Kolkata Court June 1907 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.
Budhan Mahto Vs. Issur Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal926
Mitra and Coxe, JJ.1. Sections 20 to 23 of Act I of 1871 (The Cattle Trespass Act) conferred, no doubt, a. special jurisdiction on certain Magistrates, but Section 4, Clause (o) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898) includes within the definition of the word offence 'any act in respect of which a complaint may be made under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871.' Section 260 Clause (m) of the Code makes offences under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871, triable summarily. Thus under the Code of 1898, cases under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act come within the ordinary jurisdiction of the Magistracy and there is no reason now for holding that these oases should be dealt with in any way different from any other offence. Shama v. Lechhu Shekh (1895) I.L.R. 23 Cal. 300, and Raghu Singh v. Abdul Wahab (1896) I.L.R. 23 Cal. 442 appear to have been overruled by the Legislature.2. Section 192, Sub-section (1) gives ample authority to a Sub-divisional Magistrate...
Balikanta Doss Vs. Ram Tahal Dos
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1907
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.670
1. In this case it appears that a certain land was leased to the defendant and described in the pattah as half of land enclosed within certain boundaries. The other half of the land within the said boundaries is said to have been leased to. the plaintiffs predecessors. Subsequently the landlord brought ejectment suit against the plaintiff's predecessors, and, thereafter, settled the land covered by that suit with the present plaintiff. The present plaintiff sued for partition. The defendant pleaded that the land held by him was distinctively demarcated, and formed a separate holding. He stated in paragraph 11 of the written statement,--Although for want of ability and prudence in the village people who drafted the documents, they with the object of avoiding the trouble of describing the boundaries of separate lands held by different persons within the 16 annas boundaries, gave no separate sets of boundaries in the said pattah and qabuliat for the lands, (yet) the said two chukani lands...
Emperor Vs. Satish Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal749
Mitra and Caspersz, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the government of Eastern Bengal and Assam in a prosecution under the Indian Arms Act (XI of 1878). The question raised is one of general importance, as it involves the interpretation of Section 4 of the Act. Does a sword-stick come within the definition of the word arms? That word, according to its definition, includes 'fire-arms, bayonets, swords, daggers, spears, spear-heads and bows and arrows, and also cannon and parts of arms.' The denotation is neither exhaustive nor altogether happy, but we are now only concerned with the words swords and daggers.2. The dagger is a weapon which in relation to its comparatively short blade may be considered a diminutive sword. The word sword is a generic description. It is difficult, as a matter of verbal, definition, to distinguish the sword from smaller hand-weapons. An ordinary sword may be four or five times as long as an ordinary dagger. There are also long daggers and short swords. The length ...
Khater Mistri Vs. Sadruddi Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal922
Rampini, A.C.J. and Sharfuddin, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought for ejectment of the defendant.2. The facts are these according to the allegations of the plaintiff. The defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff on a plot of land of 8 bighas. The plaintiff sued the defendant for rent in 1900. The defendant denied that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiff and himself of the plaintiff withdrew his suit. In 1901 the plaintiff sued again for rent; and the defendant again pleaded that he was not the plaintiff's tenant. The suit was tried out. It was found that the defendant was not the plaintiff's tenant and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff now sues for ejectment of the defendant, and the defendant denies the plaintiff's title. He is not very specific in setting up his own title; but he does not allege that he is the plaintiff's tenant. The District Judge has therefore held, upon the authority of the case of Nil Madhab Bose v. Ananta Ram Ba...
Prakas Chunder Dutt Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal918
Mitra and Caspersz, JJ.1. These Rules were issued on two grounds: first, that no reason was stated by the District Magistrate for the withdrawal of the oases from the Subdivisional Magistrate's file; and, second, that the Additional District Magistrate to whom the cases were referred was not subordinate to the District Magistrate.2. As regards the first ground, it is incumbent on the officer empowered to transfer a case from one Court to another to record his reasons for so doing when lie directs a transfer. Section 528, Sub-section (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure says:--'A Magistrate making an order under this section shall record in writing his reasons for making the same,' In these cases, no reasons are recorded, and the District Magistrate, in his explanation, says that he was wrong in not recording any reasons. But, after all, it was only an irregularity. The mistake was not such as would alone induce us to say that the order was erroneous. It is only when an order made by a...
Balbhadra Vs. Bhowani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal853
Rampini, Acting, C.J, and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Campbell, the Divisional Judge of Raipore dated the 22nd August 1905, affirming a decision of Mr. Raghu Nath Das, the District Judge of Sambalpore, dated the 2nd December 1904.2. A preliminary objection has been urged to the hearing of this appeal on the ground (i) that the appeal, if any, lies to the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces and (ii) that no second appeal lies in the case under the provisions of Section 15, Act II of 1904 (The Central Provinces Courts Act, 1904).3. The district of Sambalpore was part of the Central Provinces until the 16th October 1905. It was then added by Proclamation of the Governor-General to the Province of Bengal, and by Act VII of 1905 which came into force on the 16th October 1905, it is provided in Schedule D, Part II, that in construing enactments in force in the district of Sambalpore, the words 'Judicial Commissioner' of the Central Provinces shall be...
Mahomed Mehdi Bella Vs. Mohini Kanta Saha Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal874
Rampini, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by judgment-debtor No. 4. He contends that the decree which it is sought to execute against him is barred by limitation under Section 230, Civil Procedure Code. The facts are that a decree was given against him for Rs. 480 on the 23rd August 1892. An appeal was preferred and a decree for Rs. 960 was on the 29th March 1893, passed jointly against him and the defendant No. 3. It is contended that as more than 12 years had elapsed between the 23rd August 1892 and the date of presentation of the present application for execution, execution of the decree is barred. The appellant's pleader relies on the words of Section 230, in which it is said that execution is barred by the lapse of 12 years from the date of the decree sought to be enforced, or the date of the decree on appeal 'affirming the same.'2. The pleader's contention is that limitation cannot be held to run from the date of the decree in appeal in this case, because it did not affirm the dec...
BipIn Behari Ghose Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal913
Stephen and Coxe, JJ.1. The petitioners hare been convicted of an offence under Sections 466 and 574 of the Calcutta Municipal Act 1899; namely, permitting premises to be used for a purpose specified in Schedule XVIII to the Act, namely, storing lime, without a license. They obtained a Rule calling on the Municipal Magistrate to show cause why this conviction should not be set aside on the ground that they had a license bander Section 198 of the Act. The short point that we have to decide is whether the holder of a trading license, i.e., a license under Section 198, is obliged to take out a license under Section 466. The question turns chiefly on the construction of the rules in Schedule II of the Act. But there are a few points, connected with the contents of the Act which it is convenient to consider first.2. Section 198 occurs in Part IV of the Act, headed 'Taxation,' and in Chapter XIV, headed 'Tax on Professions, Trades and Callings.' It imposes a liability on any person carrying ...
Kumud Kumari Dassi Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal909
Mitra and Caspersz, JJ.1. This is a Rule involving a question of limitation arising out of the institution of a prosecution under Section 408 read with Section 574 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. The matter relates to a bustee.2. On the 1st March 1906, a notice was issued under Section 408 of the Act requiring improvements in the bustes within three months from that date. The notice, it appears, was served on the 3rd March. The three months expired on the 2nd June, and the offence was committed on the 3rd June. Subsequently, on the 21st June 1906, the Corporation sent a reminder. There was no necessity for it, but the Corporation wanted to give the proprietress of the bustce every opportunity of making the improvement. On the 2nd July 1906, after the offence had been committed, a notice was sent by the petitioner under Section 419 of the Act. The effect of a notice under Section 419 is ordinarily to enlarge the time by six months.3. Is six months' time to be given after the offence has ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›