Kolkata Court September 1889 Judgments
In Re: Dhuronidhur Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-28-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal299
ORDERTottenham and Banerjee, JJ.1. This is an application to direct the Presidency Magistrate of the Northern Division of Calcutta to issue a process upon the petitioner's complaint that his wife, a minor under sixteen years of age, had been kidnapped from his lawful guardianship by her own father, the allegation being that the wife was taken from her husband's house while he was asleep by her father, and had been removed to Rungpore.2. The Magistrate refused to issue a process. In his letter to this Court, in showing cause against the rule, he says that there is no criminality in the act of a father taking away his own daughter, and that during his long course of experience as a Magistrate, he has refused many such applications.3. We think that the cause shown is not sufficient, inasmuch as the act of the father distinctly falls within the definition of Section 361, Penal Code. He may have had no criminal intention in taking away his own daughter, but the law provides, and the fact is...
Tag this Judgment!Palukdhari Pandey and ors. Vs. Lala Kirut NaraIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal326
Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. The landlords now again appeal to this Court, urging (1) that Mr. Brett, as Special Judge, has under Section 108 (1) no power to do otherwise than hear appeals from the Revenue Officers' orders; that as District Judge he has no power to take any steps in the case; and that, therefore, his proceedings now appealed against are ultra vires and without jurisdiction: (2) that Sections 565 and 568, Civil Procedure Code, have no application to the case: and (3) that he has flow settled the rents of several raiyats who were not parties to the original proceedings before Mr. Collins. On the other hand, a preliminary objection is urged on behalf of the respondents to the effect that no appeal against the order of Mr. Brett passed on the 10th January last lies to this Court, inasmuch as under Section 108 (3) a second appeal lies to the High Court only against decisions passed by a Special Judge under the provisions of Section 106 of Act VIII of 1885, and that the decision...
Tag this Judgment!Biprodas Roy and ors. Vs. Gobind Lal Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal399
Tottenham and Gordon, JJ.1. This was a suit to set aside a sale of certain property for arrears of Government revenue. The property in question is an estate known as Mehal Khurd Muradpore, and it was sold by the Collector of Rungpore on the 26th of June 1886 for Rs. 6,500.2. The plaintiffs are the executors to the estate of the late Bhagirat Das, the son of Bhuban Mohan Das deceased, who was the mortgagee of an eight-anna share of the property sold; and the principal defendant Raja Gobind Lal Roy is the auction-purchaser. The defaulting proprietors of the estate, Ramjanam Miaser and Mahomed Zakaria, who are the successors in interest of the original mortgagors, have also been made defendants, because they declined to join with the plaintiffs in bringing this suit. There are also other defendants, including the Secretary of State, who however did not appear, and may therefore be left out of consideration in this appeal.3. Sometime after the institution of the suit, the defendants Ramjan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›