Kolkata Court July 1909 Judgments
Ganga NaraIn Pal Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.438
ORDER1. The question raised in this application is, whether the term 'iron' as used in Schedule 18 cl.(8) of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1899 includes 'steel.' The learned Magistrate has in a carefully considered judgment given ample reasons in support of his conclusion that iron does include steel. We agree with those reasons and, therefore, reject this application....
Tag this Judgment!Ramjash Agarwala Vs. Guru Charan Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.105
1. We are invited in this Rule to discharge an order made on the 11th March 1909 by the Court below under Section 295 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882. The circumstances under which the order in question was made are not disputed and may be briefly stated. On the 6th October 1907, the petitioner, Rain-jash Agarwala, obtained a decree for money against Imsan Bewa and others in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Farid-pur. Shortly after, he applied for execution and on the 29th April 1908 obtained an order for attachment of certain immovable properties of the judgment-debtors, which were directed to be sold on the 28th July 1908. The sale, however, did not take place on that date and on the 20th August 1908 leave was granted to the decree-holder to bid at the sale to be held on the 21st November following. On the latter day, the properties were sold by auction and many of them were purchased by the decree-holder. The amount realised by the sale was set off against the decree and...
Tag this Judgment!Kamala Prosad Singh and ors. Vs. Jhunti Raut and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.114
1. This is a suit in which the plaintiffs seek to recover the arrears of rent in respect of the last kist of 1307 to the end of 1311. They are met by the answer that the case falls under article 2 (b) of the third schedule of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The question thus arises whether the plaintiffs are landlords under paragraph (1) of that article, and it is difficult to see how they got the property in any other way. It is true that the lease in respect of which they sued terminated in 1311 and when the suit was brought in 1313 they were no longer landlords to the defendants. But we cannot disregard the fact that they have sued in their capacity of landlords to enforce the rights which they had as landlords. This view seems to be supported by the decision of this Court in Maharoj Bahadur Singh v. A.H. Forbes 7 C.L.J. 652 : 35 C. 737 and indeed it is difficult to see how consistently with principle any other rule can prevail, for otherwise it would be open to the landlords by delaying to...
Tag this Judgment!Gannu Singh Vs. Musammat Bhagwati Koeri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.234
Sharf-ud-din, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the First Subordinate Judge of Monghyr dated 5th May 1906. The facts of the case are that there were two brothers named Gannu defendant No. 1 and Lalji Singh. Defendants Nos. 3 to 6 are the sons of Gannu Singh. Defendant No. 7 is the grandson of Gannu Singh through his son defendant No. 4. Lalji Singh was married to Musammat Nawratan Koeri alias Chunder Varti Koeri. She is now a widow and is the defendant No. 2. Lalji Singh had a daughter by Nawratan named Bhagwati Koeri, plaintiff No. 1. Ananta Prasad Singh plaintiff No. 2 and Shewnandan Prasad Singh plaintiff No. 3 are the minor sons of Bhagwati.2. The plaintiff's case is that Gannu Singh and Lalji Singh were two brothers; they separated and Lalji Singh left his paternal house at Shakarpura and built a new house at Jailakh Abhiman, and continued to reside there up to his death, which took place in Pous 1305 Fasli; in 1304 he separated his collection from that of his brother an...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Dhanukdhari Lal and ors. Vs. Babu Ram Ahir and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.745
1. The facts of this case are as follows: The plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 were co-sharers in a certain estate. For some 5 or 7 years before suit they had been recovering rent separately from defendant No. 1 according to their respective shares. It appears that they partitioned the estate under a decree of the Civil Court and that certain lands in the holding of defendant No. 1 fell to the patti of the plaintiff and certain lands to the patti of the defendant. In each case some of the lands were in the possession of defendant No. 1 as tenant. The plaintiff now sues defendant No. 1 for arrears, of rent and assessment of rent on the allegation that the amount of rent due is in proportion to land in the patti of the plaintiff. In the Courts below this case has been treated as a rent suit, and it has been held by the Munsif and his holding has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court, that since the plaintiff is seeking for a part of the rent as a co-sharer the suit will not lie.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kari Singh Vs. Tufani Dhanuk and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.72
1. This was a rule on the District Magistrate of Monghyr to show cause why an order awarding compensation under Section 250, Cr.P.C. should not he set aside on the ground that such an order could not be made by the lower appellate Court. The finding of the appellate Court was that the complainant originally accused one Bansi and Some railway coolies of rescuing cattle, which he was taking to the pound, but that subsequently he brought a case under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871, against his personal enemies, leaving out all mention of Bansi and the railway coolies. The appellate Court was of opinion that the case as against the personal enemies of the complainant was absolutely false and vexatious and it accordingly directed compensation.2. It has been contended before us that the appellate Court has no power to pass an order of this kind. The question turns upon the construction of Section 423, Sub-section 1, Clause (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code. That clause entitles...
Tag this Judgment!Rakhal Chandra Shah Vs. Damodar Shah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1909
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.115
1. This was a rule on the District Magistrate of the 24 Pergannahs to show cause why the order sanctioning the petitioner's prosecution should not be set aside on the ground that the statement in question was not necessarily a fake statement to the petitioner's knowledge.2. It appears that one Damodar Shah built premises on land belonging to the petitioner and that the petitioner obtained a license to keep a liquor shop on the said premises. It has been found in some civil litigation between the petitioner, as a matter of fact, that Damodar Shah was virtually the owner of the premises and business and that Rakhal Chunder Shaha, the petitioner was to receive 2 annas share of the profits. The statement made by Rakhal, which is impugned, runs as follows:The country-spirits shop at No. 38, Beltollah Road, Bhowanipore, is exclusively owned by me and is my property.3. In the Excise Rules a person to whom a license is granted is for bidden to sub-let his shop or transfer his license to any ot...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunandan Singh and anr. Vs. Jagdis Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.30
1. In this case a decree was passed against eight defendants. In execution of this decree certain property was sold and purchased by the decree-holder. Subsequently three of the defendants applied to have the decree set aside under Section 108 of the Old Code of Civil Procedure, they not having appeared at the previous proceeding. The proceedings being ex parte as far as they were concerned the decree as against them was sot aside on the 14th August. On the 19th of the same, month the sale that ensued on the decree was also sot aside as against them. In December of the same year on retrial a decree was made against them and on the 25th January 1908 an appeal in which it was sought to set aside the order which set aside the sale was dismissed. The appellant now appears before us in. appeal against this dismissal.2. It is argued that we are to apply by analogy the principle of restitution provided in Section 144 of the new Code corresponding with Section 583 of the old Code. This appears...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdami Pershad Singh Vs. Mahadeo Kandoo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.693
1. This was a rule on the District Magistrate of Mozaffarpur and also on the opposite Party to show cause why an order under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be set aside, firstly, on the ground that the petitioner was not the person upon whose complaint or information the accusation was made and, secondly, on the ground that the petitioner being a servant was not responsible for the information given on behalf of his master.2. Having regard to the first point, the learned pleader for the petitioner has asked us to draw a distinction between the informations referred to in Section 151 of the Code and those referred to in Section 157. He contends that the words in Section 250 'upon information given to a police-officer' refer only to information given in Section 154 and resulting in a Police investigation and final report under Section 173. He contends further that the information referred to in Section 157 is different to, and does not include, information given...
Tag this Judgment!Ala-ul-haq and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.277
1. This appeal is directed against an award made by the Special Land Acquisition Judge of the 24-Per-gannahs in a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act. The land acquired is situated in Chitla in the suburbs of Calcutta and covers an area of 6 cottahs 10 chittaks and 17 square feet. The Collector valued the land at Rs. 600 per cottah. The claimant, who is the appellant before this Court, was dissatisfied with this valuation and obtained a reference to the District Judge before whom he claimed Rs. 1,200 a cottah. The District Judge, however, accepted the valuation made by the Collector.2. The claimant has now appealed to this Court and on his behalf the decision of the District Judge has been assailed on two grounds, namely, first, that the land ought to have been valued at Rs. 1,200, a cotiah, and secondly, that the amount which has been awarded as damages for severance and injurious affection of the other lands of the claimant is inadequate.3. So far as the second question is conc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »