Kolkata Court March 1902 Judgments
Gourhari Gope Vs. Alay Gopini
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal724
Stevens and Harington, JJ.1. This Rule was granted to show cause why a Magistrate of the first class specially empowered to hear appeals from Subordinate Magistrates should not be directed to hear this appeal with reference to the order passed by the Subordinate Magistrate under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The Magistrate exercising appellate powers was of opinion that he had no power to interfere with an order under Section 522 under the ruling of this Court in the case of Bam Chandra Mistry v. Nobin Mirdha (1898) I. L. R. 25 Calc. 630. That ruling is, however, obsolete, having reference to Act X of 1882, the Code of Criminal Procedure-then in force. Clause (d) of Section 423 of the present Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the making by an Appellate Court of any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper.3. The Rule is made absolute.4. The case will go back to the Appellate Court to be dealt with as regards the order under Section 522 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Moyna Bibi Vs. Banku Behari Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal473
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs to recover a sum of money clue upon a registered bond, dated the 10th November, 1885. The bond was executed by the first defendant, Moyna Bibi, for herself, and, it is alleged, as mother and natural guardian of her minor daughters, the defendants Nos. 2 and 3.2. The defence of the first defendant was that the bond was not genuine. The defence of the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 was that they knew nothing about the bond, and that as, under Mahomedan law, their mother had no right to mortgage their shares, they were not bound.3. Both the Courts below have found that the bond was a genuine one; that it was executed by the defendant No. 1, who is bound by it; that the consideration for it was a sum of money spent by the plaintiffs in conducting a litigation to save the property; and that, as the transaction was for the benefit of the minors, they should make restitution to the plaintiffs in proportio...
Tag this Judgment!Lachmi NaraIn Singh Vs. Nand Kishore Lal Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal537
Brett and Mitra, JJ.1. On the 5th September 1889, the Government advanced to defendant No. 1 (Raghunandan Sahi) a certain sum of money as tuccavi under the Agriculturists' Loans Act (XII of 1884), and the defendant executed a bond in favour of the Government, hypothecating his nagdi malikana right to eight annas of taluk Banapur, bearing towji No. 1109, of the Mozufferpore Collectorate. On failure of the defendant to repay the money in time, the Collector of Mozufferpore filed on the 20th April 1854 a certificate for the sum of Rs. 1,733-14-6 under Section 7, Sub-section (1) of the Public Demands Recovery Act (Bengal Act VII of 1880). The property covered by the bond was sold under the said certificate on the 29th January 1897, and was purchased by defendant No. 3, Nandkishore Lal, for Rs. 395. The sale was confirmed on the 8th April 1897. There is nothing m the record now to show what amount was actually due to Government on the date of sale, and, if the amount exceeded Rs. 395, when ...
Tag this Judgment!Narendea Nath Sarkar Vs. Rai Charan Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal647
Rampini and Pratt JJ.1. The only point which arises in this appeal is whether the suit is barred as against the minors Narendra Nath Sarkar and Surendra Nath Sarkar, who are the defendants No Section 1 and 2.2. The suit is brought upon a bond dated the 11th Bysack 1295, executed by Soudamini Dasi, the certificated guardian of the minor defendants, and one Kamalbasini I asi. The bond was executed for a sum of R Section 500 borrowed by Jogendra Nath Sarkar, the brother of the minors, who is now dead. The plaintiff now sues for the debt.3. The Lower Appellate Court has held that the suit is barred as against Kamalbasini Dasi, the defendant No. 3, but that a fresh period of limitation has arisen owing to certain payments made by the certificated guardian of the minor defendants No Section 1 and 2, so that the suit is not time-barred against them.4. The defendants No Section 1 and 2 appealed to this Court and, on their behalf, it is contended that the judgment of the Subordinate Judge is wr...
Tag this Judgment!Shamsher Mundul Vs. Ganendra NaraIn Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal498
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the judgment complained of in this case should not be set aside on the ground that it dealt with a claim to tiled huts, which, in accordance with the ruling in the case of Denonath Batabyal v. Adhor Chunder Sett (1899) 4 C. W. N. 470., a Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to deal with, being immoveable property.2. Dr. Rash Behari Ghose, for the opposite party, contends that the Bench taking cases of the Presidency Group has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter, and that it has no power to set aside like decree of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes, which is not within the jurisdiction of this Bench. He calls attention to Rule II of Chapter III of the Rules of this Court, Appellate Side, in column 1 of which rule the districts over which this Bench has jurisdiction are specified, and he points out that the 24-Parganas is one of those districts, but Calcutta is not. He has further called atte...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Preo Nath Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal489
Stevens and Harington, JJ.1. This is a reference under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by one of the Honorary Presidency Magistrates.2. The defendant was in the service of Messrs. Kilburn & Co., and he received from his employers some bags of waste paper with an order to take them to the Company's yard at Garden Reach and there to burn and destroy the papers. The defendant instead of destroying the papers brought some of them to Bow Bazar. The Honorary Magistrate is of opinion that the defendant disobeyed the orders of his masters and converted the papers to his own use. He adds that, though the papers are of no value to the firm, they might be misused by designing persons for the purpose of committing forgery.3. The question which the learned Magistrate refers to us is, 'having regard to Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code and the case of the Empress v. Wilkinson (1898(sic)) C. W. N. 216., did the defendant commit any offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Co...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: L.P.D. Broughton
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal311
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is an application for probate of the will of Mr. L. P. D. Broughton, late Administrator-General of Bengal.2. It appears that he had executed a will in the year 1894, and that some time in 1901 he made over to Mr. N. S. Watkins a copy of that will with various alterations in pencil, which are sworn to be in his handwriting; that copy remained in the custody of Mr. Watkins until it was produced on the 3rd of January 1902 shortly before Mr. Broughton died. Mr. Watkins has in his affidavit stated that the document which is now produced with the pencil alterations was in his custody all along in the condition in which it was delivered to him by the deceased. On the 3rd of January this year Mr. Broughton executed a document, which I may treat as a codicil, and which is, with the exception of a few words, in the handwriting of Dr. Arnold Caddy of this city, who was attending the testator medically about the time of his decease. The words not in Dr. Caddy's handwriting wer...
Tag this Judgment!Boisogomoff Vs. Nahapiet Jute Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal323
Maclean, C.J.1. This is a suit to recover damages for an alleged breach of warranty as to the quality of 6,000 kutcha bales of jute purchased by the plaintiff from the defendants. There is no dispute as to the contracts which are set out in the plaint: the only dispute is as to the quality of the goods. The jute was to be of the standard quality of a certain mark, T.S.N./N2, and this, admittedly, means that each bale was to contain 40 per cent, of what is known as Hessian warp. The sole question is whether the bales delivered did contain that percentage of Hessian warp and tins is a question of fact. The jute was delivered by the B defendants, and immediately after delivery the plaintiff complained that the jute was not up to the standard quality of the mark, and asked the defendants to send down a representative to inspect it. Some correspondence then ensued: the plaintiff suggesting a survey and the defendants proposing an arbitration by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce; the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Jamiruddi Masalli Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal782
Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. The three appellants ham been convicted by a jury of dacoity. There can be no doubt that the dacoity was committed, but it was not known by whom, until about eight months afterwards. Through information obtained one Fatik was arrested. He was examined as a witness under conditional pardon, and it is on his evidence that the conviction of the appellants almost entirely depends. In laying this, evidence before the jury, the Sessions Judge told them: 'If you think that the approver's story is worthy of credit in itself, you have to consider whether it has been corroborated on material points.' He then described what in his opinion were 'the points of corroboration,' and he told the jury that 'the above are points on which the Evidence has been corroborated and that corroboration is full and complete, if you believe it; you have to consider these points and decide whether the approver has been corroborated in material points; and if you find that to be so, then y...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeo Sonar Vs. Mobarak Ali Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal583
Brett and Mitra, JJ.1. In execution of a simple money decree against defendants Nos. 2 and 3, the property in dispute was sold and was purchased by the decree-holder, defendant No. 1. The family of the judgment-debtor, which is governed by the Mitakshara Law, consisted at the date of sale of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 and 3; plaintiff No. 1, Baldeo Sonar, being a brother, plaintiff No. 2, Mussamut Dukhi Koer, the mother, and plaintiff No. 3, Jugdeo, the son of the judgment-debtor, defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 3 is a cousin of defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs pleaded a partition of the house between themselves and defendant No. 2 on one side and defendant No. 3 on the other, and that the debt for which the sale had taken place was not binding upon them, as they were no parties to it. They had also not been made parties in the suit in which the decree was obtained against defendants, Nos. 2 and 3. It appears that plaintiff No. 1, Baldeo, was a minor at the date of sale. The Mu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›