Kolkata Court December 1908 Judgments
Kishori Lal Roy Vs. Srinath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal370
Sharfuddin and Coxe, JJ.1. This is a Rule on the District Magistrate of Dacca and also on the opposite party to show cause why the order of Babu G.C. Banerjee, Deputy Magistrate, dated the 28th August 1908, should not be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the petition.2. The first ground is that, as a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act with regard to the property in dispute was pending, the Magistrate was not competent to proceed under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. With regard to this point no authority has been shown to us except an un-reported case. Criminal Revision No. 731 of 1908 But certainly in that case it is nowhere laid down that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed under Section 145 with regard to properties that may be the subject of civil proceedings. Such proceedings certainly cannot take away the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to initiate proceedings under Section 1.45, if he finds reasonable grounds for apprehending that without such...
Tag this Judgment!Kishori Lal Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Srinath Roy and ors. and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.817
1. This is a Rule on the District Magistrate of Dacca and also on the opposite party to show cause why the order of Babu G.C. Banerjee, Deputy Magistrate, dated the 28th August 1908, should not be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the petition.2. The first ground is that, as a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act with regard to the property in dispute was pending, the Magistrate was not competent to proceed under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. With regard to this point no authority has been shown to us except an unreported case Criminal Revision Case No. 731 of 1908. But certainly in that case it is nowhere laid down that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed under Section 145 with regard to properties that may be the subject of civil proceedings. Such proceedings certainly cannot take away the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to initiate proceedings under Section 145, if he find reasonable grounds for apprehending that without such proceedings a breach ...
Tag this Judgment!Advocate-general of Bengal Vs. Belchambers
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal261
Fletcher, J.1. This is a suit brought by the Advocate-General for the purpose of having a scheme framed with reference t6 certain charitable bequests contained in the Will of Kanai Lall Seal, who died on the 25th November 1884. He appears to have been a man of considerable wealth.2. By his Will, which is dated the 10th August 1883, after appointing his sister's husband, his wife, brother-in-law and his brother, his manager, James Meak and his dewan executors and executrix, the testator makes provision for the charitable bequests in question.3. The terms of Clause 3 of his Will are as follows:I give in charity twelve to sixteen thousand rupees for building a lower roomed house and premises for the establishment of a Charitable Dispensary, and fifty thousand rupees for carrying on the said Dispensary. The executors shall demarcate one portion of the joint garden house we have at Ramkristoporegram. as my separate share, and erect the buildings thereon, and after purchasing Company's paper...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Chandra Lahiri Vs. Charu Chandra Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1908
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.63
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Rangpur, dated the 1st July 1907, in execution case No. 155 of 1907. It appears that a decree was given in the terms of a solenamah under which the judgment-debtor was required to pay the whole of the decretal amount by instalments. He appears to have paid Rs. 3,000 in cash on the day when the solengmah was effected. He agreed to pay the balance of Rs. 15,500 by instalments, that is to say, Rs. 4,000 in Falgun 1310 and, Rs. 11,500 in Kartik 1311. The decree-holder appears to have died soon after the decree was given. On the 15th March 1904, a sum of Rs. 4,000 was paid by the judgment-debtor to the credit of the Subordinate Judge stating that as the decree-holder was dead and he did not know who the heirs were, he had brought the money in order that it should be paid into the credit of the Subordinate Judge. The 15th November 1904 was the date fixed for the next instalment. The balance was paid by the judgment-debtor on ...
Tag this Judgment!Advocate-general of Bengal Vs. Belchambers and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.944
Fletcher, J.1. This is a suit brought by the Advocate-General for the purpose of having a scheme framed with reference to certain charitable bequests contained in the Will of Kanai Lall Seal, who died on the 25th November 1884. He appears to have been a man of considerable wealth.2. By his Will which is dated the 10th August 1883, after appointing his sister's husband, his wife, brother-in-law and his manager, James Meak and his dewan executors and executrix, the testator makes provision for the charitable bequests in question.3. The terms of Clause 3 of his Will are as follows:I give in charity twelve to sixteen thousand rupees for building a lower roomed house and premises for the establishment of a Charitable Dispensary, and fifty thousand rupees for carrying on the said Dispensary. The executors shall demarcate one portion of the joint garden house we have at Ramkristoporegram as my separate share, and erect the buildings thereon, and after purchasing Company's papers for fifty tho...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Nepal Shikary
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.651
1. This is a reference in the case of one Nepal Shikary, who having failed to furnish security for Rs. 1,000 under Section 110 by order of the Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, was liable to rigorous imprisonment for three years on reference to this Court.2. The first point which strikes us is that Section 362, Criminal Procedure Code, does not apply to cases under Section 110 where it has become necessary to make a reference to the appellate Court. The case of Sheikh Babu v. Emperor 33 C. 1036 : 4 Cr.L.J. 368 to which one of us was a party does not refer to a case of this nature. It refers to cases which are held to be not appealable and in which no reference has to be made. There it was held that the section speaks of substantive sentences of imprisonment and not imprisonment on the failure of the accused to carry out an order as to fine or security, and the case of Schein v. Queen-Empress. 16 C. 799 was relied on. That case we find merely lays down the doctrine that no appeal lies fr...
Tag this Judgment!Vulcan Iron Works Vs. Bishumbhur Prosad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal233
Fletcher, J.1. This is a motion by the plaintiffs to restrain the defendant from proceeding with a suit, which he has instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Farruckabad.2. The facts may be shortly stated as follows:The plaintiffs instituted this suit on the 4th of July last against the defendant to recover the sum of Rs. 6,209/- alleged to be due to the plaintiffs from the defendant on three promissory notes all dated the 10th of September 1906.3. It is admitted that the defendant resides and carries on business at Farruckabad in the United Provinces outside the jurisdiction of this Court. This suit was instituted by the plaintiffs by leave granted under Clause 12 of the Charter on the ground that part of the plaintiffs' cause of action arose within the limits of the Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. The defendant on the 20th August last filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Farruckabad praying for a declaration that the said three promissory notes...
Tag this Judgment!Maha Pershad Singh and ors. Vs. Surendra Mohan Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.56
1. On the 12th February 1906, the plaintiffs-respondents obtained against the defendants-appellants and certain other persons a decree nisi on a mortgage, dated the 21st, December 1896. The operative part of the decree runs thus: 'The defendants do pay within 6 months from the date of the decree to the plaintiffs Rs. 5,36,038-11-6 principal, interest and compound interest at the rate mentioned in the bond sued upon, i. e. Rs. 7-8 per cent. per annum from the date of institution, i.e., 20th June, 1904, to date of realisation and Rs. 7,990-8 as costs of the suit besides interest at 6 per cent. per annum from the date of decree to that of realisation: that in the event of non-payment, the mortgaged properties will be sold for the realisation of the decretal amount: that if the sale proceeds of the mortgaged properties be not sufficient, the Sudha Bharna property of defendant No. 2 will be sold by auction.' No payment was made within 6 months and an order absolute for sale was made on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Satyendra Nath Bose Vs. Anil Chandra Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1908
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.38
Fletcher, J.1. In this case, the plaintiff sues for specific performance of an agreement to execute and register a lease and tenders the agreement in which the terms are embodied.2. The defendant objects to the agreement on the ground that it has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act. The agreement is dated the 16th September 1906 and provides for the grant of a lease to the plaintiff for a period of five years commencing from the next day, i.e., 1st Assin 1313, B.S. On the day that the agreement was executed, it was not to operate nor could it have operated, as a present demise to the plaintiff; and the agreement also provides that the plaintiff should get 'proper qabuliyat registered at his own costs soon.'3. The defendant says that the agreement is, within the meaning of the Registration Act, not admissible in evidence as it is not registered. The sections of the Registration Act he relies on are first, Section 3 which says that 'lease' includ...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Miah Vs. Ramjan Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.474
1. In this case a holding was sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent. One Korla Mia, who had previously purchased the tenants interest deposited the purchase-money under Section 310A of the Civil Procedure Code. The Munsif accepted the deposit and set aside the sale. The auction- purchaser has obtained a Rule from this Court to show cause why this order should not be set aside as made without jurisdiction.2. The first question that arises for decision is whether Section 310A applies to sales of holdings under the Tenancy Act at all. It was held in Janardhan Ganguli v. Kali Kristo Thakur 23 C. 393 that the section does apply. Reference may also be made to Benodini Dassi v. Peary Mohan Haldar 8 C.W.N. 55; Kunja Behari Mondal v. Sambhu Chandra Roy 8 C.W.N. 232 and Omar Ali Majhi v. Basirudeen Ahmed 12 C.W.N. lxiv; 7 C.L.J. 282. We find also that the Legislative Council of Eastern Bengal and Assam have not thought fit to follow the example of the Bengal Legislature in amending S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »