Kolkata Court June 1895 Judgments
Kastur Chand Rai Bahadur Vs. Dhanpat Singh Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal26
Hobhouse, J.1. The respondent in this case is or was a banker carrying on business in Calcutta and other places, and the appellant is a creditor who seeks a declaration of insolvency against him. The act of insolvency relied on in the petition is that on the 7th and 8th February 1893, the respondent's principal gomashta, Punna Lal, and other gonwuhtas and servants, departed and were absent from his place of business in Shama Bye's Lane with intent to defeat the respondent's creditors. Two defences are raised by the respondent : one being that no such act was committed by Punna Lal, and the other that Punna Lal's act is not the act of the respondent on which he can be adjudged an insolvent.2. The appellant's petition was presented on the 16th February 1893, and was supported by affidavits on which the Judge in Insolvency, Mr. Justice Trevelyan, made an adjudication and a vesting order. The respondent immediately moved to set that order aside, and a great body of evidence was adduced by ...
Tag this Judgment!Ardha Chandra Rai Chowdhry Vs. Matangini Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal325
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. This is a rule for the admission of a first appeal after time under the following circumstances:The petitioner was one of nine principal defendants in a suit brought against them for possession of certain lands with mesne profits. In that suit he appeared and filed a written statement. It turned out to be a boundary-dispute, and a Commissioner was appointed to make a local enquiry. The enquiry having been completed, the case came on for trial, and on the day of hearing the pleaders who represented the petitioner and three others stated that they had no instructions from their clients. The rest of the defendants having accepted the Commissioner's report, judgment was given for the plaintiff on 13th April 1893.2. On the 10th May following the petitioner made an application under Section 108 of the Code to have the decree set aside, but the Subordinate Judge, after taking evidence, found that the petitioner, not only had notice of the day of hear...
Tag this Judgment!Abilakh Bhagat and ors. Vs. Bhekhi Mahto and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal864
Ghose, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arise are shortly these : One Chuturee Bhagat died, leaving two sons, Ram Sahye and Sheo Sahye, who succeeded to his estate; and there is no question in this case that they held separately the properties inherited by them. Subsequently, in or about the year 1838, Ram Sahye became insane. He left three sons, Abilakh, Dukhit and Dilchand. The last died without any issue, and the surviving sons had each two sons, Jugdeo and Denonath (sons of Abilakh), Again and Brijbehari (sons of Dukhit).2. In the year 1871, Jugdeo and Again were appointed to be Ram Sahye's committee in lunacy under the provisions of Act XXXV of 1858; and these two persons, with the sanction of the Judge previously obtained, mortgaged the property in. suit in favour of the defendant. This mortgage does not appear to have been executed in their own behalf, but on behalf of the lunatic only; but however that may be, the mortgagee sued them on the mortgage, and a decree was obt...
Tag this Judgment!Akhil Chandra De and anr. Vs. the Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal1004
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. We can only quash this commitment on a point of law. The petitioner has been committed by a Munsif to the Sessions Court at Chittagong on charges under Sections 467 and 471, as well as other sections of the Penal Code. It is contended that, under Section 478 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Munsif had no jurisdiction to make the commitment, because the offence charged, though referred to in Section 195 of the Code, was not an offence described in Clause (c) of that section. The words 'any such offence' in Section 478 mean an offence referred to in Section 195 and not fin the case of the offences mentioned in Clause (c), Section 195) an offence referred to in that section qualified by the circumstances under which it is committed, i. e., committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of a document given in evidence in such proceeding, as described in Clause (c) of the section. We have no doubt that the former is the right construction, a...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Panday Vs. Rajendra NaraIn Bagchi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal898
Macpherson and Gordon, JJ.1. This is a case under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Coda. The Districts Magistrate made the initial order stating that he was satisfied of the existence of a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace, and directed the parties concerned in it to attend the Court of a Subordinate Magistrate and to put in written statements of their respective claims to the land which was the subject of dispute.2. The Magistrate to whom the case was made over was a Magistrate of the first class empowered to make an order under Sections 145,146 and 147, and he, after a prolonged enquiry in which a great deal of evidence was taken, being unable to satisfy himself as to which of the parties was in possession, made an order under Section 146 attaching the property until a competent Civil Court had determined the rights of the parties thereto.3. On a rule obtained by the first party, Rajah Satish Chandra Panday, Mr. Hill contends, first, that the Magistrate who held the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahamaya Dasya Vs. Nitya Hari Das Bairagi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal425
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. The facts of this case are as follow : In 1889 or 1890 the plaintiff sued the defendant for damages on account of the use and occupation of land in the Court of the Munsif of Dacca and obtained a decree. That decree was affirmed by the Subordinate Judge, but on second appeal to this Court the decree was reversed and the suit dismissed on the ground that the suit being cognizable by the Court of Small Causes the Munsif had no jurisdiction to try it.2. That was on 11th February 1892.3. The plaintiff then instituted his suit in the Small Cause Court at Dacca, the Judge of which Court returned the plaint with this order: 'It appears that the defendant takes exception to the plaintiff's title to the land. Unless that question is settled by a Court of competent jurisdiction, this Court cannot consistently assess damages for use and occupation of land. It is therefor meet to return the plaint to the pleader filing it under Section 23 of the Provincia...
Tag this Judgment!Foolkissory Dassee Vs. NobIn Chunder Bhunjo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal441
Sale, J.1. I think I must hold that it is admissible under Section 33. In order to be admissible under that section it has to be proved that the proceedings were between the same parties and the issues were substantially the same. If this is shown, and if it is shown that the witness is dead, then his deposition in the prior proceedings becomes admissible in the subsequent proceedings..2. According to the evidence of the plaintiff's son the charge was made at the instance of his mother, the present plaintiff. Whether that evidence is true or not is another question; but it is in evidence that the person prosecuting was the plaintiff.3. Then as to the issues. The issues in this case are whether the plaintiff was in possession of the premises in suit when the defendant entered into possession, and whether the defendant's entry was an unlawful ouster of the plaintiff. The Police Court charge against the defendant was one of unlawful trespass. To establish that it was necessary to show tha...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Pershad Singh Vs. Budhu Dashad and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal938
Prinsep and Ghose, JJ.1. This was a suit by the Maharajah of Doomraon for recovery of possession of corbain lands. The lands form part of his zemindari, and the action was based upon the allegation that the lands had been granted to one Kangali Dashad, father and ancestor of the defendants, as a jagir in lieu of services as a gorait; that he died in the year 1294 (F.S.), and the defendants having failed to perform the service, their services were dispensed with in 1296; that the lands were then settled with one Raja Koeri, the plaintiff No. 2; that he raised crops thereupon, but was dispossessed by the defendants in July 1890 (1297). The suit was defended by the defendant No. 1, Budhu Dashad, upon the ground that the land had not been granted in lieu of service to Kangali, the father of defendant No. 2, but that since before the accession of the British Government, his ancestors and he had been holding the same as gorait's jagir under a sanad (not produced) granted by a Mahomedan Emper...
Tag this Judgment!AlimuddIn Khan Vs. Hira Lall Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal87
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The two questions which have been referred to this Bench do not depend on the same considerations, and I prefer to answer the second before the first.2. If the plaintiff in the case of Dhoronidhur Sen v. Wajidunnissa I.L.R. 16 Cal. 708 had, when he brought his suit, a cause of action against the defendant, which he was then entitled to enforce against him, but the evidence to enable him to establish which was then, defective, because his title had not been registered, and if such defect of proof had been cured by registration before the final hearing, then I think the case of Dhoronidhnr Sen v. Wajidunnissa Khatoon I.L.R. 16 Cal. 708 was wrongly decided. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendant, which, when he brought his suit, he had the right to enforce by action against him, then in my opinion the case was rightly decided, as such a defect cannot be cured by anything which is done after the suit has been commenced.3....
Tag this Judgment!Pudmo Lochun Mondol and anr. Vs. Aubhoya Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal802
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. This is a second appeal from an order setting aside a sale in execution of a decree.2. The order in question purports to have been made under Section 312 of the Code, and a preliminary objection has been raised that, under the provisions of the last paragraph of Section 588, no second appeal will lie. This was decided by a Full Bench in the case of Nana Kumar Roy v. Golam Chunder Dey I.L.R. 18 Cal. 422. The learned pleader for the appellant accordingly asks us to treat the appeal as an application under Section 622 of the Code, on the ground that the lower Courts had no jurisdiction to make and affirm an order under Section 312, inasmuch as the petitioner was not a person who was competent to apply to have the sale set aside under the provisions of Section 311. In support of this contention, the learned pleader relies on the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Asmutunnissa Begum v. Ashruff Ali I.L.R. 15 Cal. 488.3. The facts appear to be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »