Kolkata Court June 1893 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.
Madan Mandul Vs. Haran Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal687
Prinsep and Trevelyan, JJ.1. It is necessary in this application only to refer to one of the grounds taken, which is that, because the Magistrate, in addition to a sentence of 14 days' imprisonment, directed the accused person, under Section 31 of the Court Fees Act, to pay to the complainant the court-fee paid on his petition of complaint to the Magistrate, the order is appealable. The learned Counsel contends that inasmuch as the law provides that all such fees ordered to be paid may be recovered as if they were fines imposed by the Court, therefore this part of the sentence must be regarded as a fine, and, superadded to the sentence of imprisonment, makes the order appealable. We do not accept this view of the law. The order under Section 31 of the Court Fees Act is no part of the sentence so as to make it a sentence of fine within the terms of Section 413*, Code of Criminal Procedure. The order is therefore not appealable. This application is refused.* No appeal in petty cases.[Sec...
The Queen-empress Vs. Moore
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal676
Prinsep and Trevelyan, JJ.1. This is a reference from the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta. The defendant is charged under Section 35 of the Indian Companies Act, 1882, with having issued certain share warrants without the same having been duly stamped. Section 35 provides as follows: 'If a share warrant is issued without being duly stamped, the Company issuing the same, and also every person who at the time when it is issued, is the Managing Director, or Secretary, or other principal officer of the Company, shall forfeit the sum of Rs. 500.'2. The questions which we are asked are, first--'Is the issuing of a share warrant, the same not being duly stamped, an offence within the meaning of Act VI of 1882?' Second--'Is the forfeiture provided by Section 35 of Act VI of 1882 a penalty within the meaning of Section 252 of the same Act?' Third--'Having regard to Sections 35 and 252 of Act VI of 1882, has a Presidency Magistrate jurisdiction to impose a forfeit under Section 35 of the...
Ganoda Kanta Roy and ors. Vs. Probhabati Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal881
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This was a rule which was obtained by the Advocate-General for the purpose of revising an order of the District Judge appointing a person as the common manager of an estate which was owned by various persons, and the appointment was made, on the face of it, under the sections of the Bengal Tenancy Act which begin with Section 93 and end with Section 99.2. The rule was sent to the District Judge, and the District Judge has sent a letter explaining the order, and he has shown, no doubt, circumstances which render it very desirable, it is could be done legally, that this estate should be under the charge of a common manager. But, notwithstanding that, upon a consideration of the facts of the case, we have come to the conclusion that this appointment was not legally made, and consequently we are compelled to interfere and set aside the appointment.3. This estate belongs to four persons in three shares, one of which belongs to a person whom we may describe as the R...
Jadub Loll Shaw Vs. Kanai Loll Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal587
Norris, J.1. I will follow the decision of Mr. Justice Hill in that case and make an order in the same terms....
Rohni Singh and ors. Vs. J. Hodding, Administrator of the Estate of th ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal340
O'Kinealy and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Chupra, dated the 25th of June 1892, whereby he directed that certain parties should get restitution and be entitled to be put exactly in the same position they were in before the suit was brought. It appears that there are two classes of owners in this village--one of them, Mr. Hodding, has a five-pies odd share, and Rohni Singh and others are the owners of the 15 annas odd pie share. The owners of the 15 annas share brought a suit for partition of certain land against Hodding. That suit was decreed in the first Court, but on appeal, the suit was dismissed on the ground that no such suit would lie. After the dismissal of the suit Hodding applied in the lower Court to be put in the same position as he was in before the suit was brought. In the meantime the owners of the 15 annas odd had taken out execution of the decree for partition and settled tenants upon it. Therefore, when the question of re...
Brojo Nath Singha Vs. Nil Madhub Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal236
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. The facts are shortly these. In 1888 the plaintiff sued the defendant for his share of the rent of a tenure for the years 1291 (1884) to 1293 (1886) and part of 1294 (1887), alleging that the tenure contained 15 bighas 16 cottahs of land, and that the annual rent payable was Rs. 29-13. The defendant contended that he was not liable for the entire rent claimed, as a portion of the land comprised in the tenure was in the possession of the plaintiff himself. It does not appear that any issues were framed, or that there was any measurement of the land, but the first Court, after considering the evidence which the defendant adduced, rejected his contention on the general ground that he had failed to prove it. The defendant appealed, and his appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, who took the same view as the Munsif, and held that the burden of proof was on the defendant, and that he had failed to discharge it. The result was that the plaintiff obtained a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›