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.
Jadu Nandan Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal250
Mookerjee and Chatterjee, JJ.1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made by the Sessions Judge of Saran under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The circumstances under which the order in question was made may be briefly narrated. On the 2nd May 1909, Jadu Nandan Singh, the petitioner before us, informed the police that Joy-narain Roy and five other persons had robbed him and committed offences punishable under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The police reported the case to be false, whereupon the petitioner applied for a judicial enquiry into the matter. The accused were subsequently committed to take their trial in the Court of Sessions, but the Sessions Judge, in agreement with both the Assessors, found them not guilty and acquitted them. At the same time the Sessions Judge called upon the complainant to show cause why his prosecution should not be directed for an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as he had brought a f...
Srimati Kamini Debi Vs. Aghore Nath Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.402
1. This appeal, preferred by the judgment-debtor, is directed against an order by which execution for costs has been allowed to proceed on the basis of an order of Her late Majesty in Council made on the 17th May 1888. The order of the Court below has been assailed on two grounds, namely, first, that the application for execution which was presented on the 4th March 1907, is barred by limitation, and secondly that certain payments, alleged to have been made but admittedly not certified to the Court under Section 258 of the Code of 1882, ought to have been allowed to be proved under Section 244.2. In support of the first contention it has been argued, in the first place, that there was no revivor of the decree of Her Majesty in Council within the meaning of Article 180 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1877, and in the second place, that even if Article 180 governs the matter, it has no application in so far as the execution relates to the recovery of the costs allowed by the Courts in th...
Jadunandan Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.710
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made by the Sessions Judge of Saran, under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. The circumstances under which the order in question was made may be briefly narrated. On the 2nd May 1909, Jadunandan Roy, the petitioner before us, informed the Police that Joy Narain Roy and five other persons had robbed him and committed offences punishable under Sections 395 and 412. Indian Penal Code. The Police reported the case to be false, whereupon the petitioner applied for a judicial enquiry into the matter. The accused were subsequently committed to take their trial in the Court of Sessions, but the Sessions Judge in agreement with both the assessors found them not guilty and acquitted them. At the same time, the Sessions Judge called upon the complainant to show cause why his prosecution should not be directed for an offence under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as he had brought a falsa case against the accused. Cause was shown, bu...
Syed HosseIn Mujtaba and ors. Vs. Ram Subhag Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.163
1. The question of law which arises in this case is, when reduced to its simplest terms, merely this: Whether a registered proprietor can sue for and obtain a decree for rent in the face of an unexpunged entry in the register in the name of a former mortgagee. We need only point out that there is nothing in Section 60 of the Bengal Tenancy Act which acts as a bar to such a suit and decree. It is true that the defendants tenants might plead an acquittance from the registered mortgagees against the recorded proprietors, but they do not do so in this case. It is found and does not appear to be disputed that the mortgagees have no present interest in the property and that the plaintiffs proprietors are in sole possession. A purely technical bar is pleaded under Section 60 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and under that section the registered proprietor is clearly entitled to sue and is entitled to a decree for the rent. The tenants produced no receipt such as is contemplated by Section 60, so tha...
Elahi Bux Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.721
1. In this case a Rule has been issued calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the petition. The facts out of which this application arises are briefly these: The petitioner complained to the District Registrar of Noakhali against the Sub-Registrar of Chagalnaiya alleging that the Sub-Registrar had misappropriated Rs. 13 paid to him by the petitioner on account of fees for a commission. The District Registrar held an enquiry, as the result of which he came to the conclusion that the complaint was false. He then forwarded his report to himself as District Magistrate, when the following order was passed:Read report of District Registrar. Prosecution of Elahi Bux (that is the petitioner) under Sections 211 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code sanctioned. Summon Elahi Bux. Sections 182 and 211 Indian Penal Code. It is contended before us that this order for sanction, cannot be sustained. It is not clear fr...
Maharaja Manindra Chandra Nandi Vs. Kashi Chandra Bakshi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1909
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.458
1. This is an appeal in a suit by the plaintiff landlord to recover arrears of rent for the years 1309 to 1311 on the basis of an annual jama amounting to Rs. 1,005 8 for 1,292 bighas, 6 1/4cottas of land.2. The defence is that the quantity of land in the defendants' jote is far in excess of 1,292 bighas, 6 1/4 cottas, namely, that it amounts to 7,517 bighas, 4 cottas. The written statement further asserted that the patta and kabuliats had been exchanged between the parties and that the jotedars defendants were entitled to a considerable reduction of rent on account of diluvion so much so that the annual rental could not be reckoned at more than Rs. 300.3. On the application of the defendants, a Commissioner was appointed, and his report has been accepted in the judgments of both the Courts below; in other words, he found that the defendants' jote had suffered very considerable diminution on account of diluvion. Both the lower Courts have given effect to the plea of diluvion and passed...
Lee Vs. Adhikary
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-09-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal49
H. Jenkins, C.J. and Carnduff, J.1. In this case a Rule has been issued calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the proceeding against the petitioner should not be quashed on the ground that the prosecution has not been legally instituted, or, in the alternative, why the case should not be transferred to some competent Magistrate in Alipore or some other district.2. The grounds on which it is said that the prosecution has not been legally instituted are briefly these. Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code describes the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings, and it is thereby provided that the Magistrate 'may take cognizance of any offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such an offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge or suspicion, that such offence has been committed.' We are told by the applicant that in this case i...
E.O. Lee Vs. H.L. Adhikary
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-09-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.553
1. In this case a rule Las been issued calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the proceeding against the petitioner should not be quashed on the ground that the prosecution has not been legally instituted or in the alternative why the case should not be transferred to some competent Magistrate in Alipur or some other District. The grounds on which it is said that the prosecution has not been legally instituted are briefly these: Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code describes the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings, and it is thereby provided that the Magistrate 'may take cognizance of any offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such an offence; (6) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge or suspicion, that such offence has been committed.' We are told by the applicant that in this case it is suggested on the part of the prose...
Ram Lal Singh Vs. Hari Charan Ahir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-04-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal194
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J. and Chatterjee, J.1. The Rule in this case calls upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence of the petitioners should not be set aside on the ground that the findings arrived at are not sufficient for making out the offence under the sections under which the petitioners have been punished, or why there should not be a re-trial of the appeal or such other order made as to this Court may seem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.2. It is continually overlooked by Courts of Appeal that Section 424 of the Criminal Procedure Code prescribes that the rules contained in Chapter XXVI as to the judgment of a Criminal Court of Original Jurisdiction shall apply, so far as may be practicable, to the judgment of any Appellate Court other than a High Court; and one of the sections in Chapter XXVI is Section 367, which prescribes that a judgment shall, among other things, contain the point or points for determination, the decisio...
Ram Lal Singh and ors. Vs. Hari Charan Ahir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-04-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.999
1. The Rule in this case calls upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence of the petitioners should not be set aside on the ground that the findings arrived at are not sufficient for making out the offence under the sections under which the petitioners have been punished, or why there should not be a re-trial of the appeal or such other order made as to this Court may seem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.2. It is continually overlooked by Courts of Appeal that Section 424 of the Criminal Procedure Code prescribes that the rules contained in Chapter XXVI as to the judgment of a Criminal Court of Original Jurisdiction shall apply, so far as may be practicable, to the judgment of any appellate Court other than a High Court; and one of the sections in Chapter XXVI is Section 367, which prescribes that a judgment shall, among other things, contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »