Kolkata Court April 1879 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.
In Re: Abdool and ors. Vs. Luckey NaraIn Mundul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal132
Ainslie, J.1. The order of the Magistrate complained of is dated the 21st November 1878, and is in the following terms: 'Kine may be slaughtered in the place named in the ikrarnama. They cannot be slaughtered in any other place. A notice to this effect will be issued by beat of drum.'2. This order does not, on its face, purport to be made under Section 518; nor does it determine that there was any emergency, which made it necessary for the Magistrate to resort to the provisions of that section. It is either an order under Section 518, or it is not. If it is not under that section, it does not appear that there is any law which authorized the Magistrate to make it, and no prosecution under Section 188 of the Penal Code could be maintained for disobedience of it. If it is taken to be made under Section 518, the order is bad, inasmuch as it deals with the civil rights of persons without any limitation of time.3. The object of Section 518 is to enable a Magistrate, in cases of emergency, t...
Brojonath Mozumdar Vs. Ram Chunder Chuckerbutty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal929
Jackson, J.1. In order to come to a clear and correct understanding of what the legislature intended in passing Act XL of 1858, it is necessary to refer to previous legislation on the subject.2. By Reg. X of 1793, which contained a body of rules for the guidance of the Board of Revenue as a Court of Wards, provision was made for the appointment, or confirmation, as the case might be (Section 21), of the guardians to landholders disqualified by minority or otherwise. The office of guardian was to be distinct from that of manager, but both offices might be united in the same person (Section 6).3. Reg. V of 1799, dealing with the case of persons subject to the jurisdiction of the. Zilla Courts, who died leaving heirs under age or incompetent, but not under the superintendence of the Court of Wards, declared that the guardian or nearest-of-kin, designated either by special appointment or by the law of the country as authorized to act for such heir, should not be obliged to apply to the Cou...
Gopi Mohun Mullick Vs. Taramoni Chowdhrani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal7
Garth, C.J.1. In answering the questions which have been referred to us by the Division Bench, it will be convenient in the first place to dispose of the last and most important of them, viz., whether the Magistrate was competent to pass the order complained of under the provisions of Section 518 of Act X of 1872.2. The order was in these terms:To Gopi Mohun Mullick, inhabitant of Paikara, Purgana Sherpur. Case--Unlawful assembly.It has appeared at the trial of the said suit, that a haut, having been established since 20 or 25 years at Taragunj, the estate of the said Chowdhrani, is duly held every week on Tuesday and Friday. At present you having set up a new haut at Nalitabari, which is quite close to the said haut, have fixed Tuesdays and Fridays, in other words, the days on which the Taragunj haut is held, for holding your newly-established Nalitabari haut. Since, by reason of the day fixed for holding this newly-established rival haut being exactly the days on which the Taragunj h...
Behari Lall Mookerjee Vs. Mungolanath Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal110
Jackson, J.1. The Judge of Hooghly, in making this reference to the Court, and in observing on the precedents which have been cited before him or brought to his notice, appears not to have remarked the change in the law introduced by Section 6 of the present Limitation Act. The corresponding section of the repealed Act IX of 1871 declared that--'When by any law not mentioned in the schedule hereto annexed, and now or hereafter to be in force in any part of British India, a period of limitation differing from that prescribed by this Act, is specially prescribed for any suits, appeals, or applications, nothing herein contained shall affect such law;' so that when by any special enactments, which continued in force, such as the Rent Act, any period of limitation differing from that prescribed by Act IX of 1871 was prescribed, then the provisions of Act IX were wholly inapplicable to such cases, and, therefore, the petitioner for review would be bound to present his application precisely w...
In Re: Maharaja of Burdwan Vs. the Chairman of the Darjeeling Municipa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal194
Jackson, J.1. This case comes before us upon a petition of the Maharaja of Burdwan. He complains of an order passed by Mr. Abbott, Assistant Commissioner, with powers of a magistrate, at Darjeeling, under Section 532 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The subject to which this order related was a road, which apparently passes over the ground of the Maharaja and is claimed by the Maharaja as being his private road, and is not shown to have been in any sense belonging to or maintained by the public; but it is one over which it may be said the public have a limited right of way.2. It seems that Major Lowis, who was the Deputy Commissioner of Darjeeling, in the course of his inspection of the station-roads, observed this road with gates or gate-posts at one end of it, and it struck him that the road was, or ought to be, a public thoroughfare. He, thereupon, consulted with the Municipal Commissioners, and the result was, that they authorized him to move in the matter, and, if necessary, tak...
Doorga Doss and anr. Vs. Grish Chunder Mundul and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal494
Birch, J.1. The facts found in this case are, that the plaintiff's obtained a decree against the defendant No. 3 for arrears of rent of a durpatni tenure due up to Choitro 1282 (April 1876), and in execution of that decree brought the tenure to sale on the 7th November 1876. The sale-proceeds amounted to Rs. 1,471, and the plaintiffs' decree for Rs. 211-1-6 was satisfied from the sale-proceeds, the surplus of Rs. 1,259-14-6 being left in deposit in the Court. Subsequently the plaintiffs obtained another decree for the rent of the tenure from Bysack to Assin 1283 (April to October 1876) against the same defendant for the first half of 1283, and in taking out execution of that decree, caused the surplus sale-proceeds standing to defendant's credit to be attached. The defendants 1 and 2 held two decrees against the same defendant, and they also attached the surplus sale-proceeds in execution of their decrees. A rateable distribution of the sum in deposit was made by the Court between the ...
Nistarini Dasi and Vs. Bonomali Chatterji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal941
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiffs contend in special appeal that the lower Court's decision is erroneous in law. That having regard to the express stipulation in the potta of 1253 (1846) they are entitled to enhance the rent of the tenure without serving a notice upon the tenants under Section 14 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869.They rely on two decisions of this Court--Bhyrud Chunder Mojoomdar v. Huro Prosunno Bhuttacharjee. (17 W.R., 258) and Ram Narain Lall v. Gumbeer Singh (19 W.R., 188)--in support of their contention.The respondents on the other hand have cited before us two reported decisions--Burodakant Roy v. Sib Sunkuree Dossee (4 W.R., Act X Rul., 35) and Ekram Mundul v. Holodhur Pal (I.L.R., 3 Cal., 271), and also rely on:an unreported decision of the Court, dated 2nd January 1878, in special appeals, Nos. 921, 922 and 923 of 1877.On referring to these cases we find that there is a conflict in the decisions of this Court upon the point raised before us, and as the question involved is o...
In Re: Soorendro Nath Roy Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal106
Justice Wilson, J.1. This case gives rise to several questions of fact and law. Mr. Allen is right in his contention that the matter is not affected by Section 642 of the Civil Procedure Code, but by English law.2. This arrest is under a writ issued from the Small Cause Court, the Act constituting which has no corresponding section to Section 642 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the matter must be governed by English law.3. The question is, whether the defendant attending Court, under the circumstances under which this defendant attended, is privileged from arrest. The general doctrine is that parties are privileged. The proceeding under which the hearing came on is somewhat peculiar, and it is said that a defendant attending in a suit of this nature, under the circumstances which existed here, was not privileged. The suit is under chap. 39, and when the proceedings are under that chapter the writ is in a peculiar form, and the defendant is not allowed to defend without obtaining leave...
Gosto Behary Pal Vs. Johur Lall Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal836
Wilson, J.1. Answers to interrogatories are simply affidavits obtained in the way which the Code provides, and the party wishing to use them must put them in as his evidence....
Miller Vs. Brindabun
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal946
Wilson, J.1. This is a suit brought by the Official Assignee, as assignee of the estate of Hurronath Mozoomdar and others, his partners, to recover damages for the removal by the defendants of flour and oil mills and steam-engine, boiler and other accessory machinery by which the mills were worked,--all which had belonged to the insolvents.2. The defendants justified the removal on the ground that they were purchasers of the things in question at a sale in execution of a decree of the Calcutta Small Cause Court.3. Several objections to the validity of the sale and removal were raised. First, it was said that such things are not goods and chattels within the meaning of Section 58 of Act IX of 1850. Now I think it clear, that the things in question, bedded and fixed as they were, were what are called in English law fixtures, that is to say, so annexed to the soil that they could not be severed and removed without substantial disturbance of the soil and a substantial change in the charact...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »