Kolkata Court August 1890 Judgments
Kachali Hari Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal129
Norris and Gordon, JJ.1. We are of opinion that this appeal should be allowed. As regards the charge under Section 363, Indian Penal Code, we think that the evidence as to the girl's ago is unsatisfactory and by no means sufficient to warrant the finding that she way under 16 years of age on 18th April last, the day on which it is alleged that she was kidnapped.2. As regards the charge under Section 366, the only evidence of abduction is that of the girl herself, and looking at the palpable falsehood of her story of having been ravished by the prisoner and four other men, we do not think it would be safe to rely upon it.3. In this connection we have to observe that the Sessions Judge ought not to have admitted the deposition of Dr. Kelly, the Civil Surgeon, taken before the Committing Magistrate, as evidence against the prisoner. To render the deposition of a civil surgeon or other medical witness admissible in evidence under Section 509, Code of Criminal Procedure, it must be shown to...
Tag this Judgment!Kishen Pershad Panday Vs. Tiluckdhari Lall and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal182
Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from an order passed by Mr. Justice Macpherson sitting in the Privy Council Appeal Department, refusing to extend the time prescribed by law within which an appellant is required to furnish security for the costs of the respondent, and directing that the appeal to Her Majesty in Council be struck off the file, by reason of such security not having been given within the prescribed time.2. A preliminary objection is raised on behalf of the respondent to the effect that no appeal lies under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order complained of.3. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is as follows: 'And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, from the judgment, not being a sentence or order passed or made in any criminal trial of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Divisional Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagabati Barmanya Vs. E. Maseyk and ors. by their Receiver C.V. Argle ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal121
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J. and Rampini, J.1. It is evident that both under the former and the present law the defendants (being down to 1282 ijaradars of the whole 16 annas proprietary interest) could acquire no Occupancy rights in the land. No doubt if they had acquired an occupancy right previously to 1258, they would not lose it by their becoming ijaradars, hut they themselves assert that they acquired the jotes in 1253 and 1254, and between those years and 1258 there was not sufficient time for the acquisition of occupancy rights by them. Hence, unless they have acquired occupancy rights subsequently to 1283 (i.e., 1876), they cannot have acquired them at all. Now, there can be no doubt that the defendants have cultivated the land as raiyats from 1283 up to now. This is apparent from the evidence in the ease, and the fact that they have of late years held land as tenants is further proved by an arbitration award passed in a case, No. 47 of 1879, in which Gopi Lal Panday was plain...
Tag this Judgment!Budh Singh Dudhuria Vs. A.B. Miller Official Assignee and Assignee of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal43
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff against a person called Shibodas Mohuri to recover a sum of Rs. 12,100 and interest. Shortly before the suit was brought, proceedings had been taken against this man under the Insolvency Act, and his estate was vested in Mr. Miller, the Official Assignee. Upon that an application was made to the Subordinate Judge to substitute Mr. Miller as a defendant in place of the original defendant, the actual debtor and that application was acceded to, and Mr. Miller was placed upon the record. The case then went to trial. The Subordinate Judge tried the case, and came to the conclusion that the original debtor did owe the money, and he gave judgment against Mr. Miller for the sum claimed to be paid out of the insolvent's estate.2. The first order putting Mr. Miller's name on the record was, in our opinion, wrong. There is nothing in the Insolvency Act which enables a suit of this kind to be continued against the Official Ass...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. ManiruddIn Mundul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal75
1. The District Magistrate having reason to believe that the accused in this case had boon improperly discharged by a Subordinate Magistrate, issued a notice under Section 436, Code of Criminal Procedure, on the accused to show cause why he should not be committed for trial by the Court of Sessions. On the day on which the matter was considered, the District Magistrate thought that certain evidence should be taken before any order of commitment should be passed. He accordingly directed the Subordinate Magistrate to take that evidence. The Sessions Judge has referred this case that this order should be set aside because on the notice under Section 436 the District Magistrate was not competent to order anything short of a commitment. We observe that, in the petition to the Sessions Judge, it was amongst other matters represented that the accused was not heard on the notice. But this has not been made the subject of reference to us, and we must take it that it was either abandoned or over...
Tag this Judgment!Macmillan and anr. Vs. Suresh Chunder Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal951
Wilson, J.1. This is a suit brought to restrain an alleged infringement of copyright. The plaintiffs are the proprietors, registered under 5 and 6 Vic, c. 45, of the copyright of a work published under the title of 'The Golden Treasury of Songs and Lyrics.' The book contains a selection, made by Mr. Palgrave, from the poems of many English authors of various periods. It is divided into books, each book corresponding to a period of literary history. The poems in each book are arranged, not in the chronological order of their production, but, as the preface says, 'in gradation of feeling or subject.' At the end of the work are placed a summary of each book, and some notes critical and explanatory. The fourth book contains selected poems of Wordsworth, Coleridge, Hartley Coleridge, Southey, Hood, Wolfe, Shelley, Allan Cunningham, Keats, Charles Lamb, Byron, Scott, Campbell and Moore.2. The plaintiffs complain that the defendant has infringed their copyright by the publication of a book wh...
Tag this Judgment!Hurry Behari Bhagat and ors. Vs. Pargun Ahir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1890
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal656
Pigot and Gordon, JJ.1. In this appeal the appellants challenge the decision of the Lower Appellate Court, treating as binding upon the plaintiffs the finding in a former suit as to the amount of rent payable for the properties in respect of the rent of which the suit is brought. The present suit is brought for the rent of the year 1296 and a rent decree for the year 1295, and the proceedings in the suit in which that is the decree have been put in, and the Lower Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff is bound by that decree and is not entitled to recover more than the amount recovered under that decree. It is contended in appeal that the plaintiff is not bound by that decree under the principle of res judicata. We think he is to this extent: we think that he is bound by the rule of res judicata upon the question of what was the rent for the year 1295, and we think so after having had read to us the portion of the judgment in the former suit relating to the question then decided. ...
Tag this Judgment!Akhowri Balgobind Sahoy and ors. Vs. Pergash Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1890
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal735
Pigot and Gordon, JJ.1. We think this appeal must be dismissed. We quite agree with the view taken by the learned District Judge in this case, and it is unnecessary for us to do more as to the nature of the case than say that we agree with the District Judge. It may, however, be desirable to add this, that the suit, as framed, is necessarily a suit in the alternative. The plaintiffs are necessarily not aware whether any portion of the share of the rent to which the defendant No. 2 is entitled has or has not been satisfied by the first defendant in favour of the defendant No. 2. They believe that that has been done and, if so, there is no rent due except that part of it which admittedly falls to their, the plaintiffs' share; but if a portion of the rent additional to what would constitute the plaintiffs' share of it remains unpaid, or if the whole of the rent remains unpaid, the plaintiffs ask that the plaint shall be amended accordingly and the suit brought into conformity with the rul...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›