Kolkata Court January 1910 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.
Brojo Sundar Roy Chowdhury Vs. Moti Lal Mojumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.493
1. We are invited in this appeal to set aside an order of the Court below by which an application to set side an execution sale has been disallowed. The sale was held on the 25th May 1907. On the 22nd June following, the judgment-debtor applied to have the sale set aside under Sections 244 and 311 of the Code of 1882. On that day, the Subordinate Judge directed the case to be heard on the 27th July. On the latter day, both the parties were unprepared and upon their joint application, the 24th August was fixed for the hearing of the case. On that date, the decree-holder was present with his witnesses, but the judgment-debtor asked for adjournment to enable him to summon his witnesses. This application was granted upon payment of Rs. 16 as adjournment costs to the decree-holder, and the 14th September was fixed for the hearing of the case. On that date, both the parties were ready to proceed with the case and the witnesses were in attendance, but on account of want of time, the Court was...
Lakhai Narayan Ghosh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.276
Stephen, J.1. In this case the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum ordered a prosecution of the petitioner for wrongfully cutting J certain trees in a forest and on reading the explanation we must take him to; have done this under Section 190(c), Criminal Procedure Code. He also ordered certain trees to be attached.2. This rule has been granted on two points. The first is that he had no authority to order the prosecution, and the second that he had no authority to attach the trees.3. As regards the second part of tie rule it is admitted that the order was without, jurisdiction and the rule must be made absolute.4. As regards the first part what happened is as follows: The Deputy Commissioner was also the Manager of the encumbered estate, and in that capacity ordered one Kedar Nath Sirkar, a servant of the Court of Wards to make certain enquiries. The order which is pew complained of was made as the result of the report made by Kedar Nath. It is now argued on the strength of the ruling in ...
Babu Surajdeo NaraIn Vs. M.H. Mackenzie
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.254
Chatterjee, J.1. The plaintiff is the landlord. The defendant is a mokararidar under him. Within the mokarari, certain specified land had been let out to the wife of the defendant by the plaintiff and, on a portion of this land, a hat is held. This hat has been assessed at an annual value of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 62-8 has been assessed as road-cess upon it. The Deputy Collector says: 'You pay this amount and recover it from your mokararidar with interest'. The plaintiff, therefore, has brought this suit for recovery of this amount after having paid it to the Collector.2. The defendant pleads that he is not liable and the reason given is that it was not open to the Collector to levy road-cess upon the profits of the hat and, as this amount has been illegally levied from the plaintiff, the defendant is not liable.3. The question for decision has formed the subject of decision by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of The Secretary of Stale for India in Council v. Karuna Kant Chowdhry 6 C....
Haran Mandal Vs. Mohim Chandra Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal285
Stephen and Carnduff, JJ.1. This is a rule to show cause why an order under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be set aside and the proceedings continued in order that the petitioner may be heard under Sub-section (5) of that section. The petitioner swears that he is interested in the land in dispute as a tenant of a part of it. There is nothing to show that this is not the case, although the Magistrate considered that his application to be made a party was a mere device on his part, acting as a creature of the second party. The petitioner seems to give reasons for supposing that this may not be true, and we consider that he should be allowed to show that there is no dispute under the fifth paragraph of the section. No one appearing to show cause, we make the rule absolute and order accordingly in terms of the rule....
Asfandyar Khan Vs. Irshad Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.249
1. We have in this case an order under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code, and a rule has been granted to show cause why it should not be set aside as being made without jurisdiction. A proceeding was initiated under Section 141, Criminal Procedure Code. While that case was going on, the Magistrate ordered a proceeding to be commenced under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, abandoning that under Section 144. On the proceeding coming on for adjudication the first party was absent sending an excuse that he was ill. The second party applied for an adjournment for reasons which did not commend themselves to the Deputy Magistrate. Neither party had at that time filed written statements and they did not produce any evidence, but the Magistrate proceeded to make the order before us, attaching the property under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code.2. We do not say that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to make the order under Section 146 without written statements and with...
Nanda Kumar Saha Vs. Gobind Mohan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.135
1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Court below refusing to set aside a sale held in execution of a mortgage-decree. The decree was made so far back as the 12th September, 1900, and the sale, the validity of which is now impeached, took place on the 22nd February 1908. The properties were sold, one for Rs. 6,000 and the other for Rs. 2,025. On the 23rd February, 1903, the judgment-debtors applied to have the sale set aside on various grounds. Of these three have been pressed before this Court and an additional ground, apparently not urged in the Court below, has also been taken on behalf of the appellant. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant, first, that there was a deliberate mis-statement of the value of the properties in the sale-proclamation; secondly, that the decree-holder employed a benamdar to offer fictitious bids and the effect of this arrangement was to mislead the bidders who were present; thirdly, that the evidence of service of sale proclamation is...
Katic Graham Vs. the Colonial Government of British Guiana by their Ag ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.131
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in an action for rent. On the 6th October 1898, the defendant, the Colonial Government of British Guiana, obtained a lease from the plaintiff, for ten years from 1st January 1899, in respect of certain' premises in Garden Reach, in the suburbs of this city. There were two covenants in the lease which form the subject-matter of controversy between the parties to this litigation. The first of these covenants was by the lessee for payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 500 per month without any deduction; the rent for any month was to fall due on the fifth day of the month following. The lessee further undertook from time to time and at all times during the continuance of the lease to pay and discharge all taxes, rates, assessments whatsoever then or thereafter payable in respect of the premises demised and also all taxes, rates and assessments that might be levied in respect of any additions or alterations which the lessee might at any time mak...
In Re: Haran Mandal Vs. ÂÂ
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.545
1. This is a Rule to show cause why an order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, should not be set aside and the proceedings continued in order that the petitioner may be heard under Sub-section (5) of that section. The petitioner swears that he is interested in the land in dispute as a tenant of a part of the property in dispute. There is nothing to show that this is not the case, although the Magistrate considered that his application to be made a party was a mere device on his part acting as a creature of the first party. The petitioner seems to give reasons for supposing that this may not be true, and we consider that he should be allowed to show that there is no dispute under paragraph 5 of the section.2. No one appearing to show cause we make the Rule absolute, and order accordingly in terms of the Rule....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›