Kolkata Court July 1908 Judgments
Fanindra Nath Chatterjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal67
Brett and Ryves, JJ.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Durbhunga forwarding the case of Fanindra Nath Chatterjee and Chandoo Khan, who were convicted by a Deputy Magistrate under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and Rs. 20 respectively, with a recommendation that the convictions and sentences should be set aside.2. Two grounds have been suggested for the interference of this Court. First, that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case summarily, inasmuch as the complaint filed by the complainant discloses an offence punishable under Section 189 of the Indian Penal Code, which is not triable summarily, and secondly, that the warrant of distraint made over to the complainant authorised him to distrain the properties of the defaulters named therein found in certain premises described in the warrant. It has been found that the goods, which had been placed in the premises named in the warrant, had a short time previousl...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed Ali Vs. Keenoo Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal44
Brett and Ryves, JJ.1. After hearing the learned Counsel on both sides we are of opinion, that the Rule must be made absolute and the orders passed by the Deputy Magistrate, on the 4th May and 6th June 1908, directing delivery of the bungalow and its contents to the opposite party, must be set aside and in lieu thereof an order passed that the bungalow and its contents be made over to the petitioner.2. It is clear from the facts stated in the petition that the petitioner's case, in which he charged the opposite party with having forcibly dispossessed him of the bungalow and its contents, was found to be true, and the opposite party was convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code of having forcibly dispossessed him of both. In those circumstances it was the duty of the Magistrate to pass orders under Sections 522 and 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code directing restoration to the petitioner of the bungalow and its contents, from which it was found he had been forcibly disposses...
Tag this Judgment!V. Woods, Agent to the Assam Bengal Ry. Co. Vs. Meher Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.479
1. This was a rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court of Feni should not be set aside on the ground that the learned Judge of that Court appears to have erred in law in holding that the present suit could be maintained without the provisions of Sections 77 and 140 of the Act having been complied with, and on the ground that the suit by the plaintiff was otherwise not maintainable.2. It is now too late and we have no desire to differ from a long course of decisions in which it has been held that in a case of Railway Company the notice under Section 77 which is served under Section 140 must be on the Agent of the Company. But we think that a notice on an individual, be he the Agent of a Railway Company, or be he the Secretary of State, need not be physically thrust in the Agent's hands. It is sufficient if the findings of fact are such that it must be inferred that the Agent had full knowledge and notice of the claim. Now in t...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Ahmed Ali Vs. Keenoo Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.202
1. After hearing the learned Counsel on both sides, we are of opinion, that the Rule must be made absolute and the orders passed by the Deputy Magistrate, on the 4th May and 6th June 1908, directing delivery of the bungalow and its contents to 1 he opposite party, must be set aside and in lieu thereof an order passed that the bungalow and its contents be made over to the petitioner.2. It is clear from the facts stated in the petition that the petitioner's case, in which he charged the opposite party with having forcibly dispossessed him of the bungalow and its contents, was found to be true, and the opposite party was convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code of having forcibly dispossessed him of both. In those circumstances, it was the duty of the Magistrate to pass orders, under Sections 522 and 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code, directing restoration to the petitioner of the bungalow and its contents, from which, it was found, he had been forcibly dispossessed.3. It has...
Tag this Judgment!Fanindra Nath Chatterji Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.519
1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Durbhunga forwarding the case of Fanindra Nath Chatterjee and Chandoo Khan, who were convicted by a Deputy Magistrate under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and Rs. 20 respectively, with a recommendation that the convictions and sentences should be set aside.2. Two grounds have been suggested for the interference of this Court. First, that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case summarily, inasmuch as the complaint filed by the complainant discloses an offence punishable under Section 189 of the Indian Penal Code, which is not triable summarily, and secondly, that the warrant of distrain made over to the complainant authorised him to distraint the properties of the defaulters named therein found in certain premises described in the warrant. It has been found that the goods, which had been placed in the premises named in the warrant, had a short time previously been removed to an...
Tag this Judgment!Baroda Charan Dutt Vs. Hemlata Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.560
1. This appeal arises out of an action by the landlord to recover possession of a non-transferable occupancy holding'. The plaintiff-respondent seeks to recover possession on the ground that the raiyat has executed a usufructuary mortgage of his holding, has placed him in possession and is himself no longer in possession of the same. It has been found by both the Courts below that the raiyat did execute a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the defendant No. 3 and that the original raiyat is no longer in possession. Upon these findings, the lower appellate Court has given the plaintiff a decree for khas possession. The plaintiff is a purchaser of certain specific lands corresponding to a 13 annas share which belonged to his vendor and is also a descendant of the same family. These lands being debutter lands the duty of the shebait, that is, the duty of maintaining the worship of the idol to whom the lands are dedicated was also transferred to him. The defendant No. 3 alone has appealed,...
Tag this Judgment!Sheonandan Singh and ors. Vs. Jeonandan Dusadh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.376
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Plaintiff zemindar to recover possession of 1 1/2 bighas of land which the Defendant claimed as his Chowkidari Chakran land. On the findings of fact in the lower Appellate Court there is now no room to question the identity of the land or of the Defendants' right to occupy it and the appeal is argued before us solely on the basis that the chowkidari register kept under Reg. XX of 1817 is not admissible in evidence. The case of Jarao Kumari v. Lalonmoni 18 C. 224 at p. L.R. 17 I.A.145, where their Lordships of the Judicial Committee considered the evidential value of the statements of the amins made upon maps and thakbust chittas, has no bearing on the present case.2. The question here is was the entry of the situation and boundaries of the chakran land made in the register an entry in a public register made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty within the meaning of Section 35 of the Evidence Act or 'was it an entry...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendra Kumar Basu Vs. NabIn Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal189
Coxe and Doss, JJ.1. In this case the plaintiffs on the 19th December 1906 brought a suit against the defendants in the Court of the Munsif of Basirhat. The 22nd January was fixed for the hearing of the case. On that date the defendant prayed for time and the case was adjourned to the 19th February. The 19th February being a holiday the case was taken up on the 25th February, when it was again adjourned to the 5th March. On the 5th March the following order was passed: 'The defendants do not appear; examined Kali Krishna Chandra and decreed ex parte.' Subsequently the defendants applied to have this decree set aside under Section 108 of the Civil Procedure Code, and that application was ultimately granted.2. The plaintiffs now apply to this Court under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and ask that the order of the Munsif reviving the case may be set aside on two grounds. The first ground is that the order of the 5th March 1907 is really an order under Section 158 of the Code...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Marwari Vs. Chandrabali HaldarIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.153
1. On the 13th Falgoon 1295 (1888), Manee Misra, father of the defendant No. 1, executed a surety bond in favour of Kaliram Marwari father of the plaintiff. The bond recited that Janaki Debya had borrowed money from Kaliram Marwari on mortgage with possession., in lieu of interest, of a plot of land, to secure payment of interest on the money borrowed by Janaki Debya, and Manee Misra covenanted to stand surety for payment of the sum of Rs. 161 mentioned in the deed of mortgage, and stipulated that in case Kaliram Marwari were prevented from holding possession or from collecting the rents the debt due to him on the deed of mortgage would be recovered with damages from two specified plots of land, and that neither he nor his heirs would take any objection or exception thereto. The two plots of land so made liable under the surety bond were, therefore, hypothecated for the purpose indicated. The land mortgaged by Janaki Debya having been sold and the plaintiff dispossessed, he brought a s...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendra Kumar Bose and ors. Vs. NabIn Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.741
1. In this case the plaintiffs on the 19th December 1906 brought a suit against the defendants in the Court of the Munsif of Basirhat. The 22nd January was fixed for the hearing of the case. On that date the defendant prayed for time and the case was adjourned to the 19th February. The 19th February being a holiday the case was taken up on the 25th February, when it was again adjourned to the 5th March. On the 5th March the following order was passed: 'The defendants do not appear; examined Kali Krishna Chandra and decreed ex parte.' Subsequently the defendants applied to have this decree set aside under Section 108 of the Civil Procedure Code, and that application was ultimately granted.2. The plaintiffs now apply to this Court under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and ask that the order of the Munsif reviving the case may be set aside on two grounds. The first ground is that the order of the 5th March 1907 is really an order under Section 158 of the Code of Civil Procedur...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »