Kolkata Court August 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.
Khosh Mahomed Sirkar Vs. Nazir Mahomed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal352
Francis William Maclean, K.C.I.E, C.J.1. The first question submitted on this Reference is 'whether an initial order made by a Magistrate, under, Section 145, Clause (1860) 2 W.R. Cr. 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is defective because it is not self-contained and does not state in express terms the grounds upon which he is satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists, when such grounds appear in the Police report on which the order is founded and to which it makes reference.' In my opinion, that question ought to be answered in the negative, namely, that it is not defective. The case has been very fully dealt with by the referring Judges, and I do not think I can usefully add anything either to their reasons or their conclusion. I concur in that conclusion. There has, to my mind, been a substantial compliance with Sub-section (1) of Section 145. No doubt there is a difference of judicial opinion upon the point; but. on the whole, I think that the view take...
Hari Ballav Bose and ors. Vs. Gopi Nath Rath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1905
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.635
1. This was a suit by the Committee of a mouth appointed under Section 7 of Act XX of 1863 against a tehsildar for accounts.2. The Munsif in an exhaustive judgment held that the Committee were empowered to sue and he made the usual decree for accounts. On appeal the Subordinate Judge held that the suit was not maintainable, and could be brought only by the Superintendent who had been appointed by the Committee. The Subordinate Judge has relied upon a Madras case K. Vencatabalakrishna Chettiyar v. Kaliya-naramaiyangar 5 M.H.C.R. 48 which we think is inapplicable, because there the Court was dealing with a Trustee and not a Superintendent, and further the powers of the Board of Revenue to which the Committee succeeded were prescribed by a local Regulation which has no force in Bengal. Without examining more closely what were the powers of the Board of Revenue, we find from Section 12 of Act XX of 1863 that one of their powers was to recover the rent of the land or other property transfer...
Berhamdeo Pershad Vs. Tara Chand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal92
Henderson, J.1. This appeal and appeal No,. 381, which are appeals from the same decree, have been heard practically together.2. The circumstances under which the suit was brought are these : On the 21st May 1887, one Kalu Babu, the ancestor of the defendants, who are described in the cause title as the first party, executed a mortgage, by which he mortgaged Mouzah Chuck and certain other mouzahs in favour of the appellants. On the 9th September 1887 he executed another mortgage, by which he mortgaged Mouzah Chuck and other mouzahs in favour of the plaintiffs, undertaking to repay the money secured by the mortgage in the month of Kartic 1296, and on the 19th July 1889 he executed a second mortgage in favour of the appellants in respect of Mouzah Chuck and other mouzahs. ' a 1890 the appellants filed a suit, No. 16 of 1890, to enforce their first mortgage, but, although they made the plaintiffs parties to that suit, no mention was made of their second mortgage of the 19th July 1889. On-...
Jogendra Nath Mookerjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1
Rampini and Mookerjee, JJ.1. This is a rule to show why the order of the Subdivisional Magistrate of Rampore Hat directing the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code should not be set aside.2. The facts are that the petitioner, on the 22nd May last, instituted proceedings at the thana against two persons for an offence under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., of mischief by fire.3. The police investigated the case and reported it to be false.4. The petitioner then, on the 29th May, presented a petition to the Subdivisional Magistrate impugning the correctness of the police report and praying that the persons accused by him might be brought to trial. The Magistrate directed this petition to be put up with the police report.5. On the 30th May, the Magistrate directed that the petitioner should be called on to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code for making a false complaint. He made over the inqui...
Tituram Mukerji Vs. Cohen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal203
Arthur Wilson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Calcutta, dated the 6th May 1901, affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Manbhum, which dismissed the suit with costs. The case relates to the right to the minerals under lands in mouzah Golokdihi, pergunnah Jheriah, in the district of Manbhum, and to various questions in connection therewith. Pergunnah Jheriah forms part of the estates of the Bajah of Jheriah.2. On the 22nd April 1824 the then Rajah of Jheriah executed a lease, of the kind well known in that part of India as a 'jucgle-buri' lease, in favour of Golok Mudi, the material parts of which are as follows:To Golok Mudi--This deed ... is executed to the following effect:In mouzah Tisra... there are jungle lauds within these boundaries... and thalands within these boundaries are now settled with you at a rental of Rs. 12. You shall cut the jungle... and prepare the lands. When the lands are prepare, rents will he assessed in the presen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›