Kolkata Court July 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.
Akaloo Chandra Das Vs. Mohesh Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal986,4Ind.Cas.696
1. This is a Rule on the District Magistrate of Purneah to show cause why an order under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be set aside on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass any order in respect of the subject-matter of the dispute in which the parties claimed to be jointly interested.2. The Magistrate has submitted an explanation, but does not refer therein to the difficulty which has occasioned the Rule.3. It appears that the first party, Mohesh Lal, and Kristo Mohah Das of the second party, are entitled to the market in dispute. The former is entitled to ten annas and the latter to six annas. Akaloo Chandra, the other member of the second party, is a lessee from Kristo Mohan Das. The Magistrate finds that Mohesh Lal of the first party obtained an agreement from the father of Kristo Mohan Das authorizing him to make collections of the whole of the tolls, and to divide the shares at the close of each year. Under this agreement he collected t...
Bright Vs. Bright
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal964,4Ind.Cas.419
Fletcher, J.1. This is a petition presented to the Court by the petitioner for the purpose of obtaining the dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground of her adultery with the co-respondent. 2. At the hearing, I was satisfied with the proof of the adultery and also with the reason given for not bringing the suit earlier.3. The only question on which I reserved judgment was as to the jurisdiction to make a decree.4. Now, the only period during which the petitioner and the respondent resided together in Calcutta was for a period of 16 or 17 days in the month of December 1901 when they finally separated. Prior to that, the petitioner and the respondent had cohabited together at Raigarh, and if the petition had been presented when the parties were living together at Raigarh, it would have had to be presented to the High Court at Bombay.5. At the time of the presentation of the present petition, the petitioner, the respondent and co-respondent were all resident in Bombay....
Chairman of Chittagong Municipality Vs. Jogesh Chandra Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal44,3Ind.Cas.1
Chitty and Carnduff, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a rate-payer against the Chairman of the Chittagong Municipality to have the assessment of his holding, whereby higher rates were imposed upon it, declared void on the ground that it was made by an assessor appointed in contravention of law.2. It appears that at a meeting of the Municipal Commissioners of Chittagong held on the 6th May, 1903, the question of appointing a paid assessor under Section 46 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884 (Bengal Act III of 1884, as amended by Bengal Acts III of 1886, IV of 1894 and II of 1896), was raised by one of the Commissioners as an amendment to a substantive motion and that the amendment in favour of such an appointment was put to the meeting and lost. On the 29th July following, however, the question was again raised as a substantive proposition, and on this occasion the proposal was carried. The paid assessor, who revised the plaintiff's assessment in the manner complained of,...
Nilmamud Sarkar and ors. Vs. Bowl Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.994
1. In this suit the plaintiffs sought to recover possession, with mesne profits, of certain Jalkars after declaration of their title thereto. It appears that the plaintiffs claim as lessees of certain darpatnidars, to whom they gave the qabuliats dated 20th Chaitra 1309 in proportion to the shares of those darpatnidars, that is to say, for 10 annas to Kedar Bukhsh Sirkar and others, for 3 annas to Goolamuddin and for the remaining 3 annas to Raj Chandra Shaha and others, including one Baharuddin. Baharuddin did not accept the plaintiff's qabuliat. The defendants denied the titles both of the plaintiffs' lessors and the plaintiffs themselves and pleaded that the Jalkars did not, as the plaintiffs alleged, appertain to Lal Aria Hansraj. The plaintiffs' suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The learned Subordinate Judge disposed of it solely on the ground that the plaintiffs' qabuliats were not leases of the Jalkars and conferred no title on the plaintiffs. It may be stated th...
Hriday Chandra Das Vs. Shib Chandra Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.7
1. This application arises out of proceedings under Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the course taken has been that indicated in the latter part of Clause (6) of Section 135, that is to spy, an application was made to the Magistrate to appoint a jury to try whether his conditional order was reasonable and proper. A jury was appointed in the first instance but it did not return its verdict within the limited time. Thereupon, the Magistrate passed an order under Section 141. The matter then came up to the High Court on revision and the Magistrate's order absolute-not the conditional order-was set aside, and the case was sent back in order that the Magistrate might dispose of it according to law. It was clearly contemplated by the learned Judges who made that order that there should be a fresh jury appointed : and, in fact a jury was appointed as provided in Chapter X. This jury returned a verdict within the time limited : but the Magistrate has declined to act on it on the...
MoniruddIn Sarkar Vs. MochhabIn Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.995
1. In this case the plaintiff filed his suit for recovery of four plots of land but, with regard to plot No, 2, he came to terms with the defendant No.. 7 and that plot dropped out of consideration. The first Court passed a decree in his favour for plots Nos. 1, 3 and 4 against defendant No. 9. The defendant No. 9 appealed to the Court of the District Judge. At the very end of the proceeding after arguments had been heard on the 6th March 1908, the District Judge admitted and marked as an Exhibit a solenama which had been filed by the plaintiff and the defendant No. 9 in a case under Section 426, I. P. C., in the Criminal Court. He delivered judgment on that day without having complied with the formalities required by Section 568, Civil Procedure Code, 1882, and apparently, without giving the plaintiff any opportunity of meeting that piece of evidence. By his decision, the learned District Judge modified the decree of the first Court disallowing the plaintiff's claim with regard to the...
Rajani Kanta Dutt Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal904
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J. and Caspersz, JJ.1. Without in any way detracting from the doctrine, which we accept as sound, that a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused that he will not have a fair trial is a sufficient ground for transfer, we at the same time hold that in applying that doctrine regard must be had to the circumstances of each case. The mere fact that in another case, on other evidence, the Sessions Judge may have come to a particular conclusion is not in itself a sufficient ground for transfer: and that has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Asimaddi v. Govinda Baidyn (1897) I.C.W.N. 426. On the facts of this case we hold that there should not be a transfer. We feel confident that the learned Sessions Judge, in dealing with the case now under consideration, will not allow his mind to be in any way influenced by any evidence that was adduced before him in the previous case or by any opinion which he then formed on that evidence, and that he will...
Rani Mina Kumari Bibi Vs. Surendra NaraIn Chakravarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.12
Vincent, J.1. The events which have given rise to the litigation out of which the present appeal arises may be thus briefly narrated. On the 15th December 1902 the second defendant put in a petition before the Deputy Magistrate of Jangipore in which it was alleged that he was a tenant of the first defendant, now appellant before this Court, that he had grown crops on his holding, and that as the plaintiff, the respondent before this Court, was about to cat away the crops, there was likelihood of a serious breach of the peace. The petitioner consequently prayed for Police help. The Deputy Magistrate thereupon ordered the Police to see that no breach of the peace took place and directed them to submit a report. On the next day the Police submitted a report in which they supported the allegations of the petitioner. The Deputy Magistrate thereupon instituted proceedings under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, in respect of about 200 bighas of land and issued a prohibitory order against...
Rajani Kanta Dutta Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.88
1. Without in any way detracting from the doctrine which we accept as sound that a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused that he will not have a fair trial is a sufficient ground for transfer, we at the same time hold that in applying that doctrine regard must be had to the circumstances of each case. The mere fact that in another case on other evidence the Sessions Judge may have come to a particular con-elusion is not in itself a sufficient ground for transfer and that has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Asimuddi v. Govinda Baidya 1 C.W.N. 426. On the facts of this case we hold that there should not be a transfer. Bat we at the same time feel every confidence that the learned Sessions Judge in dealing with the case now under consideration will not allow his mind to be in any way influenced, by any evidence that was adduced before him in the previous case or by any opinion which he then formed on that evidence and that he will deal with the case without ...
Gobind Mohun Doss and ors. Vs. Kunja Behary Doss
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.364
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Dacca on the 25th May last under Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908.2. The petitioners before this Court are defendants in an action commenced by the Opposite Party in the Court of the Subordinate Judge for dissolution of partnership for accounts and for incidental reliefs. The suit was instituted on the 12th March and the 6th May was fixed for the settlement of issues. On that day the defendants entered appearance; upon their application time was granted to some for two months and to others for one month to enable them to put in their defence, and the 8th July was fixed for the settlement of issues. On that day the defendants applied to the Court to call upon the plaintiffs to produce the documents in their possession. The plaintiffs did not oppose this application and prayed that the defendants might be called upon to produce the papers in their possession. The Subordinate Judge...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »