Kolkata Court January 1900 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.
Queen-empress Vs. Khetter Mohun Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal324
Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. This is a reference made by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and arising out of a prosecution under Sections 61 and 64 of the Indian Stamp Act of 1879.2. The persons accused are (1) Khetter Mohun Chowdhry; (2) 'the members of the firm of Nobin Chunder Coondoo & Co.,' namely, Nobin Chunder Coondoo, Radha Mohun Coondoo, Cheytan Chunder Coondoo, Gopal Chunder Coondoo and Jadu Nath Coondoo; and (3) Nobin Chunder Coondoo of the firm of Nobin Chunder Coondoo & Co.3. From the formal charge sheet, it appears that the first accused and the members of the firm of Nobin Chunder Coondoo & Co. were charged with having, on the 24th November 1898, granted an unstamped receipt in respect of a sum of Rs. 200, and also with having, on a date which is not specified, refused to grant a duly stamped receipt. The third accused was charged in his individual capacity with having abetted the commission of these offences.4. ...
Koka Mahton and ors. Vs. Manki Jagar Nath Sahi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal462
Rampini and Wilkins, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpore, dated the 28th April 1898.2. The suit is one in which the plaintiffs seek to enforce a mortgage bond, dated 8th June 1884, and the defendant pleads that under Section 3, Clause (c), of Act VI of 1876 (the Chota Nagpore Encumbered Estates Act) he could not contract, and so the bond is null and void. Both Courts have found that the defendant duly received the consideration-money of this bond.3. The Subordinate Judge held that the bond was valid, while the Judicial Commissioner has allowed the defendant's plea as to his incapacity to contract, and has dismissed the suit.4. The facts are that the estate of one Manki Faninder came under management under Act VI of 1876 on the 23rd April 1880. Faninder had then two sons: Bhola, who had no son, and Jagar Nath, the present defendant-respondent. Faninder died in 1884, and Bhola succeeded him. Bhola died on the 19th June 1892, and the defe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›