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.
Emperor Vs. Sourindra Mohan Chuckerbutty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal412
Stephen and Carnduff, JJ.1. A rule has been granted in this case on the District Magistrate of the 24-Parganas to show cause why bail should not be granted on the ground that no order has been made applying the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, to the case; and on the further ground that there does not appear to be any sufficient cause for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused.2. The facts relating to this matter are as follows. A dacoity, commonly referred to as the Nettra dacoity, took place on the 24th April 1909. On the 20th January 1910, the Local Government made an order under Section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, purporting to apply the provisions of Part I of that Act to the offence. On the 24th January 1910 the petitioner was arrested on suspicion of being concerned in it, and so having committed offences under Sections 395 (dacoity) and 397 (dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code. On the 28th January he appli...
Sourindra Mohan Chukerbutty Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.8
1. A rule has been granted in this case on the District Magistrate of the 24-Perganahs, to show cause why bail, should not be granted on the ground that no order has been made applying the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, to the case; and on the further ground that there does not appear to be any sufficient cause for further enquiry into the guilt of the accused.2. The facts relating to this matter are as follows. A dacoity, commonly referred to as the Nettra dacoity, took place on the 24th April 1909. On the 20th January 1910, the Local Government made an order under Section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, purporting to apply the provision of Part I of that Act to the offence. On the 24th January 1910, the petitioner was arrested on suspicion of being concerned in it and so having committed offences under Section 395 (dacoity) and 397 (dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code. On the 28th January, he applied to the District Magi...
Abdul Haque Chowdhury Vs. Abdul Hafez
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.648
1. On the 23rd April 1906, the defendant-appellant before us obtained an ex parte decree, against the plaintiff-respondent in the Calcutta Small Cause Court. The decree was sent for execution to the Munsif of Satkania, in the District of Chittagong, where the parties have their permanent residence, and on the 25th January 1907, a peon arrived at the house of the plaintiff-respondent with a writ of attachment against the movables of the judgment-debtor. This event constituting a cause of action, the plaintiff brought a suit in the local Munsif's Court and prayed (1) that the ex parte decree of the 23rd April 1906 be set aside as fraudulent and (2) that the said decree be declared null and void, inoperative and ineffectual, and that an order be made that it be not executed against the defendant (the present plaintiff.)2. On the merits, the first Court found that the ex parte decree was fraudulent and liable to be declared null and void, but the Munsif proceeded to hold that he had no jur...
Rajrani Dassi Vs. Ganeshprasad Srichandan Mahapatra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal407
Brett and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the lower Court setting aside a sale held for arrears of Government revenue. It appears from the judgment of the lower Court that a taluq called Pachitira, bearing No. 160 on the Collectorate roll of Balasore, was sold for arrears of Government revenue for the November kist of 1904, amounting to Rs. 24. The property was sold on the 6th February 1905 for Rs. 1,000 and purchased by the appellants, and the sale was confirmed on the 1st August of the same year. There was an appeal to the Commissioner by the respondents, the original proprietors, which was rejected on the 3rd July 1905. The present suit was instituted on the 3rd July 1906 under Section 33 of Act XI of 1859.2. The grounds which were put forward for setting aside the sale were two: First, that in the 6th column of the sale proclamation, under Section 6 of Act XI of 1859, the name of the proprietor was wrongly stated. The name given was Bhajan Raut of Jesatikri....
Srimati Rajrani Dasi and ors. Vs. Gonesh Prosad Srichandan Mohapatra a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.650
1. This is an appeal against an order of the lower Court setting aside a sale held for arrears of Government Revenue. It appears from the judgment of the lower Court that a taluq called Pachitira bearing No. 160 on the Collectorate Roll of Balasore was sold for arrears of Government Revenue for the November kist of 1904, amounting to Rs. 24. The property was sold on the 6th February 1905 for Rs. 1,000 and purchased by the appellants and the sale was confirmed on the 1st August of the same year. There was an appeal to the Commissioner by the respondents, the original proprietors, which was rejected on the 3rd July 1905. The present suit was instituted on the 3rd July 1906, under Section 33 of Act XI of 1859.2. The grounds which were put forward for setting aside the sale were two. First, that in the 6th column of the sale proclamation under Section 6 of Act XI of 1859, the name of the proprietor was wrongly stated. The name given was Bhajan Raut of Jesatikri. It seems that there is on t...
Hara Gowri Saha and ors. Vs. Dukhi Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.582
1. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the lower Court was right in the view which it took that consequential relief was sought in the plaint as filed by the plaintiffs. The lower Court has stated, and we think quite correctly that, if a declaratory decree only was sought, the Court-fee payable on the plaint would have been ten rupees only as laid down in the case of Zinnatunessa Khatun v. Girindra Nath Mukherjee 30 C. 788, because the suit would then fall within Schedule II, Article 17, Clause (iii) of the Court Fees Act, also, if partition only had been sought, then also a Court-fee of ten rupees only would have been sufficient on the authority of the case of Bidhata Roy v. Ram Charitra Roy 12 C.W.N. 37 : 3 M.L.T. 33 : 6 C.L.J. 651, as the suit would be governed by Schedule II, Article 17, Clause (vi), of the Court Fees Act. In the present case, the relief which is sought for in the plaint does not appear to us to be merely a declaration and a partition, but as stated ...
Raja Ram Ranjan Chakravarti Bahadur Vs. Bunwari Lal Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1910
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.170
1. In our opinion, these three appeals must fail. The question which the lower Court had to determine in these cases was what was the proportion in which the landlord and the patnidar were entitled to receive the compensation money. The lower Court, following the principle, which has been laid down by this Court in the case of Dinendra Narain Roy v. Sitaram Mukerjee 30 C. 801 : 7 C.W.N. 810 has held that, as there was no abatement of rent by the landlord to the patnidar in respect of the land acquired, the landlord is entitled to no portion of the compensation. The learned Pleader for the appellant has invited us to a lengthy discussion of the cases which were fully considered in the case above referred to, but we think that no useful purpose will be served by employing our time in such a consideration. In our opinion, the view taken by the learned Judges in the case on which the District Judge has relied is correct and it has been followed by this Court ever since that judgment was de...
Bhuban Mohini Debi Vs. Kiran Bala Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.215
1. We are invited in this Rule to appoint an Administrator pendente lite, under Section 34 of the Probate and Administration Act of 1881, during the pendency of an appeal against an order for revocation of probate of a Will alleged to have been executed by one Syama Charan Singh, who died on the 1st April 1906. After the death of the alleged testator, his nephews propounded the Will, the effect of which in substance was to leave the estate to Bhubaneswari, the daughter of the testator, and practically to the disinherit the widow, Kiran Bala, the step-mother of that daughter. Probate was granted in common form on the 30th June 1906. On the 10th August, 1908, an application for revocation of probate was made by the widow, on the ground that the Will was a forgery, and the grant had been obtained by fraud. On the 20th September 1909, the District Judge held in favour of the widow and revoked the probate. The daughter has appealed to this Court, and the present application has been made by...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›