Kolkata Court June 1905 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.
Ashutosh Mallick Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal50
Pargiter, J.1. The applicant has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code of cheating Dr. Pearse and obtaining a subscription of Rs. 10 from him towards the funds of the Harinam-pradayini Sabha, the object of which was to feed the poor on the occasion of the opening of the new Municipal offices.2. He obtained this rule calling on the Chief Presidency Magistrate to shew cause why the conviction and sentence should not be set aside on the ground that the facts found do not constitute the offence of cheating.3. The first question we have to consider with reference to the definition of cheating in Section 415, Indian Penal Code, is whether the applicant deceived Dr. Pearse.4. Dr. Pearse and two other witnesses have deposed that the applicant distinctly informed them that he was employed in the Municipal office, and this statement is admittedly untrue. It was contended that because of that false statement Dr. Pearse gave this subscription....
Annoda Prasad Banerjee Vs. Nobo Kishore Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal560
Sale, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sues to recover the amount of costs due under an allocator issued by the Registrar of this Court dated the 7th September l902 in respect of certain costs, which were awarded by this Court in its Insolvency Jurisdiction on the 1st of June 1892.2. The order of the 1st June 1892 directed the present defendant and another person now deceased, who were the adjudicating creditors of the present plaintiff, to pay the costs of the application to set aside that adjudication. The learned Judge acting as Commissioner of the Insolvent Court was satisfied that the adjudication had been wrongly made and accordingly by the order above mentioned the adjudication was set aside, the adjudicating creditors being directed to pay the costs of the proceedings.3. The order for payment of costs remained unsatisfied and eventually the plaintiff instituted the present suit to recover these costs. There is no dispute as regards the facts.4. The objection taken is that the su...
Gobinda Chandra Basu Vs. Kamijuddi Soyal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1905
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.115
1. This appeal arises oat of a suit instituted by a co-sharer landlord against a raiyat for the purpose of compelling him to fill up a tank which the raiyat had excavated in one part of his holding. It appears that, at the time when the said excavation was made by the defendant, there was already a tank in the holding in question. Notwithstanding this, the defendant dug some of the mal lands appertaining to his holding and after raising the level of the ground by earth of the said tank, planted certain trees on the same. The Court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree, being of opinion that the digging of the tank in question was not consistent with the purposes for which the holding had been let out, and that it was not really an improvement within the meaning of Section 76 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The lower Appellate Court, however, has set aside that judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's suit upon the grounds that the tank was dug for the purpose of providing good drinkin...
Dayanath Taluqdar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal8
Pargiter and Woodroffe JJ.1. These ten applicants were called upon to show cause why they should not be bound down to give security for their good behaviour under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case was tried by a Deputy Magistrate, and he bound them down. An appeal was made to the District Magistrate, and he sot aside the Deputy Magistrate's order and directed that there should be a further inquiry, at the same time requiring increased security from these applicants. Against that order a motion was made to the Sessions Judge, and while that motion was pending, the Deputy Magistrate proceeded to hold the further inquiry directed by the District Magistrate.2. A rule was obtained from this (Joint calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why the proceedings taken against these applicants should not be transferred to some other Magistrate than the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Tangail, or why such further order should not be passed as to this Court may seem fit.3. W...
Gopi Nath Chongdar Vs. Shaikh Abdul Gafur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1905
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.886
Mitra, J.1. This is an appeal in an action for ejectment on the ground of service of notice to quit. The tenancy was admittedly created before the passing of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and it is conceded before me that that Act has no operation as regards the rights of the parties.2. The notice was served, I take it upon the findings, on the 30th Aswin 1308 : 16th October 1901. It required the tenants to quit after the 30th Chait 1308 : 13th April 1902. If we calculate according to the current Bengali Calendar, the notice was one to quit after the expiry of six months and after the end of the year of tenancy.3. Since the decision of this Court in the case of Kishori Mohun Roy Chowdhry v. Nund Kumar Ghosal 24 C. 720 it has been the practice in the country to cause notices to quit to be served in the month of Aswin, the notice requiring the tenants to quit at the end of Chaitra following, as six months intervene between 30th Aswin and 30th Chait. In the present case, however, th...
Banu Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1353
Mitra and Holmwood, JJ.1. The appellants, except Gouri Singh, are not represented before us. The Advocate-General has appeared to support the conviction.2. The main question argued before us relates to the legality of the conditional pardon to Mohendm Bind and the admissibility of his evidence.3. On the 3rd May 1906 we held in an appeal in another case under Section 400, Indian Penal Code, tried by the same Deputy Commissioner of Maubhum, in which the same Mohendro Bind figured as an approver-witness and was given conditional pardon under the same order of the Government, that his evidence was inadmissible. Paban Singh v. Emperor (1906)10 C.W.N. 847. An offence under Section 400, Indian Penal Code, is exclusively triable by a Court of Session, and in that case the conditional pardon could have been tendered by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the present case, which is triable by a Court of Sessions as well as a Presidency Magistrate or a Mag...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›