bequeathing all his property to Bindadebee...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›