Kolkata Court March 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.
Raj Gir Sahay Vs. Ishwardhari Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.660
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtor against an order of the District Judge of Mozuffarpur by which he allowed execution to proceed on the basis of a decree which was obtained by the respondents against the present appellant in June 1901.2. On the 19th of November 1901, the record room was destroyed by fire and the original of the decree in question was destroyed at the same time. In March 1902, the respondents made an application to have the decree re-constructed and on the basis of this application the decree appears to have been re-constructed. So far as we can make out, this re-construction was made in the absence of the present appellant. On the 23rd of March 1905, the application out of which the present appeal arises was presented by the decree-holders for execution of the decree which they had obtained.3. The Munsif dismissed the application for execution. On appeal his judgment has been reversed by the learned District Judge.4. The first question ...
ishwar Chandra Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal581
Stephen and Carnduff, JJ.1. The petitioner in this case was charged with having sold opium in contravention of the provisions of the Opium Act, 1878, and the rules framed thereunder. This is, of course, a charge of an offence under Section 9, Clause (f), of the Act. The facts of the case have not been disputed before us, and, as far as we are concerned with them, are as follows. The petitioner, Ishwar Chandra Singh, is the servant of one Johiruddin Bepari, who has a shop at Mahajan's Hat, at some little distance from Chittagong, and is licensed under the Act to sell opium there On the 22nd March 1909, Ishwar bought, on behalf of his master, a seer of opium from the Excise Office at Chittagong. It was his duty, under the rules applicable to the case, to transport the opium within two days of its purchase to the premises at Mahajan's Hat, where alone, under the terms of the license, it was lawful to sell it, and it is not denied that it was an offence to sell it anywhere else. He did not...
Abdul Razab Vs. BasiruddIn Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.95
1. The substantial question of law, which has been argued upon this Rule, relates to the power of this Court to make an ad interim order for protection of an insolvent, and for appointment of a Receiver of the assets, during the pendency of an appeal preferred tinder the provisions of the 'Provincial Insolvency Act'. The petitioner before us, on the 5th April 1909, made an application to the Court below to be declared an insolvent. This application was dismissed on the 9th August 1909. He then preferred an appeal to this Court, under Section 46 of the Provincial Insolvency Act'. During the pendency of the appeal, some of the creditors have taken out execution of their decrees, and one of them has applied for the issue of a warrant of arrest. The petitioner has, therefore, applied for ad interim protection, and at the hearing of the Rule, one of the creditors has applied for the appointment of a receiver, should such ad interim order be made. A question, however, has been raised as to t...
Dookhi Modi Vs. Debi Prosad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.137
1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Patna, dated the 12th May, 1907, dismissing the plaintiff's claim for pre-emption on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to show that the formalities required in the talab-i-istishad had been observed and specially that there was no evidence that the plaintiff called the witnesses to attest that he had previously performed the talab-i-mowasibat. The Judge further found as a fact that the entire evidence adduced by the plaintiff to prove the performance of the formalities has been concocted for the purposes of this suit. There are so many discrepancies as to the particular words used at the time of the alleged performance of the formalities and the surrounding circumstances that he was not prepared to believe the evidence so far as it went.2. It is a great pity, and we trust that in future this will be corrected, that the exact words used by the witnesses were not taken down in the Court of first ins...
iswar Chandra Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.173
1. The petitioner in this case was charged with having1 sold opium in contravention of the provisions of the Indian Opium Act, and the rules framed thereunder. This is, of course, a charge of an offence under Section 9(f) of the Act. The facts of the case have not been disputed before us, and, as far as we are concerned with them, are as follows: The petitioner Iswar Chandra is the servant of one Johiruddin Bepari who has a shop at Maha-jan's hat, which is some little distance from Chittagong, at which he is licensed under the Act to sell opium. On the 23rd March 1909, Iswar bought, on behalf of his master, a seer of opium from the Excise Office at Chittagong. It was his duty, under the rules applicable to the case, within two days of the sale to him, to transport the opium to the premises at Mahajan's hat, where alone in the terms of the license it was lawful to sell the opium and it is not denied that it was an offence to sell it anywhere else. He did not take it to Mahajan's hat wit...
Abhoy Churn GaIn Vs. Naba Kumar Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.306
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order of refusal of the Court below to review an order absolute for foreclosure of a mortgage made by it on the 2nd December 1908 on the basis of a decree nisi dated the 2nd May 1905. The application for order absolute was presented on the 16th June 1908, and the decree-holder asked thereby for an order absolute for sale of the mortgaged properties. Notices of the application were served on the judgment-debtors, one of whom alone entered appearance. At that stage, the decree-holder appears to have discovered that he was entitled to an order absolute for foreclosure and not for sale. Thereupon on the 30th November 1908, he applied for leave to amend his application, this was allowed. The case was taken up for final disposal on the 2nd December. The judgment-debtor, Khiradhar Koyal, who alone had entered appearance, asked for an extension of time, but his prayer was refused on the ground that the Court could not and should not extend the tim...
Sri Raja Kirtibash Bhupati Hari Chandan Mahapatra Vs. the Secretary of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.688
Woodroffe, J.1. The plaintiff is the Raja of Sukinda, the owner of a considerable tract of land in District Cuttack, bounded on the north and the west by the Tributary Mehals, The defendant, the Secretary of State, has recently sought to introduce into a portion of the plaintiff's lands the provisions of the Chowkidari Act (VI of 1870, B.C.). The plaintiff contends that the Act cannot be applied in his estate and if it can the proceedings taken do not justify the order of transfer which the Collector has purported to make under Section 48 of that Act. His suit, therefore, seeks a declaration that the lands purported to be so transferred are not chowkidari chakran lands within the meaning of the Act; that the Collector has no power to transfer the lands or to assess the same; that all proceedings taken by him in this connection are illegal; as also an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's land and for other relief.2. The facts relating to the first h...
Kandarpa Nath Ghose and ors. Vs. Jogendra Nath Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.141
1. The suit, out of which the present appeal arises, was commenced by the plaintiffs-appellants for recovery of possession of property, which admittedly formed part of the estate of one Jadu Nath Ghose who died on the 13th January 1889. Some time before his death on the 14th September 1886, Jadu Nath had made a testamentary disposition of his properties, the true effect of which is the subject of controversy in this litigation. The testator died leaving a widow Doorga Tarini, his mother Khether Moni and the plaintiffs, who were the grandsons of his elder brother, as his reversionary heirs. On the 30th September. 1889, the widow applied for probate of the Will, but before the probate had been granted, on the 14th September, she joined her mother-in-law in transferring the disputed property, to the first defendant, who was the principal officer of her brother. Probate was granted to heron the 19th December 1889. The mother of the testator died on the 1.9th August 1899. On the 12th May 19...
Hari Pada Pal Vs. Jotish Chandra Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.181
1. This is a Rule to show cause why the proceedings in a prosecution for cheating should not be stayed pending the hearing of a civil suit.2. The case arises as follows: On the 15th August 1909, the petitioner granted a kobala of a certain piece of land to some body. This was registered on the 6th October. Meanwhile on the 20th August 1909, it is alleged by the complainant that the petitioner executed a kobala to him, taking Rs. 160 in consideration thereof, and he did this without mentioning the other kobala. On the 11th October, the complainant, coming to know of the first kobala, complained against the petitioner of the offence of cheating. The petitioner subsequently, on the 4th January, brought a suit against the complainant to have it declared that the kobala of the 20th August is a forgery, his case being that it has been forged and imputed to him on account of a quarrel between himself and his landlord.3. On these facts and allegations, we were moved to stay the criminal procee...
Guiram Ghosal Vs. Lal Behari Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal578
Stephen and Carnduff, JJ.1. This case arises under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is a dispute between the parties, one of whom claims as against the other an hereditary right to perform the duties of pujari of an idol in a certain temple. The other party makes the case that the first party is merely a servant. On the matter coming before the Magistrate, he held that he had no jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code to deal with this dispute, because the rights set forth by the petitioners did not amount to an easement over any land.2. We have granted a rule to show cause why this order should not be set aside on the ground that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to deal with the case. On considering the matter and hearing the arguments of the learned pleaders, we are of opinion that the Magistrate was right. Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as has been pointed out, is not in terms confined to easements, but relates to any dispute concer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »