Kolkata Court August 1883 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: Act I of 1879; in Re: a Reference to the Board of Revenue
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal92
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case certain immoveable property was sold by the Sheriff of Calcutta in execution of a decree of this Court for Rs. 5,000. It was sold subject to two mortgages, securing repayment with interest of Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 250 respectively.2. The Board of Revenue have referred to us the question whether the stamp on the sale certificate should be for Rs. 5,000, the purchase-money, or for Rs. 12,250, being the amount of the purchase-money plus the sum secured by the mortgages.3. The Collector and the Board of Revenue consider that the stamp should be for Rs. 12,250, and we are referred to two Full Bench authorities, one of the Bombay High Court Sha Nagindas Jeychand v. Halalkore Nathwa Gheesla I.L.R. 5 Bom. 470 and the other of the Madras High Court-Reference under Section 49 of the Stamp Act I.L.R. 5 Mad. 18, which appeared to be in conflict.4. The Bombay Court decided that where a certificate of sale expressly stated that the sale was made subject to the mortgage...
Anand Lal Bera and ors. Vs. the Empress on the Prosecution of Azim, Pe ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal18
Prinsep, J.1. The petitioners were convicted under Section 183 of the Penal Code for offering resistance to an attachment of the property of one Tulseeram Bera, which the Deputy Collector had ordered in execution of a certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act (Beng. Act 'VID of 1880. The warrant under which the peon acted stated that the return should be made on or before the 3rd February.2. The resistance, it has been found in the present case, was offered on the 4th February, and it is contended before us that under such circumstances, no lawful order was in force, and consequently the prisoner has committed no offence. It appears to us that, having regard to the terms of the second Clause of Section 251 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this objection is fatal to the conviction, and that the conviction, therefore, must be set aside and the fine, if paid, refunded....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›