Kolkata Court September 1900 Judgments
Deo Sahay Lal and anr. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-25-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal253
Pratt, J.1. The petitioners were accused of offences under Sections 144 and 379 of the Penal Code. The Sub-Inspector went out to investigate the matter and arrested the petitioners on those charges. Subsequently they escaped from the custody of the police. They were acquitted on the charge of rioting, but were convicted under Section 224 of the Penal Code, and sentenced each to three months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.2. Mr. Donogh, who appears for the petitioners, contends that as they were acquitted of rioting they were not in lawful custody, and that the conviction under Section 224 is, therefore, not sustainable. He refers for an authority to the case of Ganqa Charan Singh v. Queen-Empress (1893) I.L.R. 21 Cal. 337 Section 224 of the Penal Code is as follows: 'Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or escapes or attemp...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishore Ghose and anr. Vs. Gopi Kant Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal242
Rampini, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of the District Judge of Mymensingh, dated the 20th December 1899. The point raised in this appeal is of a novel nature, the question for determination being whether the dismissal of an application for the determination of mesne profits means the same thing as the dismissal of the suit. The facts of the case are these. The decree-holders obtained a decree against the judgment-debtor for possession of certain lands with mesne profits. The decree-holders first applied for possession of the land and obtained it. Execution proceedings were then dismissed. The decree-holders then applied for realization of costs and for determination of mesne profits. The costs were realized, and execution proceedings were dismissed on the 21st of November 1896.2. On the 28th of January 1898 the decree-holders again applied for determination of mesne profits, upon which two of the judgment-debtors opposed the application on the ground that the dismissal of ...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Kishun Prosad Vs. Govinda Kaurr
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal370
1. (After stating the facts as above, their Lordships continued): Since the appeal to this Court was preferred Govinda Kuar has died. Luchmon Prosad and Ramjani have been substituted as appellants, and by another order of this Court Mohesh Prosad has also been joined as a co-appellant.2. The substantial contention on behalf of the appellants are (i) that the family property was partitioned before 1865; (ii) that Gonesho, and Govinda Kuar, respectively, were the real proprietors of the Mouza Tendua; and (iii) that, even if they were benamidars, the benami transactions have been set up by the plaintiff for the purpose of defrauding creditors, and that, in fact, Bhagwat Ram and Bichoha Ram, the two creditors, were defrauded by this benami transfer, and that the Court, therefore, cannot relieve the plaintiff from the consequence of his fraud.3. The respondent contends that Kishun Prosad and Janki Prosad were members of an undivided Hindu family; that the Mouzah Tendua has been all along jo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›