Kolkata Court November 1909 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.
Rai Charan Purkait and ors. Vs. Amrita Lal GaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.98
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in an action commenced by them, under Section 525 of the Code of 1382, to file in Court, an award made upon a private reference to arbitration. The suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below on the ground that the award was inoperative and unenforceable inasmuch as it was the result of an invalid reference to arbitration, the object and effect of which were to stifle a criminal prosecution for a non-compoundable offence, a purpose, it is urged, which will not be countenanced by any Court of Justice, as it is entirely opposed to public policy. This decree of dismissal has now been assailed before us substantially oh three grounds, namely, first, that it was not competent to the Courts below to examine the legality of the reference to arbitration, inasmach as this is riot one of the grounds mentioned in Sections 520 of 521 of the Code; secondly, that the reference to arbitration was not invalid, because On the face of it, it does rio...
Narsing Das and anr. Vs. Musammat Bibi Rafikan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.198
1. The plaintiff brought the suit giving rise to the present appeal on the allegation that her father had made a gift of the disputed property to her in 1859 that she gave a lease of the property to her father and mother, that on her father's death, her hi other and mother held possession under the lease until the death of her brother in 1898, when on going to assume khas possession she found herself obstructed by the defendants who claimed under alienations from her brother.2. It appears that in 1879 her brother, Najim-ud-din, got his own name registered as proprietor under an alleged verbal gift from her and thenceforward continued dealing with the property as Lis own. In 1886 he mortgaged the disputed property to defendants Nos. 3 and 4. In 1888 he sold the same to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in 1895 defendants Nos. 3 and 4 brought a suit on the mortgage and therein impleaded the plaintiff No. 1 as well as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and Najim-ud-din as parties defendants The suit was decre...
Kedar Nath Hazra Vs. Maharajah Manindra Chandra Nandi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.309
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant in an action for rent based on a registered qabulyat executed on the 22nd July 1893. In the Courts below the claim was resisted substantially on two grounds namely, first, that the qabulyat was taken from the defendant by means of undue influence and coercion, and, secondly, that the qabulyat was invalid and inoperative inasmuch as the effect of it was to enhance the rent by more than two annas in the rupee in contravention of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff landlord denied that the qabulyat had been obtained by the use of undue influence and coercion, and further contended that the qabulyat, executed as it had been in settlement of a bona fide dispute as to the rent payable in respect of the tenancy, was not affected by the provisions of Section 29 of the Act. The Courts below hive overruled both the objections of the tenant defendant and have held the plaintiff, entitled to realise rent at the rata mentioned in the c...
Barindra Kumar Ghose and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal467
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. The appellant, Ashok Chandra Nandy, having died since the institution of these appeals, there are at present before the Court 18 appellants, all of whom have been convicted under Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code of offences against the State. Two of the appellants, Barindra Kumar Ghose and Ullaskar Dutt, were convicted under Sections 121, 121A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death; eight of them, i.e., Indra Nath Nandi, Upendra Nath Banerjee, Bibhuti Bhusan Sircar, Hrishikesh Kanjilal, Sudhir Kumar Sircar, Sailendra Nath Bose, Hem Chandra Das and Barendra Chandra Sen, were convicted under Sections 121, 121A., 122 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life; Abinash Chandra Bhattacharjee was convicted under Sections 121 and 121A of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life: Indu Bhushan Roy was convicted under Sections 121A and 122 and sentenced to transportation for life; Pares Chandra Maulik,...
Girwardhary Singh Vs. Bachu Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.454
1. The question that arises in this second appeal is whether a Civil Court has jurisdiction to set aside a partition made by the Revenue authorities on the ground of a defect in, or erroneous exercise of, jurisdiction without any issue of fraud or wrongful loss caused to the parties by reason of such error. The following synopsis will show the course the case took in the Revenue Courts. On the 16th August 1900, an application was made for partition of the estate and on the 13th January 1901, a partition was ordered to be made. Early in 1902, the raibundi was approved and in April of that year the proprietors came, in under Section 51 of the Bengal Estates Partition Act (1897) and applied to have the partition made by arbitrators three of whom were named.2. It appears that the Collector nominated only two of these persons in his order of reference dated the 30th April 1902, but all three acted as arbitrators and it is conceded before us that no question of jurisdiction now, arises upon ...
Barihdra Kumar Ghose and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1909
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.359
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The appellant, Ashok Chandra Nandy having died since the institution of these appeals, there are at present before the Court 18 appellants, all of whom have been convicted under Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code of offences against the State. Two of the appellants, Barindra Kumar Ghose and Ullaskar Dutt, were convicted under Sections 121, 121A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death eight of them, i.e., Indra Nath Nandi, Upendra Nath Banerjee, Bibhuti Bhusan Sircar, Hrishikesh Kanjilal, Sudhir Kumar Sircar, Sailendra Nath Bose, Hem Chandra Das and Barendra Chandra Sen, were convicted under Sections 121, 121A, 122 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life; Abinash Chandra Bhattacharjee was convicted under Sections 121 and 121A of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life: Indu Bhushan Roy was convicted under Sections 121A and 122 and sentenced to transportation for life, Pares Chandra Maulik, Sisir...
Nanhilal Agrari Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.770
1. We are invited in these Rules to revise an order for costs made by the District Judge of Hooghly in five cases under the Land Acquisition Act. The claimant applied for leave to withdraw the cases; he was allowed to do so by the District Judge; but was directed to pay full costs to the Government. It has been argued before us that as the cases were withdrawn and as in fact they never came to be heard, an order for payment of full costs should not have been made. In our opinion, this contention is well-founded. Rule 36(6) of Chapter VI of the Rules and Circular Orders of this Court provides that 'cases under Part III of the Land Acquisition Act shall be deemed to be suits and the fees allowable therein may be calculated either on the amount of compensation decree in excess of the sum tendered by the Collector or on any smaller amount which the Court in its discretion may think proper.' Rule 37(b) then provides that 'if a suit be dismissed for default, the amount of the fee to be paid ...
Rasseswari Chowdhurani Vs. Rajah Sir Sourendra Mohun Tagore
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.105
1. The circumstances which have given rise to the litigation out of which the present appeal arises may be briefly narrated. The plaintiff-respondent is the owner of a fifteen annas two gundas and odd share in a zemindary in which Kamini Sundari Chowdhurani and others own the balance of seventeen gundas and odd share. Under the entire zemindary, there appears to have been a howla, which by successive devolution came to be possessed by the plaintiff alone. The result was that the plaintiff was the zemindar as well as the, holadar in respect of a fifteen annas and two gundas share and he was a holadar under Kamini Sundari Chowdhurani and others in respect of the remaining seventeen gundas. The defendant, now appellant; before this Court, has purchased a six annas thirteen gundas and odd share of the howla. The result of this transaction has been that she is a co-sharer of the plaintiff in the howla and is also a tenant under him in the zemindary in which the plaintiff owns a share. The p...
Babbon Shaikh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.365
Stephen, J.1. In this case a Rule has been granted calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why a conviction of the petitioner of an offence of rioting under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, should not be set aside on two of the grounds mentioned in the petition. The first, of these is that the trying Magistrate held a local enquiry and was influenced by certain things he saw there, and imported his knowledge of what he had seen into his judgment in disposing of the case, the second that the common object stated in the charge was different from that found by both the lower Courts.2. The second objection may be very shortly dealt with. The common object charged was by means of criminal force to obtain possession of the Kill-khana lands belonging to one Ghisa Alia. The lands so referred to comprised a 15 cottas plot and a 5 cotta plot; the offence was found to have been committed to obtain possession of the 5 cotta plot only. As the 5 cotta plot was included in the Kill-khana land...
Parmanand Das Vs. Kripasindhu Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal548
Brett and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. The present rule was obtained by the petitioners, the plaintiffs, against the defendant No. 1, who was the judgment-debtor in a suit before the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, to show cause why the order obtained by the defendant No. 1 in that suit from the Subordinate Judge, on the 1st June 1909, extending the period fixed in the decree for the execution of a kabuliyat by him in favour of the petitioners, the decree-holders in that suit, beyond the period stated in the decree, should not be set aside.2. It appears that by the decree, the present opposite party, who was the defendant No. 1 in suit No. 404 of 1907 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, was directed to execute a kabuliyat as sarbarakar in favour of the plaintiffs, decree-holders, within two months from the date of the decree. The opposite party, the judgment-debtor, appealed to this Court, and within the two months limited by the decree, he put in an application to this Court, on the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »