Kolkata Court September 1896 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.
Calcutta Trades Association Vs. Ryland
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal102
Sale, J.1. This is an application for an attachment of the pay of a Military Officer in execution of a decree.2. I have been furnished with a note by the Registrar, Mr. Belchambers, which gives, I think, a correct view of the present state of the law on the subject. It would appear that while the pay of an Officer of the regular forces is not liable to attachment the pay of an officer of the Indian Staff Corps is liable to attachment, the reason for the distinction between the two cases being that an Officer of the Staff Corps is a Public Officer within the meaning of Clause (h), of Section 266 of the Civil Procedure Code read with the Interpretation Clause, whereas an Officer of the regular forces is not.3. The defendant, Major Ryland, who is described as 'Assistant Commissary General, Allahabad,' is, I understand, an Officer of the Staff Corps, but it appears that in another suit a decree has been obtained against him by which, under Section 151 of the Army Act, half his pay was orde...
Gonesh Chunder Sikdar Vs. Queen-empress on the Prosecution of Kamini M ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal157
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. The petitioner, who has been convicted by the Deputy Magistrate of Goalundo under Section 53 of the Excise Act (Bengal Act VII of 1878), for manufacturing a liquor called sanjivani sura without a license, and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15, asks us to set aside the conviction and sentence on the ground that the act of the petitioner does not constitute any offence under Section 53 of the Act.2. The facts of the case are thus set out by the learned Deputy Magistrate in the brief statement of reasons under Section 263, Criminal Procedure Code:The accused, was found manufacturing a kind of liquor which he calls sanjivam sura, or life-reviving liquor. He has no license from the Collector to manufacture any liquor. The liquor was made by fermentation of gvr and different spices. The strength of the liquor is 36 degrees below London proof. Accused's act falls under the purview of Section 53 of Bengal Act VII of 1878. There is no doubt that he was ma...
In Re: Pokurmull Augurwallah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal980
Ameer Ali, J.1. Upon the facts as stated it seems to us that the view taken by Mr. Belchambers, the taxing officer, is correct. The property was purchased by four brothers, members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, with moneys belonging to the joint estate. The property, therefore though conveyed to them as tenants in common, vested in them as trustees for the benefit of all the co-parceners and consequently is not liable to duty....
Dijendra Nath Roy Chowdhry and anr. Vs. Soylendra Nath Roy Chowdhry an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal197
Petheram, C.J.1. (after stating the facts, continued).---The zemindars have u(sic)bealed, and as I have the misfortune to differ from Mr. Justice Rampini as to the meaning of Section 158, I proceed to state my own view of it, so far as it affects the present question.2. The question is whether under Section 158 the owner of a zemindari can include all the land held by the same tenant within his zemindari, though it is held under more than one tenure, or whether he must make a separate application in respect of the land held under each tenure. The question is entirely one of the construction of the Section, and no question of discretion or convenience or inconvenience can, in my opinion, be properly considered in answering it.3. The Court to which the application is to be made would, undoubtedly, have jurisdiction to determine a suit for the possession of the land between the zemindar and the tenant, and to determine in one suit questions relating to lands which might be held under more...
Mohini Mohan Roy Vs. Promoda Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal256
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for possession and mesne profits of certain land, on the allegation that the land is included in mouzah Lakhi Chumari appertaining to his patni taluk Bircha-pila; that it was formerly the bed of a bhil which has recently become fit for cultivation, and that the defendants are wrongfully holding possession of the same.2. The defendants in their written statement denied the title of the plaintiff to set up the plea of limitation, and urged that a certain khal was the boundary between the plaintiff's village Lakshi Chumari and the defendants' village Majgeo Sripur.3. The first Court found that part of the land in dispute appertained to the plaintiff's village, but it dismissed the suit as barred by limitation.4. Upon appeal by the plaintiff, the Lower Appellate Court ordered a fresh local enquiry, and upon the enquiry being completed the plaintiff confined his claim to those portions of the ...
Surno Moyee Debi Vs. Dakhina Ranjan Sanyal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal291
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the auction-purchaser from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Pabna and Bogra setting aside, under Section 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a sale of certain property on the ground of material irregularities in publishing and conducting it, by reason of which the judgment-debtors have sustained substantial injury.2. The facts are shortly as follows: The property in question was attached by an order of the 19th August 1893, and on the 9th September following a proclamation of sale was issued fixing the 20th November for the sale. Meantime, on the 27th September 1893, Giribala, a step sister of one of the judgment-debtors, preferred a claim to the property under Section 278 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the 11th November was fixed for hearing the same. On that date, the hearing was postponed to the 25th November, and as the property could not fee sold until the disposal of the claim case, the Subordinate Judge on the 20th November adjo...
Protap NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Rajendra NaraIn Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal55
Hill, JJ.1. It was a reference by the Sessions Judge of Bhagulpur submitting the case to the High Court lender Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for orders.2. The letter of reference or the Sessions Judge was as follows:The present petitioners appear to have been parties with others to two proceedings taken under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code, before the Deputy Magistrate of Supoul of (sic) about the same time. The proceedings in respect of which this application is made related to land in Daharia, and the other case related to lands in Kusaha. The game persons were the parties in both cases. In this case the petitioners were made the first party and Bajendro Narain and others were made second party, and in the Kusaha case vice verse.Both cases were fixed for hearing about the same time, this case being fixed for the 24th January last, and the other case for the 27th January 1896.When this case was called on for hearing the petitioners had not their witnesses ready, but ...
Fatimunnissa Alias Kanez Fatima and ors. Vs. Deoki Pershad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal350
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and O'Kinealy, Macpherson, Treyelyan and Banerjee, JJ.1. In March 1894, a decree was given against one Fatimunnissa and others. She died and her heirs prosecuted an appeal in this Court. In April 1895 they were called upon to deposit Rs. 782 as costs for the preparation of the Paper-Book. The money was not paid, and after some delay the appeal was on the 29th July 1895 dismissed for want of prosecution under Rule 17 of the Rules for the preparation of Paper-Books in appeals from Original Decrees. An application was then made to a Divisional Bench of this Court on the 6th February 1896, and the Judges of that Bench, being of opinion that the decision and decree of the 29th July could only be set aside by review, referred, the case to a Full Bench, as they disagreed with the judgment of another Divisional Bench of this Court in Ramhari Sahu v. Madan Mohan Mitter I.L.R. 23 Cal. 339.2. Now, under the Code there are only two ways known to the law by which a judgment ...
E. D. Sassoon and ors. Vs. Hurry Das Bhukut
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal455
Sale, J.1. This application raises the question whether a decree by two Judges of the Small Cause Court, dated the 17th of April 1896, was made in excess of the jurisdiction of the Court, and, if so, what other order ought now to be made.2. The plaintiffs in this suit are Messrs, Sassoon & Co., and the object of the suit was to recover a sum paid by them as duty on goods sold to the defendant.3. The cause of action is thus stated in the plaint:4. (1) That the defendant entered into a contract in Calcutta with plaintiffs on the 17th September 1894 for purchase of certain bales of dhooties.5. (2) That the defendant have taken delivery of the goods and paid plaintiff, the contract value of the goods, but have failed to pay the amount of duty on the goods which was legally, payable by defendant, and which the plaintiff, arc entitled to recover bark from defendant having to meet the same to get the dhooties delivered and passed (sic) from the Custom House authorities.6. The defence set up w...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›