Kolkata Court June 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.
Mastulla Mandal Vs. Jan Mamud Sha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal12
1. The decree-holder, respondent in this Court, is the mortgagee of a certain property belonging to the judgment-debtor appellant. The respondent appears to have obtained a decree against the appellant on the basis of his mortgage, directing, in the first instance, the sale of the mortgaged property. Subsequently the mortgaged premises were sold, as has been found by the Subordinate Judge, for arrears of rent due therefor, and were purchased by the mortgagee. The Subordinate Judge finds that the respondent drew out from the Court the balance of the surplus sale-proceeds, and we have it that he applied it pro tanto to the satisfaction of the mortgage decree. He now seeks to proceed for the balance of his decree against the other properties of the judgment debtor.2. An objection was taken by the judgment-debtor appellant in this Court, that the decree-holder, mortgagee, was bound, under the terms of his mortgage decree, to put up to sale in the first instance the mortgaged property.3. Th...
Nemai Chattoraj Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal1041
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.,1. The question submitted to us by the learned Judges who referred this case is 'whether the petitioner can be properly convicted under Section 363 of the Penal Code of kidnapping from lawful guardianship, or whether, that offence being completed when she left the house and guardianship of her husband, he cannot under any circumstances be convicted of that offence.'2. The question perhaps is not very happily worded, for if the offence of kidnapping were completed when the girl left the house, which means I suppose when,--to follow the language of Section 361,--she was taken or enticed out of the keeping of her lawful guardian without his consent, and if, as is conceded, the accused had nothing to do with the actual taking or enticing out of the keeping of the lawful guardian, and did not appear upon the scene until some three weeks after the actual taking or enticing away, and that what he then did,--according to the finding in the reference,.--was to...
Kameshwar Pershad Vs. the Chairman of the Bhabua Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal849
Ghose, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was the outcome of an assessment made by the Municipal Commissioners of the Bhabua Municipality in the district of Shahabad, under Clause (a) of Section 85 of the Bengal Municipal Act III of 1884 as amended by Act IV (B.C.) of 1894. The object of the suit was to have it declared that the assessment was illegal, because the Municipal Commissioners, in making the assessment, and imposing the highest tax as allowed by Section 85, proceeded upon the basis of his 'circumstances and property' outside the limit of the Municipality. It appears that the plaintiff had recently purchased a small house within the Bhabua Municipality which had previously been taxed at Rs. 2-8-0 per annum. He seems to be a person of considerable means in Benares, where he resides, and he owns a certain share of the Municipal town Bhabua, which yields him, as it was found by the Munsif, Rs. 200 a year.2. But it was alleged by the Municipality in their defence to th...
Bhagirathi Naik Vs. Gangadhar Mahanty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal992
Prinsep, J.1. The Magistrate, in a case under Section 22 of the Cattle Tress-pass Act, 1891, has fined the petitioner Rs. 10, and the costs of the case, and he has directed that out of this sum Rs. 5 be paid to the complainant. He has also ordered that, in default of payment of the fine, the petitioner do suffer one week's simple imprisonment.2. The order throughout is bad and not in accordance with the terms of Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act. The Magistrate is not competent under that law to pass any sentence of fine. He can only award compensation for an illegal seizure of cattle. In this view we must set aside the order of fine, and direct that, in substitution thereof, the accused do pay the sum of Rs. 5 as compensation to the complainant, and do also pay the costs of the case. The order of imprisonment in default of payment of this fine is also illegal and must be set aside....
Rahimuddi and ors. Vs. Asgar Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal990
Prinsep, J.1. The Magistrate has convicted the petitioners of theft of mangoes and also of rioting, the common object of the unlawful assembly being the forcible taking away of mangoes belonging to the complainant.2. In appeal the Sessions Judge has entirely disbelieved the evidence relating to the taking of the mangoes or that was the common object of the unlawful assembly. He, however, finds (and about this there is no doubt) that a fight took place between the two parties, and on this he has endeavoured to ascertain from the evidence what the common object of the assembly was which caused this fight; and, so far as we understand his judgment, he has not only found that the cause was not the taking of the mangoes but that it was something else. The Sessions Judge has accordingly dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence, but on a different finding of fact from that to which the petitioners were called upon to plead and to defend themselves at the trial. The petition...
Ketaboi and ors. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal993
Prinsep, J.1. The petitioners who are residents of the District of Tipperah were under arrest and in confinement in the under trial ward of the lock-up at Naraingunge, when proceedings were taken against them under Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure, with the object of requiring them to give security for good behaviour.2. It was objected before the Magistrate that he, as Magistrate of Naraingunge within the District of Dacca, had no jurisdiction to try this matter concerning persons who were residents of another district.3. The Magistrate has overruled this objection and, on reference to the Sessions Judge under Section 123 for confirming the order passed by the Magistrate, the Sessions Judge has adopted the same view. The law runs thus: Whenever a Magistrate receives information that any person within the local limits of his jurisdiction:(a) is by habit a robber, house-breaker or thief, or,(b) and so forth.4. The Magistrate has found that the terms of the section enable him to tr...
Mohesh Sowar and ors. Vs. NaraIn Bag
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal981
Prinsep, J.1. Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, requires that in order to institute proceedings thereunder, the Magistrate shall make an order in writing stating the grounds of his being satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning land, &c;, and it also requires that before he makes such an order, the Magistrate should be so satisfied from a Police report or other information. The matter has been so frequently before this Court in reported cases that we are much surprised to find that errors are still constantly committed which have the effect of rendering null and void proceedings taken which have occupied Magistrates for several days, and have otherwise been conducted with care. It has been frequently held by, this Court in reported cases that unless a Magistrate complies strictly with the terms of Section 145 by stating in his written order all the particulars necessary to enable him to act under that section, his proceedings are. without ...
Sheo Bhajan Singh and ors. Vs. S.A. Mosawi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal983
Prinsep, J.1. The Magistrate, in convicting the petitioners under Section 143, Penal Code, added to the sentence an order under Section 106, Code of Criminal Procedure, directing them to furnish security to keep the peace.2. Now, an offence under Section 143, Penal Code, is not one of the offences specified in Section 106, which would justify such an order. As has been pointed out in the case of Jib Lal Gir v. Jogmohun Gir (1899) I.L.R., 26 Cal., 576, there may be findings in the case which would justify such an order if such findings can be brought within the terms of Section 106, but in the present case there are no such findings at all. The Magistrate in his explanation attempts to justify his order by stating that 'the facts as proved showed that the accused came in a body, some of whom were armed with lathis and some of whom used threats and did other acts intending evidently to commit breaches of peace.' We can find no express finding to this effect, and we would observe further ...
Subadini Vs. Durga Charan Law and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal118
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Jessore, dated the 2nd of June 1898.2. The suit is one for ejectment of a tenant, or rather the transferees of a former tenant, who has abandoned the land, and is no longer in possession of it.3. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit, holding that notice to quit has not been served upon the defendants Nos. 1 to 3, and further that the notice that was served upon the defendants was not properly served under the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. He has also held that the notice was insufficient, as the plaintiff did not give the defendants 15 clear days notice to quit. It is to be observed that the Subordinate Judge has found that the defendant's tenancy is one of a monthly nature and that it can be put an end to by 15 days' notice. There is no cross-appeal against this finding.4. We think that in some respects the Subordinate Judge is wrong. In the first place, he says that service by regist...
Nath Singh and ors. Vs. Damri Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal90
Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a certain raiyat, Damri Singh, to set aside a kabuliat bearing date the 17th Magh 1303, corresponding to the 17th January, 1896, executed by him in favour of the landlords, the appellants before us. The grounds upon which the said kabuliat was sought to be set aside were that it was brought about fraudulently by the landlords; that the statements and conditions inserted therein as regards the nagdi rent payable, and the quantity of land for which such rent was payable, were introduced without the plaintiff's knowledge; that he never agreed to pay the rent for the bhaoli land comprised in his holding according to the danabandi, instead of the batai, system; and that the agreement to pay the rent mentioned in the document was in violation of the provisions of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The case of the landlords, the defendants, was that there was no fraud in the matter of the execution of the kabuliat in question; that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »