Kolkata Court January 1881 Judgments
The Empress Vs. Dabee Pershad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal532
Prinsep, J.1. The deposition is inadmissible. Section 76 of the High Courts' Criminal Procedure Act contemplates that evidence, when taken upon commission, if intended to be used in the High Court, must be taken upon an order made by that Court under that section. The terms of Section 158 of the Presidency Magistrates' Act, quoted by Mr. Phillips, refer only to the record of the trial or enquiry before the Magistrate. The evidence taken by a commission issued by order of a Magistrate could not here be admissible under Section 33 of the Evidence Act....
Tag this Judgment!Jogendro Nath Roy Vs. Madhub Doss and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal673
Cunningham, J.1. The first objection in this case is, that the Court below ought not to have granted the application of the respondent without better evidence of the inability of the applicant to measure the lands, and without ascertaining who are the persons liable to pay rent.2. It appears that the respondent, who is the proprietor of the land in question, filed a verified petition, in which he stated that he had endeavoured to measure the land, and had been unable to do so; and that thereupon the Court below made the order under Section 38 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869, now appealed against. We think that that was a rightful proceeding, and that there is no ground for setting aside the order on that account.3. But with regard to the procedure adopted by the Collector, we are not satisfied that there was a 'due enquiry' sufficient to comply with the requirements of Section 38.4. That section is a highly penal one, and we are bound to construe it with the utmost strictness. It appears tha...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Dabee Pershad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal530
Prinsep, J.1. The question may be put. I agree in the opinion expressed by Phear, J., in The Queen v. Macdonald [10 B.L.B., (App.,) 2] that the Evidence Act draws a distinction between an admission and a confession of guilt. The other cases quoted are not altogether on the point....
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Nobocoomar Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal621
Mitter, J.1. The Magistrate of Howrah having convicted the petitioner, Nobocoomar Pal, of an offence under Section 53, Beng. Act VII of 1878 (The Beng. Excise Act), and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 200, and rigorous imprisonment in default of payment, an application was made to the Judge of Hooghly, in order that the proceedings might be referred to this Court under Section 296, Criminal Procedure Code.2. In his application Nobocoomar Pal raised two objections to his conviction and sentence: first, that he held a retail license for sale of spirits, and could not, therefore, be convicted under Section 53 of the Act; second, that he was not liable to rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.3. The Judge has referred the case to this Court, and his opinion is, that Section 59, and not Section 53, of the Act applies. He brings to notice certain informalities in the proceedings of the Magistrate, and recommends that the proceedings may be set aside, or the fine reduced to R...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ishan Chunder Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal707
Tottenham, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Tippera, rejecting, on the ground that it was barred by limitation, an application for probate of the, will of one Obhoy Chunder Roy, who died on the 23rd of Pous 1281 (corresponding with the 6th January 1875).2. The application was made on the 11th March 1880,-that is, five years and two months after the death of the testator. The Judge appears to have called for an explanation of the delay, and to have considered that no sufficient reason was made out. He rejected the application as being barred under Article 178, sched. ii of the Limitation Act.3. We think that the lower Court was mistaken in applying the Limitation Act to a petition for probate. If the article quoted be read alone, it does indeed seem capable of the widest extension to every possible application that can be made to the Court, 'for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this schedule, or by the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2...
Tag this Judgment!Zomurrudonnissa Khatoon Vs. Kangali Churn Sha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal709
Morris, J.1. We think that the Subordinate Judge is wrong, and the first Court is right in holding that, so far as this suit is brought to recover property comprised in the order of the Magistrate made under chap, xl of the present Code of Criminal Procedure, it is barred under Article 47, sched. ii, Act XV of 1877. No doubt the order, being passed on the 30th June 1865, comes under the operation of the former Limitation Act, IX of 1871. But by Section 2 and sched. v of Act X of 1872, chap, Clause of that Act (X of 1872) has been substituted for chap. xxii of Act XXV of 1861; consequently the order of the Magistrate, which is the cause of action in this suit, is governed by the provisions of Act XV of 1877. We are unable to assent to the argument that the property, to recover which a suit may be brought under Article 47, is moveable property only. It seems to us to have reference to immoveable as well as moveable property. This view is in accordance with that of the Madras Court in the...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkumar Ghose and ors. Vs. Dinendronath Sannial and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal107
B. Peacock, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Calcutta, dated the 16th of March 1877, which reversed an order of the Subordinate Judge of Rajshahye, dated the 10th July 1875, by which he ordered, amongst other things, that an execution case, No. 69 of 1875, instituted by the respondents against the appellants should be postponed until further orders.2. At the close of the arguments on the hearing of the appeal their Lordships, after deliberation, stated that they would humbly advise Her Majesty by their report to reverse the decree of the High Court and to affirm that of the Subordinate Judge of Rajshahye so far as it related to the execution case, No. 69 of 1875, and that the respondents must pay the costs of the appeal. They, however, reserved the statement of their reasons for this report until after the argument of another appeal in some respects connected with this case, in which Tarakchandra Bhuttacharjia is the appellant and Baikantnath Sanni...
Tag this Judgment!Tarakchandra Bhuttacharjia Vs. Baikantnath Sannial and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal119
B. Peacock, J.1. Their Lordships are of opinion that the decision of the High Court was correct as to the construction of the order of the 14th September 1865. That order runs as follows:2. At the hearing of this case this day by consent of both parties it (torn) arranged that the plaintiff (torn), have simple interest only (torn), original decree from the year (torn), date of payment, it being (torn) that the cross-decrees of (torn), for wasilat also bears simple interest from date of ascertainment only. The orders, therefore, for calculating interest on the one hand upon the sum ascertained to be due in 1250, and for setting off the wasilat due to defendants year by year is modified, and there will be no annual account to set the two accounts against one another. The simple interest only will be [120] calculated from 1828, when the other decree can be set off against the gross amount once for all. Decree as above, with costs in proportion.3. From this judgment, and from the decree wh...
Tag this Judgment!Kally Churn Sahoo and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Cou ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal725
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This suit is brought by the plaintiffs to recover from the defendant possession of about 140 bighas of milik land, forming part of their estate of Mouza Ghurghut, for which they have paid rent to Government for many years past.2. The plaintiffs say that this land was diluviated previously to 1865 ; that it then partially re-formed, and was diluviated again in 1869 ; that it reappeared in 1875, and was then wrongfully appropriated by the Government.3. The answer to the claim is, that the land in question does not belong to the plaintiffs' mouza at all, but forms part of an adjoining estate, called Binda Deara, belonging to Government; and that even if it does form part of the plaintiffs' mouza, it was surveyed by the Collector in the early part of 1865 as part of Binda Deara and was held by the Government as such until the year 1869, when it was again diluviated; and that when it re-formed in 1875, it was taken possession of by the Government, who have held it up t...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. in the Matter of the Petition of Jamoona
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal620
Mitter, J.1. This case came before one of the Judges of the present Bench in the vacation, and it occurred to him that no charge was made to any one competent to act upon it. Enquiries were, therefore, made as to the powers (magisterial or police) of the Station Staff Officer.2. From the papers within it will be seen that he has no such powers.3. The appellant appeared before Captain Simpson, Adjutant, 11th M. N. I., and Station Staff Officer, and charged a non-commissioned officer with rape. There was an enquiry, and the charge being found to be false by the military authorities, the Commanding Officer caused the appellant to be prosecuted before the criminal authorities under Section 211. She was committed for trial, and convicted by the Judicial Commissioner under that section.4. We are of opinion that the appellant neither instituted, nor caused to be instituted, a criminal proceeding. She, no doubt, charged the non-commissioned officer with an offence; but the Station Staff Office...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »