Kolkata Court November 1883 Judgments
Chundi Churn Bhuttacharjea and anr. Vs. Hem Chunder Banerjea
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal207
Mitter, J.1. We are of opinion that the order complained of must be set aside. The first point that was urged before us was that no notice of the application upon which the order in question was passed was given to the petitioner. The complainant's vakil, who appeared before us in support of the order of the Sessions Judge, admits this defect. The order is therefore bad upon this ground. The second objection taken before us is that the Sessions Judge, under Section 437, has no power to direct a particular Magistrate by name to make the further enquiry contemplated in that section. It appears to us that this contention is also well founded. The language of Section 437 leaves no room for doubt that the Sessions Judge has not the power which he has exercised in this case, viz., of directing a particular Subordinate Magistrate by name to make the further enquiry under this section. The third point taken before us, and upon which we think the order must be altogether set aside, is that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath Neogy and ors. Vs. Rajanikanth Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal244
Richard Garth, C.J.1. These are four cases, in which somewhat similar claims were made by the plaintiffs.2. At an auction sale in execution, the plaintiff's purchased the right, title and interest of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are members of the Biswas family, in certain property, which those defendants were jointly entitled to, and in possession of, with the other Biswas defendants; and amongst other lands, which were included in the purchase, was the right, title and interest of the defendants 1 and 2 in the joint family dwelling-house.3. Other portions of the family property consisted of lands let out to tenants, whilst others again were held by one or two of the Biswas defendants in rather a peculiar way, which I shall presently explain.4. At present we will deal with one of the cases only (No. 738), which relates to the joint family dwelling-house, and to one or two plots of land which were held by tenants of the family on service tenure.5. The Munsiff held that the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!NobIn Krishna Mookerjee Vs. the Chairman of the Suburban Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal194
Field, J.1. In this case the accused has been convicted for failing to remove or alter the spouts of his house which discharge water on the high road, and the conviction has been bad as for a breach of Bye-law No. 19 of the Suburban Municipality made under the provisions of Section 313, Beng. Act V of 1876.2. The first point raised before us is that the conviction is bad, because it was had before a Bench of Magistrates consisting, amongst other's, of Mr. Sterndale, the Vice-Chairman and a salaried officer of the Muncipality. We think that this objection is a sound one, anything contained in Section 555+ of the present Code of Criminal Procedure notwithstanding. That section enacts 'that no Judge or Magistrate shall, except with the permission of the Court to which an appeal lies from his Court, try any case to, or in which he is a party or personally interested,' and then there is an exception as follows: 'A Judge or Magistrate shall not be deemed to be a party or personally intereste...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›