Kolkata Court August 1908 Judgments
Kali Charan Ghosh and ors. Vs. Arman Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.473
1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Caspersz. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs to eject defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and defendants Nos. 4 to 6 from certain occupancy land. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were the former tenants of the land and they have transferred their rights in the land to defendants Nos. 4 to 6. But notwithstanding that fact, they are still in occupation of the land as under-tenants of the defendants Nos. 4 to 6. The land has been held to be of non-transferable character. In these circumstances the first Court gave the plaintiffs a decree for ejectment of all the defendants whereas the Subordinate Judge gave a decree for the ejectment of only defendants Nos. 4 to 6, on the ground that they are the transferees of the original tenants of a non-transferable tenancy and, therefore, they had no right to the land. But he refused to eject the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 on the ground that they are the original tena...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Jogendra Nath Mukhuti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal271
Woodroffe, J.1. This is an application for an order in the nature of a mandamus to compel the Corporation to call for tenders in respect of the removal of the city refuse before'' giving effect to the proposals of the Special Committee appointed by it to consider the matter. This work has been done by Babu Bhoba Nath Sen since 1879 and has been carried out to the satisfaction of the Corporation. He has also during this period held a lease of the Dhappa Square Mile into Which the refuse is dumped. The Corporation consider that it is advisable that the benefit of the lease and the discharge of the work of unloading should go to and be done by the same person. As the present lessee's lease will expire next year the question of its renewal has been before the Secretary of the Corporation, the Estates and General Purposes Committee and a Special Committee, and they after a full consideration of the matter have reported that it is advisable that the lease of the Square Mile and the work of t...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Nath Mukhuti and ors. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.968
Woodroffe, J.1. This is an application for an order in the nature of a mandamus to compel the Corporation to call for tenders in respect of the removal of the city refuse before giving effect to the proposals of the Special Committee appointed by it to consider the matter. This work has been done by Babu Bhoba Nath Sen since 1879 and has been carried out to the satisfaction of the Corporation. He has also during this period held a lease of the Dhappa Square Mile into which the refuse is dumped. The Corporation consider that it is advisable that the benefit of the lease and the discharge of the work of unloading should go to and be done by the same person. As the present lessee's lease will expire next year the question of its renewal has been before the Secretary of the Corporation, the Estates and General Purposes Committee and a Special Committee, and they after a full consideration of the matter have reported that it is advisable that the lease of the Square Mile and the work of the...
Tag this Judgment!Kanchan Gorhi Vs. Ram Kishun Mundul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal72
Brett and Ryves, JJ.1. It appears that the case, out of which this Rule arises, was sent by Babu S.K. Mukerjee, who had taken cognisance of it, to another Deputy Magistrate, Mr. Oakley, for inquiry prior to the issue of processes against the accused. Mr. Oakley made the inquiry, examined witnesses, and came to the conclusion that the case, as presented by the complainant, was false and, therefore, he took proceedings under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and committed the complainant for trial under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The present Rule was obtained on the District Magistrate to show cause, why the proceedings drawn by Mr. Oakley under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be set aside on the ground that, after the case had been transferred to Mr. Oakley by the Deputy Magistrate, Babu S.K. Mukerjee, for inquiry and report only, Mr. Oakley had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, until the origi...
Tag this Judgment!Kanungoe Krishun Prosad Vs. Romesh Chunder Mandul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.467
1. These appeals are by the minor plaintiff in two suits which he brought through his mother and guardian for a declaration that neither he nor his ancestral properties were bound by two decrees passed against his father and himself on the 30th June, 1904, on the basis of a compromise which he alleges was collusive and fraudulent and was inoperative as against him he being a minor at the time and the decree having been passed without any judicial enquiry or finding as to whether the compromise was for his benefit, although a formal order of sanction to file the compromise petitions was given to an official of the Court who acted as his guardian ad litem.2. It appears that the grandfather of the plaintiff, one Hara Prosad Roy, executed a mortgage bond charging the ancestral property with a debt for the discharge of certain previous debts secured by decrees under which the mortgaged property was liable to sale. This was on the 30th May, 1890, before the plaintiff's birth and was for Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!G.R. Fox and anr. Vs. Beni Pershad Koer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.556
1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for account brought by the Dumraon Raj against Mr. George Fox, Assistant Manager in charge of the Balia Division, and one Sheo Sagar Roy, the collecting agent appointed by him, for an account. A sum of twenty-eight thousand and odd was claimed and the Subordinate Judge in the Court below has, after taking the accounts himself in the course of the hearing, found that the defendant, Sheo Sagar Roy, is liable for all monies collected and not accounted for to the amount of thirteen thousand eight hundred and seventy-six rupees fourteen annas and ten pies (Rs. 13,876-14-10) and post proportionately, and has found Mr. G. Fox only liable for acts of management in respect of one item of Rs. 4,000 which he considers was improperly advanced by Mr. G. Fox to a Counsel at Allahabad as retaining fee for conducting a certain litigation in the Balia District which the Counsel in question neglected to do.2. In Appeal No. 98 we are concerned with this sum of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Kanchan Garhi Vs. Ram Kishun Mundul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.203
1. It appears that the case, out of which this Rule arises, was sent by Babu S.K. Mukerjee, who had taken cognisance of it, to another Deputy Magistrate, Mr. Oakley, for inquiry prior to the issue of processes against the accused. Mr. Oakley made the inquiry, examined witnesses, and came to the conclusion that the case, as presented by the complainant, was false and, therefore, he took proceedings under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and committed the complainant for trial under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The present Rule was obtained on the District Magistrate to show cause, why the proceedings drawn by Mr. Oakley, under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, should not be set aside on the ground that, after the case had been transferred to Mr. Oakley by the Deputy Magistrate, Babu S.K. Mukerjee, for inquiry and report only, Mr. Oakley had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, until the original complaint was ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadish Chandra Shaha Vs. Kripa Nath Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal130
Coxe and Bell, JJ.1. In this case the petitioners obtained a decree against certain judgment-debtors. The opposite party had obtained a decree against certain judgment-debtors, who are not exactly identical with those of the petitioners, and had applied for rateable distribution. The Munsiff of Dacca refused this application on the ground that the judgment debtors were not identical. Against this order, the opposite party appealed to the District Judge; and the District Judge, following the decision in Gonesh Das Bagria v. Shiva Lakshman Bhakat (1903) I.L.R. 30 Calc. 583, set aside the Munsif's order and directed that the opposite party should share in the rateable distribution.2. The petitioner has applied to this Court under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, and has obtained a Rule on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the District Judge should not be set aside on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction.3. It is clear that under Section 588 of the Civ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadish Chundra Shaha Vs. Kirpa Nath Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.783
1. In this case the petitioners obtained a decree against certain judgment-debtors. The opposite party had obtained a decree against certain judgment-debtors, who are not exactly identical with those of the petitioners, and had applied for rateable distribution. The Munsif of Dacca refused this application on the ground that the judgment-debtors were not identical. Against this order, the opposite party appealed to the District Judge; and the District Judge, following the decision in Gonesh Das Bagria v. Shiva Lakshman Bhakat 30 C. 583., set aside the Munsif's order and directed that the opposite party should share in the rateable distribution.2. The petitioner has applied to this Court under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, and has obtained a Rule on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the District Judge should not be set aside on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction.3. It is clear that under Section 588 of the Civil Procedure Code, an order passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Shamaldhone Dutt Vs. Lakshimani Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal493
Coxe and Doss, JJ.1. This was originally a case of considerable complexity, but for the purposes of this appeal the matters essentially in dispute may be stated at no great length.2. The plaintiff, Babu Shamaldhone Dutt, was the attorney of one Radhanath Mukherjee, a gentleman, who apparently devoted much of his life to litigation. The indulgence of this taste involved him in great expenditure, and the plaintiff advanced him considerable sums towards meeting it. For these advances, Radhanath Mukherjee executed at first a mortgage and then three further charges in favour of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff brings this suit to recover the money due on these securities. We are not concerned in this appeal with the original mortgage and the first two further charges.3. The third charge was executed on the 3rd August 1903 for a consideration of Us. 21,000 which, excluding fractions, was made up as follows: Rs.Interest on mortgage and previous two charges 6,468 Promissory notes executed by R...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »