Kolkata Court June 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.
Durga Das Misser Vs. Rauha Raman Misser and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.1
Woodroffe, J.1. In this case the learned District Judge has refused Letters of Administration on the grounds, first, that there is a dispute as to whether the petitioner is the nearest heir of the deceased, and, secondly, that there is a dispute as to the title of the deceased to the properties mentioned by the petitioner. On the ground that there is such a dispute; and without deciding the dispute in any way, he has refused to grant Letters of Administration.2. Now, as regards the question of title of the deceased to the properties, that is not a matter which is dealt with by the Probate Court at all. It may be that the deceased had property, or it may be that she had not. It may be that if she had property and her interest ceased on her death; and the fact that Letters of Administration may be granted to a person would not entitle that person to hold any property other than that to which the deceased was herself entitled, that is to say, property which forms a portion of her estate. ...
Bahadur Vs. Eradatullah Mallick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal642
Lawrence H. Jenkins C.J., Brett, Wood-Roffe, Mookerjee, Holmwood, Sharfuddin and Doss, JJ.1. Two questions have been referred to us for decision in this Rule, namely:(i) Whether the expression 'Court' in Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code means merely the Judge before whom the alleged offence has been committed, or to whose notice the commission of the alleged offence has been brought in the course of a judicial proceeding?(ii) Whether an execution proceeding is a 'judicial proceeding' within the meaning of Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code?2. Upon a careful consideration of the cases mentioned in the order of Reference, as also those cited at the bar, and upon an examination of the language of Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, we are of opinion that there is nothing in that section to warrant our withholding from the word 'Court' its natural meaning with the sense of continuity this implies notwithstanding any change of officers.3. We are of opinion that the...
Udai Chand Maity Vs. Ram Kumar Khara and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.394
1. We are invited in this appeal to set aside an order made by the Court below under Section 15 of the Provincial Insolvency Act of 1907. The circumstances under which the order in question was made are not disputed. One Udai Chand Maity, the appellant before us, applied under the Provincial Insolvency Act on the 30th April 1909 to be declared an insolvent. He stated that his debts amounted to Rs. 1,018-6-0 and that he had no means to liquidate them. He attached to his application the names of the creditors, and the particulars of his debts, described in detail the properties of which he was possessed. On the 21st June 1909, one of his creditors mentioned in the application by name of Ram Kumar Khara who, it was alleged by the petitioner, was entitled to receive from him a sum in excess of Rs. 500 under a decree appeared in Court and presented a petition of objection. His case in substance was that some of the other creditors mentioned as such in the application were really not the cre...
Shaikh Bahadur and ors. Vs. Shaikh Eradatullah Mallick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.801
Doss, J.1. Tow questions have been referred to us for decision in this Rule, viz., (1) whether the expression 'Court' in Section 476 means merely the Judge before whom the alleged offence has been committed or to whose notice the commission of the alleged offence has been brought in the course of a judicial proceeding? (2) whether an execution proceeding is a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code?2. Upon a careful consideration of the cases mentioned in the Order of Reference as also those cited at the bar and upon an examination of the language of Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, we are of opinion that there is nothing in that Section to warrant our withholding from the word 'Court' its natural meaning with the sense of continuity. This implies notwithstanding any change of officers.3. We are of opinion that the first question ought to be answered in the negative.4. The second question, ought, in our opinion, to be answered in the affirmat...
Shama Charan Roy and ors. Vs. Maharaj Surja Kanta Acharya Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.806
1. The subject-matter of this suit is a jalkar as to which an order has been made under Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code with the result that the jalkar has been attached, and will so remain until a competent Court has determined the rights of the parties thereto or the person entitled to possession thereof. The purpose of this suit is to obtain such a determination.2. As their case has been formulated before us, the plaintiffs, who are appellants, have based their claim to be entitled to possession first on their title as durputnidars of jalkar Gangapath in Dihi Mirzapur, appertaining to Touzi No. 1152 of the Birbhum Collectorate and of which, they allege, the particular jalkar now in suit, jalkar Jagannathpur, is a part; and secondly, on their long possession of jalkar Jagannathpur coupled with the establishment of their title by two separate decrees to jalkar Chowke and jalkar Kausat, which are now, and for many years have been, connected by jalkar Jagannathpur. The defend...
BipIn Behari Mitra Vs. Jatindra Nath Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal897
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal [No. 313] from an order made by the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Parganas on the 30th of June 1908, setting aside a sale in execution held as far back as September 1902.2. The mortgage, on which the suit and the execution proceedings were founded, bears date the 9th of December 1899, and thereby Surendra Nath Ghose and Manindra Nath Ghose mortgaged the property in dispute to Lalbehari Mittra to secure Rs. 25,000.3. On the 25th of September 1899, the mortgagee instituted a suit against the mortgagors and certain prior and puisne mortgagees for the realisation of his mortgage, and on the 1st of August 1901 a decree was passed on appeal by the High Court directing, in the events that have happened, a sale of the properties subject to all prior incumbrances, unless the incumbrancers consented to the sale. On the 18th of January 1902 an order absolute for sale was made.4. On the 2nd February 1902, Manindra Nath Ghose died and was succeeded by his...
BipIn Behary Mitter Vs. Jotindra Nath Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.813
1. This is an appeal from an order made by the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Pergannahs on the 30th of June 1908, setting aside a sale in execution held as far back as September 1902.2. The mortgage, on which the suit and the execution proceedings were founded, bears date the 9th of December 1896 and thereby Surendra Nath Chose and Manindra Nath Ghose mortgaged the property in dispute to Lalbehary Mitter to secure Rs. 25,000.3. On the 25th of September 1899, the mortgagee instituted a suit against the mortgagors and certain prior and puisne mortgagees for the realization of Lis mortgage, and on the 1st of August 1901, a decree was passed on appeal by the High Court directing, in the events that have happened, a sale of the property subject to all prior incumbrances unless the incumbrancers consented to the sale. On the 18th of January 1902, an order absolute for sale was made.4. On the 2nd February 1902, Manindra Nath. Ghose died and was succeeded by his minor sons and heirs on whose app...
Bhairab Chandra Kolay Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal895
Harington and Teunon, JJ.1. This is a Rule calling upon the Municipal Magistrate and on the Chairman of the Corporation to show cause why the conviction and sentences passed on the accused should not be set aside on the ground that the joint penalty passed on the two accused on the 8th March last is illegal, and on certain other grounds which it is unnecessary for us now to deal with.2. What happened is this. There was a house which, under Section 444 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, had been found to be unfit for human habitation. An order was issued prohibiting persons from using the same, or suffering it to be used for the purpose of human habitation. Of the two accused, one is the owner and the other was apparently occupying the building with him. These two persons have been convicted under Section 444, Clause (2) read with Section 574 for disobedience of the order of the Magistrate made under Section 444, Clause (2).3. In each of these two persons the act of disobedience was a separ...
Bhairab Chandra Kolay Vs. Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.874
1. This is a Rule calling upon the Municipal Magistrate and on the Chairman of the Corporation to show cause why the conviction and sentences passed on the accused should not be set aside on the ground that the joint penalty passed on the two accused on the 8th March last is illegal and on certain other ground which is unnecessary for us now to deal with.2. What happened in this. There was a house which, under Section 444 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, had been found to be unfit for' human habitation. An order was issued prohibiting persons from using the same or suffering it to be used for the purpose of human habitation. Of the two accused one is the owner and the other was apparently occupying the building with him. These two persons have been convicted, under Section 444, Clause 2, read with Section 574, for disobedience to the order of the Magistrate made under Section 444, Clause 2. In each of these two persons, the act of disodedience was a separate offence. In our view the pass...
Sarada Kanta Das Vs. Gobinda Mohan Das and Maitunnissa Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.912
1. The circumstances, under which the two applications under consideration have been made to this Court, may, be briefly narrated. One Arman Khan died on the 3rd August 1894, and left, as his heirs, his mother, two widows, four sons and four daughters. On the 12th September 1894, Momtaz Ali, the eldest son, applied for probate of a Will alleged to have been executed by his father shortly before his death on the 13th June 1894. Special citation was issued upon the mother and the daughters but no steps were taken to have any guardian appointed on behalf of the infant sons, and no notices were issued to them. The Will was proved in common form as the mother and the widows did not contest the proceedings, and order for grant of probate was made on the 3rd November 1894. The probate was taken out on the 8th December 1894. On the 26th January 1896, Momtaz Ali, as executor, appears to have borrowed a large sum of money from Gobinda Mohan Eai Ohowdhury and others and hypothecated portions of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »