Kolkata Court August 1899 Judgments
Amrita Lal Mukerjee Vs. Rakhali Dassi Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal217
Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is a suit for an account. The taking of the account was referred to a Commissioner. Subsequently to that reference proceedings in bankruptcy were taken against the plaintiff, and a vesting order was made, 'vesting the property in the Official Assignee. Subsequently to that an application was made by the defendant on the 20th May 1898, that the Official Assignee should be made a party to the suit. That came on before the Court on the 13th June 1898. After one or two adjournments, neither the applicant nor the Official Assignee appeared, and the Court, purporting to act under Section 370 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dismissed the suit.2. The first question is whether the Court was right in holding that section applied, and, secondly, whether it was right in dismissing the suit as coming within the purview of that section. I think not. I think that Section 370 of the Code only applies to a case where there is an actual bankruptcy or insolvency. The langua...
Tag this Judgment!Satis Chandra Das Bose Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal172
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is a rule calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why the order of the Sessions Judge, directing a retrial in this case, should not be set aside.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted by the Magistrate of an offence under Section 211 of the Penal Code and discharged of offences under Section 468 and 471. He appealed to the Sessions Judge, who set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 211 of the Penal Code, but directed that the case under Section 211 of the Penal Code should be retried.3. It is now urged that the Sessions Judge had no power to pass such an order, and that the power to order a new trial conferred on him by Section 423(1)(b) can only be exercised when the conviction and sentence is set aside for want of jurisdiction in the Magistrate who has tried the case. In support of this contention, the remarks of Brodhurst, J., in Queen-Empress v. Sukha (1885) I.L.R., 8 All., 14, have been cited. These remarks...
Tag this Judgment!Kamala Kant Sen Vs. Abul Barkat Alias Habibulla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal180
Macpherson and Ghose, JJ.1. The facts of this case appear to be these: In April 1885 the first defendant borrowed a sum of money from the plaintiff, which was to be paid within a year, and as security for the re-payment of it he mortgaged by way of conditional sale his share in a revenue-paying estate. The first defendant's interest in that estate was then sold in execution of a money decree which was obtained against him and was purchased by the second defendant. In 1886 the estate was sold for arrears of Government revenue and was purchased by the third defendant, who again sold it to the second defendant. It does not much matter whether the third defendant was or was not, as the first Court found, a benamidar for the second defendant. The second defendant was one of the defaulting owners who obtained the property either by purchase at the revenue sale or by purchase from the purchaser at that sale, and as such under, Section 53 of Act XI of 1859 he obtained the property subject to a...
Tag this Judgment!Averam Das Mochi Vs. Abdul Rahim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal131
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is a rule to show cause why an order of a Presidency Magistrate passed under Act XIII of 1859 should not be set aside and the case retried. The order is under Section 3, directing the defendant to give a recognizance in the sum of Us. 50 to return to his work. The petitioner is a aurzi, who, it is said, entered into a stamped agreement to work for the opposite party. He left him to work for another employer, who gave him higher pay. The opposite party accordingly complained against him under Section 1 of the Act. The Magistrate under the first clause of Section 2 ordered him to return to his work, and under Section 3 directed him to execute the recognizance mentioned above.2. The learned pleader, who appears for the petitioner, urges (1) that the evidence has not been properly recorded; and (2) that the Magistrate has written no judgment. He, however, has not been able to show us any section of Act XIII of 1859, or of the Criminal Procedure Code, prescribi...
Tag this Judgment!Amrita Lal Mukerjee and ors. Vs. Bejoy Chand Mahatab Minor by His Next ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal308
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the third Subordinate Judge of Hooghly. The case is of this nature. The plaintiff was an eight-anna share in a certain putni tenure, and the defendant No. 3, who is a minor, is entitled to the other eight annas share. They defaulted in the payment of the putni rent, and the zemindar took proceedings under Regulation VIII of 1819 to have the putni tenure sold. The tenure was put up for sale, and was sold on the 23rd November 1896, and the defendant No. 2 was the purchaser under that sale. The defendant No. 1 is the zemindar, the. Maharajah of Burdwan, a minor, whose estate is under the Court of Wards.. The sole question we have to decide is whether the sale was duly published in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 2 of Section 8 of the above Regulation, the suit being one, as I said before, to have the sale of the putni set aside on the ground that the requirements of that Regulation were not duly comp...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Mohan Thakur, Vs. Narsing Mohan Thakur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal259
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is a rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Magistrate in this case, passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, dated the 24th April 1899, should not be set aside for the reasons stated in the affidavit.2. Mr. Pugh for the opposite party has appeared to show cause. It is quite clear that, under the provisions of Section 145, as now amended, no order under that section can be set aside by this Court in its Revisional jurisdiction, except under the provisions of the Charter, and on the ground of want of jurisdiction. This is apparent, not only from the terms of Section 435, Clause (3), but from the ruling of this Court in the case of Hurbullubh Narain Singh v. Luchmeswar Prosad Singh (1899) I.L.R., 26 Cal., 188.3. The learned Counsel (Mr. Jackson) who appears on behalf of the petitioner has urged that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction upon two grounds--first, that the dispute in this case is as to the right ...
Tag this Judgment!Shama Sundram Iyer Vs. Abdul Latif and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal61
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff instituted a suit in the Court of the Recorder of Rangoon against the defendant claiming that he was entitled to a piece of land some 50ft. by 40ft. in respect of which the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was obstructing him in building upon it. The real contest was as to a narrow strip some 2ft. by 40 ft. The defendant said that the plaintiff was not entitled to this strip; that it belonged to the defendant; and that the plaintiff was in fact encroaching upon the defendant's land. It will thus be seen that the question was substantially one of boundaries. The matter came before the Recorder, and on the 25th of August 1897, the Recorder, upon the application of the plaintiff and the defendant, made through counsel or advocates, the following order: 'By consent let the case be referred to Mr. A.V. DeSouza as arbitrator. Award to be returned in a week.' It is not very clear how far the arbitration had proceeded, but app...
Tag this Judgment!Majed HosseIn Vs. Raghubur Chowdhry and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal187
Ghose and Hill, JJ.1. As we understand the facts in this case, they are shortly these. A certain person obtained a decree which, to all intents and purposes, may be regarded as a, decree for money. He transferred that decree to the petitioners in the Court below, and they applied for attachment and sale of a certain occupancy holding belonging to the judgment-debtor. The question raised before the Court of First Instance was whether this occupancy holding was transferable according to custom or usage. The applicants for attachment and sale did not, upon the date fixed for trial, adduce evidence upon this matter, and the Munsif held that they were not entitled to sell the said occupancy holding. There was then an appeal preferred to the higher Court, and in this appeal the Subordinate Judge has held, if we understand him correctly, that the question whether the occupancy holding was saleable or not according to custom or usage could not at that stage be determined under Section 244 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhry Vs. Sham Lal Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal210
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder from the decision of the Second Subordinate Judge of the 24-Parganas, holding that the decree-holder's application for execution, dated the 21st July 1898, was barred by limitation.2. The point we have to decide is a short one, and it will only be necessary for me to deal briefly with a few dates and undisputed facts.3. The suit was one to enforce a mortgage, and there were four defendants to that suit, of whom defendant No. 4, is the present respondent. A final decree was passed on the 8th of December 1890 for a sum of Rs. 18,000 or so. Applications for execution were made from time to time, but it is sufficient for present purposes if we start from the application made on the 7th October 1893 against all the defendants.5. In my opinion the decree which was passed was a joint decree against all the defendants.6. On the 17th February 1897, which is more than three years after the date of the application of the...
Tag this Judgment!Bachu Koer Vs. Golab Chand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal272
Ghose and Hill, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Second Subordinate Judge of Sarun granting the application of the decree-holder for attachment and sale of certain properties belonging to the judgment-debtor.2. The decree was in a mortgage suit, and it seems to have been made under the combined provisions, so to say, of Sections 88 and 90 of the Transfer of Property Act. The mortgaged properties belonging to the judgment-debtor were, in pursuance of the order of the Court which made the decree, sold on the 5th December 1898. Subsequently an order was made by the District Judge under Clause (2) of Section 13 of the Bengal and N.-W.P. and Assam Civil Courts Act (XII of 1887) under which order, as we may assume, that officer distributed amongst the several Subordinate Judges of the district the civil business arising in that district. It is, however, stated (for we have not the order itself before us) that the District Judge assigned over to the Second Subordinate Judge of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »