Kolkata Court October 1909 Judgments
Kripali Singh Vs. Pairoo Raut
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-16-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.305
1. We are invited in this Rule to discharge an order of the Court of first instance by which a sale in execution of a decree for arrears of rent has been set aside under Section 310A of the Code of 1882. The auction-purchaser who is the petitioner before this Court alleges that he was not allowed to appear in the Court below and to contest the validity of the application. It is obvious that the sale ought not to have been set aside behind the back of the auction-purchaser, for it is a fundamental principle that no person can be deprived of his rights pecuniary or personal till he had been afforded an opportunity to be heard in defence. That this principle is applicable to cases of auction purchasers is clear from the decisions in Bungshidhar Halder v. Kedar Nath Mondal 1 C.W.N. 114 and Nitya Nand Patra v. Hira Lal Karmokar 5 C.W.N. 63. The case of Bhairab Pal v. Premchand Ghose 1 C.W.N. clxi. in which the contrary view was apparently adopted, must be taken to have been decided on its o...
Tag this Judgment!Aimanaddi Patari Vs. NabIn Chandra Gope and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-10-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.307
Nos. 36 AND 150.1. These two appeals are preferred by the plaintiff in suits for rent filed by her against the defendant based on two qabuliats executed by him in her favour on 3rd Bhadra 1299 (1892). Under these qabuliats the defendant agreed to become tenant of the plaintiff as darpatnidar and nimhowladar respectively of the lands in Kismat Daychora held by the plaintiff under the maliks of mudafat Keval Ram. The contentions of the defendant were:(1) that the relationship of landlord and tenant had ceased between the plaintiff and himself and that he was no longer bound to pay the rent reserved by the kabuliat, and(2) that he had in fact paid the rent up to the end of the third quarter of 1311.2. The Courts below have agreed in dismissing the plaintiff's suits and the plaintiff has appealed.3. The facts which are undisputed are as follows: The parent estate Taluk Kalika Prosad had been for very many years past held by the co-sharers in separate portions. Whether there was any regular...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Nath Mandal and ors. Vs. Rampal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-08-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.436
1. We are invited in this rule to set aside an order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Contain, under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the 24th May a conditional order was made against the petitioners under that section. They showed cause on the 19th June and denied that there was any public road at the place where they had erected the disputed hedge. On that date the Magistrate recorded an order to the effect that he would hold a local enquiry on the 30th June. The local enquiry was as a matter of fact held on the 4th July, and the Magistrate appears to have gathered information from the people on the spot, the majority of whom made statements which, if accepted, would justify an order under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Three days later, the order now in question was passed. The petitioners take exception on the ground that the Magistrate has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the order cannot be supp...
Tag this Judgment!Rajani Kanta Panja Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-08-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.437
1. We are invited in this Rule to consider the legality of an order made by Mr. Rakhal Mohan Banerjee, Sub-Divisional Officer of Bishenpore, under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, It appears that Mr. Banerjee is also the Chairman of the Bishenpore Local Board within the jurisdiction of which the public way, in respect of which the alleged obstruction has been erected by the petitioner, is situated. It is alleged that on the 8th December, 1908, the petitioner received a notice signed by Mr. Banerjee as Chairman of the Bishenpore Local Board and purporting to have been issued from the Bishenpore Local Board Office. This notice called upon him to remove the alleged obstruction within seven days and also to show cause within three days why he should not be criminally prosecuted, failing which steps would be taken against him according to law. In reply to this notice, the petitioner submitted a representation, which proved infructuous. Subsequently on the 22nd March Mr. Banerjee ...
Tag this Judgment!inder Rai Vs. C.R. Brown
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal236
Chatterjee and Ryves, JJ.1. We think that this Rule ought to be made absolute. The Magistrate says that the petitioners were asked at the time of framing the charge whether they would call any of the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination, but they could not at that instant make any answer to his question. They did, however, subsequently apply for re-calling some of the witnesses for the prosecution for the purpose of cross-examination, and the Magistrate thought that, since the defence was conducted by two mukhtears who had cross-examined the prosecution witnesses before the charge, it was not necessary to give them a further chance of cross-examination, and that the petitioners had waived their right by not answering when called upon. This is, however, against both the wording and the spirit of the law. Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code only says that the accused shall be required to state whether he wishes to cross-examine any, and if so which, of the witnesses whose e...
Tag this Judgment!inder Rai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.408
1. We think that this rule ought to be made absolute. The Magistrate says that the petitioners were asked at the time of framing the charge whether they would call any of the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination but they could not at that instant make any answer to his question. They did, however, subsequently apply for recalling some of the witnesses for the prosecution for the purposes of cross-examination, but the Magistrate thought that since the defence was conducted by two muklitears who had cross-examined the prosecution witnesses before the charge, it was not necessary to give them a further chance of cross-examination and * that the petitioners had waived their right by not answering when called upon. This is, however, against both the wording and spirit of the law. Section 256, Criminal Procedure Code, only says that the accused shall be required to state whether he wishes to cross-examine and, if so, which of the witnesses whose evidence has been taken. It does not sa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›