Kolkata Court March 1904 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.
Sati Prasad Sen Vs. Jogesh Chandra Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal681
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The question which has been referred is whether in the circumstances of the present case, Article 136 or Article 138 of the Limitation Act applies. There is a decision of this Court, Mohima Chunder Bhuttacharjee v. Nobin Chunder Roy (1895) I.L.R. 23 Calc. 49 in favour of the view that Article 136 applies, whilst there are decisions in the High Courts of Madras and Bombay to the opposite effect. I quite subscribe to the view enunciated by the learned vakil for the Respondent that, in construing the Limitation Act, we must construe it strictly; hut in construing an Act such as the present, where there are a variety of articles dealing with a variety of particular oases, we must try so to construe those articles as to make them harmonicas and consistent. It is contended for the Respondent that Article 138 does not apply, because the auction-purchaser alone is mentioned, and not a transferee from him, and that the latter comes within the strict language of Sectio...
Rup Jaun Bibee Vs. Abdul Kadir Bhuyan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal643
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. We are of opinion that, in a suit for contribution, such as the present the case of Upendra Lal Mukerjee v. Girindra Nath Mukerjee (1898) I.L.R. 25 Clac. 565 was rightly decided. We may add that that case was subsequently followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of H.W. Hudson v. Basdeo Bajpye (1898) I.L.R. 26 Calc. 109 to which decision, I notice, one of the present referring Judges was a party. It appears from the judgments both of the Munsiff and of the Subordinate Judge that the real contest was not between the plaintiff and the defendants, but between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2.2. As regards the second question it is too general for an answer We confine ourselves to saying that, in a suit such as is the present, an Appellate Court, when a decree has been given against one defendant only, can alter the decree so as to render liable another defendant, against whom the plaintiff has preferred no appeal.3. The consequence is that the a...
Emperor Vs. Chartj Ghunder Mukerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1904
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.966
Maclean, C. J.1. This case comes before us upon a Certificate of the Advocate General, befor the powers entrusted to him by the Letters Patent, and he has Certified the following points of law for our decision:--'Whether the accused should have been jointly tried; whether the direction to the Jury hereinbefore specified was right in law and whether the omissions to direct the Jury do not in law amount to a misdirection.'' These ate the only points submitted to us. I will deal with them in the same order in which they have been dealt with by the certificate and by the learned Counsel in the case.2. I will first deal with the question of whether the two accused should have been jointly tried. That depends upon Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which says: 'When more persons than one are accused of the same offence or of different offences, committed in the same transaction... they may be charged and tried together or separately as the Court thinks fit.' I entertain no doubt ...
Administrator-general of Bengal Vs. Kristo Kamini Dassee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal519
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The question involved in the present appeal is one of limitation. That practically is the only question which has been argued before us. The learned Judge in the Court below proceeded upon the footing that there was no real dispute as to the facts; for, he says in the course of his judgment: 'The parties are not at issue either as regards the circumstances under which the Government securities of Rs. 15,000 came to he deposited by Karunaraoyee with Indor Chunder Singh, and it has been taken as admitted in the course of argument that the facts under which the deposit came to be made are correctly stated in the 3rd paragraph of the plaintiff's plaint.'2. Some evidence was put in the Court below and reference has been made to the judgment of Mr. Justice Jenkins, of the 5th of July 1897 in a case more or less analogous to the present. But substantially before us, as before the lower Court, the facts, as stated in paragraph 3 of the plaint, were taken as correct a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›