Kolkata Court February 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.
In Re: Jadab Chandra Chakravarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.334
1. The Petitioner in this case is a pleader practising in the Munsif's Court at Jalpaiguri. At the end of 1908, in accordance with the rules, he applied for a renewal of his certificate, appending to his application a certificate by the Munsif that he knew nothing against his character. He had, however, been the Defendant in a case tried before the District Judge and that officer had formed an unfavourable opinion of his character. Accordingly he refused to renew the certificate. The Petitioner has obtained this rule on the District Judge to show cause why the certificate should not be renewed.2. The point is not free from difficulty. Section 7 of the Legal Practitioners Act lays down that a pleader at the end of the year 'shall, subject to any rules consistent with this Act, which may from time to time be made in this behalf by the High Court, be entitled to have his certificate renewed.' Rule 25 of the rules made under the Act lays down that with his application for renewal the plead...
Mohamed Hamidar Rahman Chowdhuri Vs. Ali Fakir and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.955
1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Munsif, Second Court of Netrokona dated the 13th May 1908, should not be set aside. The plaintiffs instituted this suit against the defendants for compensation for removal of certain trees from the land.2. In the case of Nafar Chandra Pal Chowdhuri v. Ram Lal Pal 22 C. 742 p. 743 it was held that property in trees growing on land is by general law vested in the proprietor of the land subject to any custom to the contrary. This refers to the removal of trees after they have been felled. There is no doubt, therefore, that the property in trees felled is ordinarily vested in the proprietor of the land unless there is any custom to the contrary. There is no finding as to this custom in the Munsif's-judgment. He remarks: ' I am of opinion that the defendant No. 1 has not contravened any local custom,' but this observation evidently refers to Section 23 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and the custom of cutting dow...
In Re: Maud Anderson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal489,2Ind.Cas.405
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. One Maud Anderson became insolvent on the 4th of August 1908. It appears that she was a monthly tenant of certain premises known as 77, Dhurrumtollah Street, at a rent of Rs. 300. On the 7th of September 1908, an application was made by her landlord the practical object of which was that the insolvent should be ordered to show cause why she should not forthwith deliver up possession of those premises either to the landlord or to the Official Assignee. That matter came on for hearing, and notwithstanding the objection of Maud Anderson, the insolvent, the Court ordered the insolvent to make over possession within a week to the Official Assignee. She did not do that, and the result was that a contempt order was passed on the 18th of November 1908. She now appeals: and she says that the Court sitting in Insolvency had no jurisdiction to make the first order. I think her contention must prevail. I can see nothing in the Insolvency Act which enables the Court to ma...
BepIn Behary Sen Vs. Chairman of Santipur Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.388
Carnduff, J.1. The Municipality of Santipur seems to have been established in the district of Nadia in 1865 with a body of 25 Commissioners--See the Bengal Code, Vol. III at p. 493. It appears in the second schedule to the Bengal Municipal Act of 1884 as being a Municipality in which the appointment of the chairman rests with the Local Government and that of two-thirds of the Commissioners with the rate payers. By paragraph 8 of a Resolution, dated the 29th August 1903, and issued under Section 65 of the Act, the Local Government suspended the Commissioners from office for a period of one year, to expire on the 2nd September 1904. By this order the then Commissioners vacated their offices as such by virtue of Clause (a) of Section 66 of the Act; and, by a further order passed under Clause (b) of the same section, the Sub-Divisional Officer of Ranaghat was appointed as the person by whom 'all the powers and duties of the Commissioners during the period of supersession should be exercise...
Dhanu Ram Mahto Vs. Murli Mahto
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal566
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. The plaintiff appellant commenced the action out of which the present appeal arises for declaration of his title to immoveable property and to restrain the defendants from enforcing a mortgage which they claimed to hold thereupon. The suit was instituted so far back as the 18th May 1903 and up to the present time it has not been heard on the merits. The plaintiff had at one stage of the suit obtained an order for the examination of a witness upon commission. That witness was duly examined, and the Commissioner made his return. When the case came on for trial before the Subordinate Judge, the evidence taken on commission was on the record, but as the witnesses who were to be examined in Court were not in attendance, an application was made on behalf of the plaintiff for adjournment. The Subordinate Judge made the grant of the application conditional upon the immediate payment of the costs of the defendant. The plaintiff was unable to carry out the order of ...
Saligram Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal562,2Ind.Cas.592
Carnduff and Doss, JJ.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Patna which raises the question of the extent of the liability of a person who has stood surety for another bound down to keep the peace. It appears that one Saligram Singh was required by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Dinapore to execute a bond for Rs. 100 under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the petitioner, Kuldip, stood as his surety in the sum of Rs. 50. The bond was declared forfeit by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, who ordered the principal and the surety to pay the sums of Rs. 100 and Rs. 50 respectively. Against this order an appeal was preferred before the District Magistrate under.Section 515 of the Code, and was summarily rejected. One of the grounds taken on the appeal was that the Sub-divisional Magistrate was wrong in inflicting a 'double penalty,' the contention being that, as the principal had paid, there ought to have been no realisation from the surety. The learned S...
Keshab Pal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.120
1. This is an appeal from a conviction by the Sessions Judge of Burdwan in a case tried with the aid of a jury. We can, therefore, interfere only on the ground of material misdirection.2. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of his charge, the learned Sessions Judge seems to have told the jury that the trial before them was supplementary to one which had already been held, and he informed them of the course and the result of the former trial. It appears that on that occasion the jury were for acquittal, and the Judge referred the matter to this Court with the result that this Court concurred with the Judge and convicted the persons then on their trial. And having brought this to the jury's notice, the Judge proceeded to warn them that they must consider carefully whether there was any reason for coming to a different conclusion on the point of possession from that arrived at by this Court and himself on the former occasion.3. It seems to us that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have referred to t...
Mahima Chandra Moulick and anr. Vs. Saraju Bala Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.140
1. In this case it appears that one Mohim Chandra Moulik executed a Will in 1877 in which he appointed certain gentlemen executors. They took out probate in 1881. Under the Will the property of the testator was left to two persons named Jotadhar Sen and Matangini Gupta. After Jotadhar's death he was succeeded by his widow who took out probate of a Will executed by him. The appellants in this case have applied for Letters of Administration to the estate of Mohim Chandra Moulik under Section 23 of the Probate and Administration Act, 1881. Their case is that the gifts to Jotadhar Sen and Matangini Gupta under the Will of Mohim Chandra Moulik were gifts for life only and that after the death of the two legatees there was an intestacy. They obtained Letters of Administration under Section 23. Thereafter the widow of Jotadhar applied under Section 50 of the Act to have the grant of the Letters revoked. The learned District Judge has granted that application and revoked the Letters of Adminis...
W.W. Broucke Vs. Rajah Shaheb Mohan Bikram Shah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.20
Chitty, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff, Mr. Broucke, under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act, for a decree directing the registration of three pattahs of certain villages in Champaran alleged to have been executed in his favour by the defendant Rajah Shaheb Mohan Bikram Shah. The registration was, according to the plaintiff, to be effected in Calcutta, and the suit is accordingly brought in this Court. It is conceded that the documents which are in Nagri can be registered here provided they are accompanied by English translations. The defendant admitted in his written statement that the signatures appearing on the three instruments were his signatures; but he then pleaded that those signatures were fixed not by way of execution of the documents but merely for the purpose of signifying his approval to the contents thereof. With regard to the documents and their validity, he raised a number of pleas which may be shortly stated in the one contention, that he was not to be li...
Satis Chandra ChaturdhurIn Vs. Jnanada Sundari Chawdhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.364
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Mymen-singh dated the 5th February 1907. The suit was for specific performance of a contract and the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had agreed to grant him Kxmi Mokarari Dartaluk of the Mouzahs in dispute at an annual rent of Rs. 100 on receiving the sum of Rs. 22,700 by way of Selami. The plaintiff further claimed that under that agreement he is also entitled to the outstanding arrears of the mehal. This agreement was come to on the 6th Ashar 1310, that is, the 21st June 1903, and on the following day a sum of Rs. 1,000 was received by the defendant as earnest money and she, the defendant, gave a receipt for that money. The plaintiff goes on to say that under the above agreement, pattah and Jabuliat were executed within three months of the granting of the receipt, and that the plaintiff in due time tendered the remainder of the selami with a request that the defendant should execute the pattah and that she ref...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »