Kolkata Court November 1888 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.
Abayuswari Debi Vs. Sidheswari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal80
Mitter and Macpherson, JJ.1. The order complained of in this case was passed under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The authorities are clear upon this point that, if the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make the order, this Court can interfere under Section 15 of the Charter Act. Therefore the only question that we have to consider is whether the order complained of is one which the Magistrate could make under Section 144 of the Code. The section says that: 'In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or of any other Magistrate specially empowered by the Local Government or the District Magistrate to act under this section, immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate may, by a written order, stating the material facts of the case and served in manner provided by Section 134, direct any person to abstain from a certain act,' &c;, &c.; Now, by the words 'a certain act' we understand that it must be a definite ...
Panna Lall Vs. Kanhaiya Lall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal86
W. Comer Petheram, C.J., C.J. and Banerjee, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Gya refusing to execute a decree by attachment of the judgment-debtor's person, and the reason which he has given for that is, that the judgment-debtor had filed his petition of insolvency and had given up his property to the Receiver under that petition, and he relies upon the sections of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to insolvency as showing that, after he had done that, he was not liable to arrest at the suit, I suppose, of any creditor whose debt was owing before the time of his petition.2. The particular debt in respect of which this applicant had obtained a decree and wished to arrest the judgment-debtor was a debt which the judgment-debtor had not included in his schedule, and we think that the learned Judge was wrong in the view which he took that the judgment-debtor was relieved from the liability to arrest in respect of that debt by the Code of Civil Procedure. The...
Hardeo Baksh and ors. Vs. Shankar Baksh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal397
Hobhouse, J.1. The principal question raised in this case is whether certain estates which belonged to Dariao Singh, talukdar of Rampur Kalan, go according to the law of primogeniture, or are subject to a family arrangement by which they were divided into shares? The principal estate is known by the collective name of Rampur Kalan. It was an estate which was subject to the common Hindu law of Oudh-the Mitakshara law. It was confiscated with other Oudh estates, and it was restored to the family by sanads. The only material difficulty that exists in the case is owing to the circumstance that two different sanads were granted for the purpose of the restoration : one recognizing a division into shares, and the other establishing primogeniture.2. Their Lordships have not to deal with the difficult question which has been agitated in so many cases here, whether, to use rather a popular than a legal term, equities shall prevail against the form of the sanad; because, although it was maintaine...
Madhub Chunder Mozumdar Vs. Novodeep Chunder Pundit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal122
Trevelyan, J.1. Two main questions have been argued before us. In the first place it is contended that the Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and secondly that no offence had been committed.2. The first question turns upon the construction of Section 487 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Judge who tried the case, Mr. Cameron had given sanction for the institution of the charge. The charge was one under Section 210 of the Indian Penal Code for causing a decree to be executed against the complainant after it had been satisfied. The Munsif had refused sanction the Judge had given it. A prosecution was accordingly instituted, and the case was heard by a Deputy Magistrate, and then came up on appeal before the Judge who had given sanction.3. Section 487 provides that, except as provided in certain of the preceding sections, no Judge of a Criminal Court or Magistrate other than a Judge of the High Court shall try any person for any offence referred to in Section...
The Government of Bengal Vs. Umesh Chunder Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-06-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal310
Macpherson and Trevelyan, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an acquittal. The first accused was charged with attempting to cheat. The other prisoners were charged with aiding and abetting him in the commission of the offence of cheating.2. After one witness had been examined for the defence, the Magistrate stopped the case and acquitted the prisoners.3. When we first heard this appeal the Advocate-General appeared for the Grown. At the conclusion of his opening address we held that there was no case against Haran Chunder Chatterjee, and accordingly we discharged him. We then heard Counsel for the other accused and the Advocate-General in reply. After consideration we discharged the accused Jaddub Chunder Gangooly, and expressed our opinion that the Magistrate ought not to have stopped the case for the defence so far as the remaining two accused were concerned. We gave them an opportunity of calling evidence before us. We have since heard such evidence as has been produced on behalf of the a...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›