Kolkata Court September 1910 Judgments
Lal Mohan Mandal Vs. Kali Kishore Bhuimali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-30-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal293
Holmwood and Doss, JJ.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Dacca to show cause why the convictions of, and sentences passed upon, the petitioners, under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, should not be set aside on the ground that there was no charge against them under that section, and that the common object charged for the riot did not specify the intention to cause hurt.2. It is admitted that the conviction cannot stand on the ground set out in the Rule; but we are asked to order a retrial. No doubt, it would have been our duty to order a re-trial, had it not been for the fact that the petitioners have undergone the sentence of 15 days' rigorous imprisonment, which was passed against them in modification by the lower Appellate Court. It appears, however, that at the time we issued the order for bail, on the 5th September 1910, the petitioners had only actually served seven days; and we cannot understand how it was that our order did not reach the District Mag...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Mohan Mandal and anr. Vs. Kali Kishore Bhuymali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-30-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.965a
1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Dacca to show cause why the convictions of, and sentences passed upon, the petitioners, under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, should not be set aside on the ground that there was no charge against them under that section and that the common object charged for the riot did not specify the intention to cause hurt.2. It is admitted that the conviction cannot stand on the ground set out in the rule but we are asked to order a re-trial. No doubt, it would have been our duty to order a re-trial had it not been for the fact that the petitioners have undergone the sentence of 15 days' rigorous imprisonment which was passed against them in modification by the lower Appellate Court.3. It appears, however, that at the time we issued the order for bail, on the 5th September 1910, the petitioners had only actually served 7 days; and we cannot understand how it was that our order did not reach the District Magistrate for 8 days. But beyond th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chaturbhuj Sahu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal96
Holmwood, J.1. I need only say that I entirely concur in the findings which my learned brother is about to deliver as the judgment of the Court, but I desire to dissociate myself from any reliance on American rulings which are of no authority in this country and in my opinion have no value, 'except in so far as they depend on the prior decisions of English Judges which are in themselves sufficient authority for the view we have taken. I may also point out that in the case of Queen-Empress v. Javecharam (1894) I.L.R. 19 Bom. 363 the Judges cited with approval the English cases upon which we have relied in this case; and, in my opinion, it would be very easy to distinguish that ruling from the present case on the facts, and it, therefore, would not be necessary to dissent from it, although I agree with my learned brother that it is opposed to the recent ruling in Rex v. Bichley (1909) 2 Cr. App. Rep. 53 : 73 J.P. 239.2. With regard to the order on a similar unreported reference in Chambe...
Tag this Judgment!Joy Chandra Sarkar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal214
D. Chatterjee, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a prosecution of the prisoner under Sections 124A and 153A of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal against that part of the conviction which was under Section 124A was filed in this Court, and the appeal regarding the conviction under Section 153A was filed in the Sessions Court. We have called up the appeal regarding the conviction under Section 153A from the Sessions Court for trial by this Court under Section 526, and heard both the appeals. Under Section 35(3), if a person is convicted of several offences at one trial, the aggregate sentences are to be deemed as one sentence for the purpose of appeal. As the prisoner was convicted under Section 124A and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under that section, and also under Section 153A and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under that section, the aggregate sentence of three years should be considered as one sentence for the purpose of appeal, and as Section 408, ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Prasad Lahiri Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal227
D. Chatterjee and Richardson, JJ.1. The prisoner was the declared printer of the 'Rangpur Bartabaha,' and he has been convicted of offences under Sections 124A and 158A of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the same articles Pratikar, Bijoya and Sipahir Katha, in respect of which the editor, Joy Chandra Sarkar, has been convicted. We have held in the appeal of Joy Chandra (1), that the article Bijoya is harmless, or at all evens not seditious, but that the articles Pratikar and Sipahir Katha are seditious in the sense of containing wholesale denunciations of the administration of Justice in India. The prisoner being the declared printer would be responsible for the said articles unless he can make out, on sufficient evidence, that he had in fact nothing to do with them. The Pratikar appeared on the 10th of September, 1909, and the Sipahir Katha on the 26th of November, 1909. The learned Magistrate finds on the evidence that he was absent from Rangpur on these days, and it is argued th...
Tag this Judgment!British India Steam Navigation Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal230
Mookerjee and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. These four Rules are directed against two orders of the same description made by the Land Acquisition Judge of the 24 - Parganahs in two references made to him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of two claimants, the British India Steam Navigation Company and the Garden Beach Spinning and Manufacturing Company. The properties in respect of which the references were made have been acquired by the Government for the Commissioners of the Port of Calcutta. The orders of the Land Acquisition Judge have been assailed before us on behalf of both the Secretary of State and the Claimants. To appreciate the true bearing of the questions raised, which are of considerable importance and not wholly free from difficulty, it is essential that we should state in brief outline the circumstances under which the orders in controversy were made by the Court below.2. After the references under Section 18 had been made by the Collector, two applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumari Debi Vs. Nritya Kali Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.892
ORDER7. In this case, the District Magistrate took cognizance as upon a com plaint, and forwarded the complaint to the Deputy Magistrate for enquiry and disposal. The District Magistrate was not bound to examine the complainant on oath, before transferring the complaint to the Deputy Magistrate, and did not do so. But we think that the Deputy Magistrate, before issuing the search warrant under Section 96 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, should have examined the complainant on oath and we are supported in this by the observations in Queen-Empress v. Mahant of Tirupati 13 M. 18. We must, therefore, discharge the search warrant and direct the return of the articles, if any seized....
Tag this Judgment!Mir Musar Ali Khondkar Vs. Guru Charan Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.917
1. The question of law-raised in this appeal, which has been preferred by the plaintiff in a suit to enforce a bond, is one of some novelty. There is no controversy as to the circumstances antecedent to this litigation. The plaintiff held a decree for money against the second defendant and in execution there of had him arrested. The judgment debtor expressed his intention to apply to be declared as an insolvent; consequently his brother, the first defendant, executed the security bond now sought to be enforced. Under the bond, he undertook that if the judgment debtor did not apply to be declared an insolvent within one month from the date there of that is the 9th February 1904, or if the said application for insolvency was rejected, he would produce the judgment-debtor when required by the Court. He further covenanted that if he failed to produce him, he would deposit in Court Rs 500 then due as the judgment-debt with Costs. As security, he hypothecated a corrugated iron shed with its ...
Tag this Judgment!Poran Ghosh and ors. Vs. Netai Sundar Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.813
1. In this case the plaintiffs-appellants sued for a declaration of their right to take water from a certain tank, the property of the defendants, for the purpose of irrigating a piece of land 9 cottas in area.2. In a previous suit between the same parties or their predecessors-in-interest, by a consent decree dated the 13th of March 1874, this right of the plaintiffs was established but it appears that at that period the plot in question was under mulberry, and the lower appellate Court has found that the plaintiffs last exercised their right 17 or 18 years ago, when they ceased to grow mulberry trees. In the interval apparently the land has been used either for the purpose of growing kolai, a crop which does not require irrigation or has remained fallow.3. The plaintiffs now seek to grow sugarcane and as the defendants averred that their right had been extinguished and denied that they had at any time a right to take water for the purpose of cultivating any crop other than mulberry, ...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Binoy Krishna Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.890
1. We are invited in this rule to consider, under Section 163 sub-section (3) of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1899, read with Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887, the legality of the decision of a Small Cause Court Judge in an appeal preferred under Sub-section (1.) of Section 162 against an order of the Chairman of the Corporation overruling an objection to valuation preferred by the present opposite party. The substantial question of law which requires consideration is whether a compound wall or a boundary wall is a 'building' within the meaning of Section 151 Clause (b) and is liable as such to assessment for Municipal rates. The Small Cause Court Judge in a careful and well-considered judgment has answered the question in the negative. In our opinion, the view taken by him is correct and his decision ought to be affirmed.2. Section 151 prescribes the mode of ascertainment of the annual value of lands and buildings. Buildings are divided into two classes; Claus...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »