Kolkata Court February 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.
Babbon Sheik Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal340
Stephen, J.1. In this case a Rule has been granted calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why a conviction of the petitioners of an offence of rioting under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code should not be set aside on two of the grounds mentioned in the petition. The first of these is that the frying Magistrate held a local enquiry and was influenced by certain things ho saw there, and imported his knowledge of what he had seen into his judgment in disposing of the case; the second, that the common object stated in the charge was different from that found by both the lower Courts.2. The second objection may be very shortly dealt with. The common object charged was by means of criminal force to obtain possession of the killkhana lands belonging to one Ghisa Mia. The lands so referred to comprised a fifteen-cottah plot and a five-cottah plot; the offence was found to have been committed to obtain possession of the five-cottah plot only. As the five-cottah plot was included i...
Chairman Municipal Board Vs. Basudeo NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal374
Holmwood and Chatterjee, JJ.1. This is a second appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chapra, who, reversing the decision of the Munsif in a suit by a rate-payer to have his municipal assessment reduced as illegal and ultra vires, held that the tax had not been assessed on the proper valuation of the holding, and that therefore the plaintiff was entitled to a decree.2. This finding is obviously untenable. The Civil Courts have nothing to do with the correctness or otherwise of the valuation; they can only interfere when the assessment is ultra vires.3. It is urged before us that it is ultra vires, because; there is nothing to show that the assessor actually did inspect the premises, and because the record of the proceedings before the Objection Committee would lead to the inference that the appellant had no proper hearing. On a consideration of the authorities, we think we have no jurisdiction to interfere with the assessment. The ruling in Manessur Dass v. Th...
Chairman Municipal Board Vs. Babu Basudeo NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.321
1. This is a second appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chapra, who, reversing the decision of the Munsif in a suit by a ratepayer to have his Municipal assessment reduced as illegal and ultra vires, held that the tax had not been assessed on the proper valuation of the holding and that, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree.2. This finding is obviously untenable. The Civil Courts had nothing to do with the correctness or otherwise of the valuation. They can only interfere when the assessment is ultra vires.3. It is urged before us that it is ultra vires, because there is nothing to show that the Assessor actually did inspect the premises and because the record of the proceeding before the Objection Committee would lead to the inference that the appellant had no proper hearing.4. On a consideration of the authorities, we think we have no jurisdiction to interfere with the assessment. The ruling in Manessur Das v. The Collector and Municipal Commi...
Arman Gazi and ors. Vs. Krishna Chandra Nandi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.383
Woodroffe, J.1. This was a suit for recovery of possession of certain plots of land. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif who found that the plaintiff had no right, that his allegation of dispossession was false and that his claim was barred by limitation. That decision was reversed on appeal.2. The two points that have been urged before me by the learned pleader who appears for the appellant, are these: The first and most important one is, whether the suit is barred. The dispossession alleged in the plaint took place in 1308 (corresponding with 1901) and the suit was not brought until the close of 1905, and it is contended that the special law of limitation of two years enacted by Article 8 of the second Schedule to the Bengal Tenancy Act, is applicable. That provision states that a suit to recover possession of land claimed by the plaintiff as an occupancy rayiat (for the suit is governed by the law in force prior to the amendment of that article) must be brought within a period of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›