Kolkata Court June 1880 Judgments
The Empress Vs. Nistar Raur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal163
Maclean, J.1. This is a reference made by one of the Presidency Magistrates of Calcutta, under Section 240, Act IV of 1877, submitting for the opinion of the Court three questions of law arising out of a prosecution under Act XIV of 1868, Section 2.2. The first question raises a point which does not affect the case before the Magistrate, who has to decide whether the person charged before him has committed the offence imputed. We think it unnecessary to express any opinion on this point.3. We think that, as every woman registered under the Act has an absolute right to have her name removed 'from the book,' if she is desirous of ceasing to carry on the business of a common prostitute, any rule which raises any obstacle to the exercise of that right is not in accordance with Section 21 of the Act. Part of the 13th rule referred to by the Magistrate, oommencing 'may postpone' and ending 'satisfied he,' appears to be ultra vires. We answer the second question in the negative.4. The third q...
Tag this Judgment!Hurrosoondary Dassee and anr. Vs. Jugobundhoo Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal203
White, J.1. This was an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Dacca, dismissing an appeal which the appellants before us had preferred against an order passed by the Munsif of Moonsheegunge on the 23rd of May 1879.2. On the 8th of July 1878, the appellants bad procured the reversal of an order by which the Munsif had directed execution to issue for the possession of certain land under a decree obtained by the respondents. The reversal was procured on the ground that execution was barred. In as much as, before the reversal was obtained, the respondents had been put in possession of the land by the first Court, it became necessary for the appellants to apply, and they accordingly applied on the 23rd of May 1879, to be restored to possession. In consequence, however, of certain prior proceedings that hail taken place (to which I shall presently refer), the Munsif simply made an order that a notice should be served on the opposite party--that is, the respondents-- directing them...
Tag this Judgment!Konaram Gaonburah Vs. Dhatoaram Thakoor and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal196
Morris, J.1. We are unable to assent to the proposition laid down by the lower Appellate Court in this case, that a Government ryot cannot acquire a right of occupancy in lands cultivated by him under the Rent Law in force in Assam. The law in force in Assam is, as we understand, Act X of 1859, and it is in operation without any reservation; consequently, under Section 6, a tenant contracting with the Government can certainly acquire a right of occupancy. The Government is not in the position of a proprietor holding land khamar, nijjote, or seer in the entire province. As in the other settled provinces of Bengal, it gives out the land in settlement ryotiwar, and neither under the settlement, nor under the law, is the ryot prevented from acquiring, after twelve years, a right of occupancy. The case must, therefore, be remanded to the lower Court for retrial. It will be necessary, as the lower Appellate Court has not expressed any opinion on the finding of the first Court on the point, t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Indian Companies' Act, 1866 and of the Calcutta Jute Mills ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal888
Wilson, J.1. This case raises a question of jurisdiction of some importance. I think it well, therefore, to state the grounds on which I make the order asked for.2. The Company in question was formed in England in April 1872, under the Companies' Act, 1862; and by the Memorandum of Association its registered office is in England. By its original Articles of Association the general meetings of shareholders were to be held in England, and they contemplated, I think, that the board of directors should act in England. The manufacturing business has always been carried on in India. In August 1876, now Articles of Association were substituted for the former ones. Under these the meetings of shareholders must be held in Calcutta. The directors are chosen in Calcutta, and it appears from the affidavits that the board act here; there being generally only one director in England whose business is that of agency. The property of the Company is all in Calcutta: the whole of the manufacturing busin...
Tag this Judgment!HosseIn Buksh and ors. Vs. the Empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal96
Prinsep, J.1. In an attempt made by certain villagers of Juggernathpore to remove an obstruction to the flow of water erected by the villagers of Sikundarpore, a riot took place, in which Shariutoollah, one of the Juggernath-pore people, was killed.2. In accordance with the procedure which has been prescribed in such cases by numerous rulings of this Court, the Magistrate held separate proceedings against each party, keeping the evidence against them separate, and he committed the contending villagers for trial by the Court of Session in separate cases.3. The case against the Sikundarpore villagers first came on for trial. After the close of the evidence for the prosecution (so the Sessions Judge records), by arrangement with 'the pleaders, the case for the defence in the present trial was postponed till after the conclusion of the case for the prosecution in the counter-trial,'-i.e., the case against the Juggernathpore villagers. The trial of the case last mentioned then commenced. 'T...
Tag this Judgment!Hurro Pershad Roy Chowdhry Vs. Bhupendro NaraIn Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal201
White, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Pargannas, dated the 13th of October 1879.2. It appears that the High Courts, on the 4th of August 1876, upon the application of Hurro Pershad Roy Chowdhry for leave to lodge an appeal in the Privy Council, dismissed the application, and directed him to pay to the respondents before us Rs. 50 as costs. But the order was silent as to the Court which should compel the payment of the costs, in case Hurro Pershad would not pay them.3. The respondents, when the costs were not paid, applied for the execution of the order to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Pargannas. The suit had been originally instituted in that Court, but had been called up by the District Judge for trial in his own Court; and this was therefore the Court which passed the decree.4. Two objections were taken before the Subordinate Judge, which have been renewed before us on this appeal. The first is, that the execution of the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Brajeshware Peshakar Vs. Budhanuddi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal268
Jackson, J.1. In this case I have the misfortune to differ in opinion from my learned colleague, and as the difference relates to a point of law, the appeal will have to be referred, under Section 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to one or more of the other Judges of the Court. My view of the case is this: The plaintiff, who is described as peshakar, which, I take it, means a woman of ill-fame, sues to recover the sum of Rs. 625 as principal, and Rs. 406-10 annas as interest, amounting in all to Rs. 1,031-10 annas, by the sale--firstly, of certain property which she alleges to have been mortgaged to her in a registered instrument by the defendant Hur Soonduri as collateral security, and which property has since been conveyed by Hur Soonduri to the other defendant Budhanuddi Chowdhry, who appears to be in possession of the same.2. Hur Soonduri, the alleged borrower and mortgagor, put in no written statement, but she was examined as a witness in the cause on the plaintiff's side.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Sunker Moitro Vs. Kali Komul Mozumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal256
Mitter, J.1. I think that the question referred to us should be answered in the affirmative. An adopted son, according to Hindu law, takes by inheritance from the relatives of his adoptive mother in the same way as a legitimate son.2. According to Hindu law, an adopted son occupies the same position, and has the same rights and privileges in the [260] family of the adopter as the legitimate son, except in a few specified instances, which have been clearly and carefully noted and defined by writers on the subject of adoption. The theory of adoption depends upon the principle of a complete severance of the child adopted from the family in which he is born, both in respect to the paternal and the maternal line, and his complete substitution into the adopter's family, as if he were born in it.3. Nanda Pandita, in the Dattaka Mimansa, Section VI, paras. 50, 51 and 52, after laying down that the ancestors of the adoptive mother are the maternal ancestors of the adopted son, on the authority ...
Tag this Judgment!Ataoor Rohoman Vs. Joykishen Mookerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal22
White, J.1. This is a second appeal against a decree of the lower Appellate Court, which rejected the appellants' appeal as being put of time.2. It is not disputed that the first appeal was barred, unless a certain order which was made by the Subordinate Judge of the 3rd of February 1879 ought to be treated as the final decree in the suit. On the other hand, if it ought to be so treated, the Full Bench case of Soudaminee Dossee v. Dheraj Mahtab Chahd (B. L. R., Sup. Vol., 585; S.C., 6 W. R., Mis Rule, 102) shows that limitation runs from the date of the order, in which case the appellants would not be barred.3. This order was made under the following circumstances:4. The Subordinate Judge, on the 28th July 1878, pronounced a decree in favour of the respondent (who was the plaintiff in the first Court) in respect of a portion of his claim. The appellants, who are two of the defendants in the first Court, applied to the Subordinate Judge by petition for a review of judgment on several gr...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: SurjanaraIn Dass and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal88
Jackson, J.1. We are altogether unable to approve of the decision of the Sessions Judge in this case, as it appears to us that he has missed the true points in the case, and has given prominence-and given, so to say, by his judgment a certain validity-to that which he ought to have discountenanced.2. As we understand the statements of the contending parties, the Maharaja of Tippera claimed a right to collect certain duties, of which the nature is not precisely stated, in respect of bamboos cut not only over land admittedly belonging to him, but over land of which the ownership appears to be in doubt, and of which at any rate the Collector of Sylhet appears to have made a grant to the opposing parties in these proceedings. Whether upon application from the grantee or otherwise, the Deputy Commissioner, as Collector, appears to have taken upon himself to issue a proclamation to all persons concerned, warning them that the collection of duties or tolls on the part of the Maharaja was ille...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »