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.
Ram Ratan Kapali and ors. Vs. Aswini Kumar Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.69
1. The substantial question of law which calls for decision in these appeals relates to the assessment of mesne profits of property sold for arrears of revenue, and is of a somewhat novel character. The circumstances under which the claim for mesne profits is made by the decree-holders are not the Subject of controversy between the parties. On the 25th of September 1894, the respondents purchased an estate at a sale for arrears of revenue. They at first commenced an action for recovery of possession of some of the lands comprised in the estate, on the allegation that the intermediate tenure, set up by the persons in possession, was not binding upon them as purchasers at a sale for arrears of revenue. This suit was decreed on the 2nd March 1900, and on appeal to this Court, the decree of the Court of first instance was affirmed on the 24th March 1905. On the 12th April 1905, the purchasers commenced the present action for recovery of possession of lands not comprised in the previous sui...
Emperor Vs. Lalit Kumar Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal439
Stephen and Carnduff, JJ.1. This matter has been referred to us by the Sessions Judge of Hooghly in the following circumstances. Four persons were arrested in February last on a charge of having committed an offence under Section 400 of the Indian Penal Code by belonging to a gang of dacoits. Part I of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, has been applied to proceedings in respect of this offence by the Local Government, at what time is not stated, but no doubt on the 5th February. On that day one of the petitioners applied to the District Magistrate of Howrah, who had taken cognizance of the offence, for bail, which was refused. On the 8th February he and two others of the accused applied, no doubt in pursuance of the provisions of Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to be admitted to bail by the Sessions Judge, who directed that the papers of the case should be called for and fixed a day for hearing the applications. Before the date so fixed the District Magistrate declin...
The Englishman, Ltd. Vs. Lajpat Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal760
Harington, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of this Court in its Original jurisdiction, under which the plaintiff was awarded damages to the extent of Rs. 15,000 for libel.2. The libel was in the following terms:It is about time now that the true facts as to the deportation of Lajpat Rai were given out. Last year the native officers of several of the native regiments in the Punjab confidentially reported to their commanding officer that persistent efforts were being made to tamper with the loyalty of the sepoys. In due course the commanding officer reported this to the higher military authorities. At the beginning of this year the native officers of almost every native regiment reported to their commanding officers that the provisions of the Canal Colonies Bill were being used most effectively by the agitators to inflame the sepoys against the Government, and in this connection the names of Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh were given as the principal agitators. It must be remembered that ...
Rajendra Nath Mukerjee Vs. Hira Lal Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.554
Geidt and Ormond, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises relates to some resumed cliowkidari chakran lands situated in mouzah Sridharpur belonging to the Maharajah of Burdwan. This rnouzah was one of several let in patni, in which the plaintiff has a 2 annas share and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the remaining 14 annas.2. The case of the plaintiff is that under the terms of the putni, the putnidars were entitled to the cliowkidari chakran lands as soon as they were transferred by Government to the zemindar and that the plaintiff offered to take settlement of his share in these lands, but that the offer was rejected without any adequate reason by the officers of the Maharajah and the lands were settled with his (the plaintiff's) co-sharers, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who were entitled to a 14 annas share only. The suit is accordingly brought to recover a two annas-share of the cliowkidari chakran land.3. The only ground of defence that we need notice in this appeal is this: The de...
The Englishman Limited Vs. Lala Lajpat Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.81
Harington, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of this Court in its original jurisdiction under which the plaintiff was awarded damages to the extent of Rs. 15,000 for libel.2. The libel was in the following terms:It is about time now that the true facts as to. the deportation of Lajpat Rai were given out. Last year the native officers of several of the native Regiments in the Punjab confidentially reported to their Commanding Officers that persistent efforts were being made to tamper with the loyalty of the sepoys. In due course the Commanding Officers reported this to the higher Military authorities. At the beginning of this year the native officers of almost every native Regiment reported to their Commanding Officers that the provisions of the Canal Colonies Bill were being used most effectively by the agitators to inflame the sepoys against the Government and in this connection the names of Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh were giver, as the principal agitators. It must be remembered tha...
Surendra Nath Pal and anr. Vs. Akhoy Kumar Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.647
1. After hearing the learned pleaders on both sides, we are of opinion that this appeal must succeed. We are unable to agree with the learned District Judge that the appellants could have adopted the method which he suggests to save their shares of the property from being sold and we are, therefore, unable to confirm his judgment and order. That order is accordingly set aside. At the same time we are of opinion that the lower appellate Court has erred in the way in which it has dealt with the judgment of the Court of first instance. It would appear from what has been stated to us that the difference between the price which the property fetched at the sale and its reputed value was very large and that the Munsif in disposing of the petition to set aside the sale appears to have been influenced by the fact that the disparity was so great that he did not trouble to notice it. As he has not done so we think that the judgment of the Court of first instance cannot be affirmed as it does not ...
Emperor Vs. Lalit Kumar Chatterji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.10
1. This matter has been referred to us by the Sessions Judge at Hooghly in the following circumstances. Four persons were arrested in February last on a charge of having committed an offence under Section 400 of the Indian Penal Code by belonging to a gang of dacoits. Part I of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, has been applied to proceedings in respect of this offence by the Local Government, at what time is not stated, but no doubt before the 5th February. On that day one of the petitioners applied to the District Magistrate of Howrah, who had taken cognizance of the offence, for bail which was refused. On the 8th February, he and two others of the accused applied, no doubt, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to be admitted to bail by the Sessions Judge, who directed that the papers in the case should be called for and fixed a day for hearing the applications. Before the date so fixed, the District Magistrate declined to forward the r...
Kshetra Mohan Barik Vs. Man Gobinda Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.13
1. This is a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Munsif, second Court, of Contai, dated the 17th August, 1909, should not be set aside and an order passed by this Court directing him to re-admit the suit of the petitioner as mentioned in the petition.2. It appears that a suit was brought by the petitioner in the second Court of the Munsif of Contai, and a decree was obtained. The opposite party afterwards brought a suit in the third Court of the Munsif of the same place to have the decree obtained by the petitioner as above mentioned set aside or the ground of fraud and on several other grounds and the result of that suit was that a decree was granted in favour of the opposite party setting aside the decree of the second Court obtained by the petitioner on the ground that it had been obtained in fraud of the opposite party and without his knowledge. The order went on to state: 'The result of such setting aside of the decree will be that the suit afores...
Pancham Lal Chowdhury Vs. Kishun Pershad Misser and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.47
Woodroffe, J.1. This a suit brought for redemption of a mortgage. There was a kabuliat executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff's father in respect of the property in suit which the defendant took on lease. That property is 8 annas of mahal Siswa Rasulpur. There was also on the same day, namely, 14th December 1884, a mortgage executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant for a sum of Rs. 4,000.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the lease and the bond, which were executed on the same day formed one transaction and the two taken together constituted a usufructuary mortgage. That finding has not been contested on appeal.3. On the 16th June 1885, a second mortgage was executed by the defendant and on the 15th June 18S9, a roka or hand-note was executed by the plaintiff's father in favour of the defendant. On the 16th January 1890, a suit was brought upon this roka and a decree was obtained for a sum of Rs. 1,200 odd. Then on the 27th May of the...
Lachman Pershad Singh Vs. Ganga Prasad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.180
1. This is an appeal against two orders of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr passed on the 14th June 1909, dismissing and refusing to consider two applications made by the present appellant to have a certain sale proclamation amended by inserting in it the proper value of the property advertized for sale. The Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the application was premature and that no such application could be made until after the sale.2. A preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal has been taken on the ground that no appeal lies as the proceedings which were questioned in the petition were proceedings under Section 287 Clause (e) of the old Code of Civil Procedure. This objection it based on a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Sivagami Achi v. Subrahmania Ayyar 27 M. 259. We are of opinion that this objection cannot be maintained. It has been held by this Court in several cases three of which are the cases of Ganga Prosad v. Raj Coomar Singh 30 C. 617...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »