Kolkata Court September 1895 Judgments
Nedaram Thakur Vs. Joonab and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal248
Ghose and Hill, JJ.1. It appears to us that the view taken by the Madras Court in Pitchi v. Ankappa I.L.R. 9 Mad. 102 and Kottalanada v. Muthaya I.L.R. 9 Mad. 374 is correct, and that it was therefore not competent to the Magistrate to try the case under Chapter XXII of the Criminal Procedure Code. But we do not think it is a case in which we ought to interfere, as the defendants have had an adequate trial, and the Cattle Trespass Act (I of 1871) does not prescribe any particular procedure....
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Croft
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal174
Ghose and Hill, JJ.1. This is an application for a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of 24-Pergunnas to show cause why the proceedings instituted before him against the petitioner under the Indian Merchandise Marks Act of 1889 should not be quashed.2. It appears that the accused had been prosecuted under Sections 53 and 61 of the Excise Act of 1878, that is to say, for manufacturing and selling exciseable articles without a license, and being in possession of such articles without a license. The Deputy Magistrate of Sealdah found that he had committed the offences under both those sections, and accordingly sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 800. On appeal, however, to the Sessions Judge, that officer found that the accused was guilty of the offence under Section 61 only, and accordingly set aside the conviction under Section 53 of the Excise Act. It appears that, in the course of the evidence that was given upon that occasion on behalf of the prosecution, it was disclosed that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chundra Dey Vs. Boloram Dey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal279
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. The question we have to consider is, whether in that appeal the plaintiff was at liberty to question the correctness of the order of the 28th of February, or whether an appeal from that order was then barred by time, it not having been filed within thirty days of the 28th February. The case of Moheshur Singh v. Bengal Government 7 Moo. I.A. 283 (302) was decided on the 4th of February 1859, and in that case the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that, as there was no law or regulation prevailing in , India which rendered it imperative upon the suitor to appeal from every interlocutory order by which he might conceive himself aggrieved, the Appellate Court might correct any erroneous interlocutory order, although it was not brought under its consideration until the whole cause had been decided and brought before them by appeal for adjudication. In Forbes v. Ameeroovnissa Begum 10 Moo. I.A. 340 (359), decided on the 9th of December 186...
Tag this Judgment!Shama Vs. Lechhu Shekh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal300
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. We must hold that the Bench of Magistrates had no jurisdiction to try this case, which was brought under Section 20 of the Act I of 1871, by the complainant, who complained of the illegal seizure of her cattle. The jurisdiction conferred by Sections 20 to 23 of the Act on the Magistrate of the District, or a Magistrate authorized to receive and try charges without reference by the Magistrate of the District, is, we think, a special jurisdiction, and as such, it is by Section 1 of the Code unaffected by the provisions of the Code. Section 192 of the Code does not, therefore, authorize the transfer of a case to which Sections 20 to 23 of the Act I of 1871 apply to a subordinate tribunal. There is, we may add, no provision for an appeal in such a case, which is quasi-civil, and we think it is clear that the jurisdiction was intended to be limited to the Magistrates specially referred to. The case of In the matter of Ketabdi Mundul (2 C.L.R. 507) supports thi...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Pershad Singh Bahadur Vs. Ramkhelawan Singh and ors. and Shamlal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal302
Prinsep, J.1. The plaintiff granted a lease of Samuria Purana for ten years to Nowrong Behari and Ramanand Singh, and on 30th December 1887 obtained a decree against them for arrears of rent for 1291-1294F. (1884-1887).2. In execution he attached certain properties. Objection was raised by various members of the family of Ramanand Singh, the judgment-debtor, who claimed a portion of these properties, alleging, also, that they had separated from Ramanand Singh. The objection was allowed. The Subordinate Judge observed that the decree was a personal decree against Ramanand, which the decree-holder cannot extend in execution. He also found on the evidence before him that it was not proved that the objectors were separate from the judgment-debtor, Ramanand Singh, and he accordingly declared that only the participable rights or the right to partition of the joint-property held by Ramanand could be sold.3. The landlord-plaintiff has now sued to get this order set aside so as to bring to sale...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Isri Pershad Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal621
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. This is a rule, which was granted by a Division Bench of this Court, on the 6th of August last, calling upon the District Magistrate of Sarun to show cause, why an order made under Section 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by which a person called Rai Isri Pershad was directed to be bound down with sureties to be of good behaviour for a period of three years, should not be set aside on the ground that the order is based mainly on evidence that is inadmissible; and that, if that evidence be excluded, the remaining evidence will not support the order.2. The rule was argued before this Bench for several days, and is now ready for judgment.3. In considering the matter it will be necessary to consider several sets of circumstances in their order of date, in order that we may arrive at a proper conclusion in this case, and the first set of circumstances, which I propose to consider, is the set of circumstances connected with the proceeding's un...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Jahandi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal249
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. We do not think that Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code authorizes the District Magistrate to refer to this Court a case in which the Sessions Court has, under Section 123, refused to confirm his order under Section 118, and has discharged the person called upon to furnish security. Section 123 makes the order of the Magistrate, in a case like this, subject to confirmation or reversal by the Sessions Court, and it would be contrary to every principle to allow the District Magistrate to report against an order of the Sessions Court to which he is subordinate.2. If the Magistrate, as the officer responsible for the peace of his District, is dissatisfied with any such order, his proper course, we need hardly point out, is to ask the Public Prosecutor to move this Court for the revision of the same.3. We decline to take any action upon this reference, and direct that the case be returned to the Magistrate with a copy of this order....
Tag this Judgment!Palakdhari Rai Vs. Manners and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal179
Prinsep and Ghose, JJ.1. These appeals relate to fourteen suits brought by the zemindar of mouzah Bishenpore Saresa for the ejectment of the defendants, first party, from certain holdings which they have bought from the defendants, second party, having rights of occupancy, on the ground that as such holdings are not transferable they are trespassers without valid title. Plaintiff also asks for mesne profits during the occupation of these defendants, who are associated together in an indigo factory. So far as the appeals before us are concerned, we need only mention the main ground of the defences set out in the written statement that the holdings in question are transferable by the 'law and custom prevailing in Behar,' and that a claim for mesne profits cannot be made.2. The Munsif found that the custom or usage set up was not established and he decreed the suits.3. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge has set aside these decrees, holding that 'the usage exists in different parts of the di...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›