Kolkata Court January 1911 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.
Khetra Nath Ghatack Vs. Paru Beuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.478
Woodroffe, J.1. This is a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. It is objected by the petitioner (the defendant No. 14) that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try it; and in support of this argument reference is made to the provisions of Section 139, Clause (5) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act (VI of 1908, B.C.). That clause says: -'All applications to recover the occupancy or possession of any land, from which a tenant has been unlawfully ejected by the landlord or any person claiming under or through the landlord * * * shall be cognizable by the Deputy Commissioner, and shall be instituted and tried or heard under the provisions of this Act, and shall not be cognizable in any other Court, except as otherwise provided by this Act'. It may be a question, in the face of the pleadings, whether this is a suit to recover possession of land from which a tenant has been unlawfully ejected by the landlord. Although the second ground of motion alleges that the lower Court acted ...
Kanta Neya and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.455
1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of the 24-Per gaunahs to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, should not be set aside; or why such further order passed as to this Court may seem fit on the grounds that the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to record a conviction under Section 323 and that it appears that the conviction under Section 147 was not legal and, in any case, that the sentence is too severe and should be commuted to one of fine.2. The Magistrate, in furnishing us with an explanation, appears to have entirely misunderstood the law. It cannot be said that any minor offence is included in Section 147. The use of criminal force is a necessary ingredient in that offence; but any particular kind of voluntary use of such criminal force may, and should be separately charged, either substantively against the individuals who committed the offence, or for the purpose of using Section 149 against all the rioters, i...
Parma Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.586
1. A reference was made to us by the learned Sessions Judge of Arrah recommending that the convictions and sentences in two cases separately tried should be set aside and a re-trial ordered on the ground that the cases were not properly triable summarily because they were under Section 144, Indian Penal Code.2. Now, the first error that we have to point out to the learned Judge is that two separate references ought to have been made to us, so that we might deal with the cases separately, but in addition to the reference he has made, both sides have moved us in Revision on the ground that there was no occurrence of any criminal nature at all.3. The second point that we wish to draw attention to, is that a lathi is not in itself a deadly weapon. It performs precisely the same function in ordinary life in this country as a walking stick does in other countries; it is, universally used by every body in the moffussil and it certainly cannot be regarded as in any way a deadly weapon unless a...
Baikanta Nath Goswami Vs. Sita Nath Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal421
Chitty, J.1. These two appeals and application for revision may be conveniently disposed of in one judgment.2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif at Natore for declaration of their title to and recovery of possession of certain lands. The parties are related to one another and it was in truth a family dispute.3. After the hearing in the Munsif's Court had commenced and some evidence had been recorded, the parties agreed (and signified their agreement in a petition to the Court) to leave the questions in dispute between them to the determination of the Munsif, after he had inspected the locality.4. The petition which was presented on 27th April, 1906, stated: 'In this suit we shall not raise any objection nor shall we be competent to raise any objection to the decision that your Honour may arrive at upon an inspection of the locality; that we stall be bound by the decision of your Honour and neither of us shall be competent to value any objection to the same or ...
Sita Nath Goswami and anr. Vs. Baikuntha Nath Goswami and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.296
Chitty, J.1. These two appeals and application for revision may be conveniently disposed of in one judgment.2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif at Natore for declaration of their title to and recovery of possession of certain lands. The parties are related to one another and it was in truth a family dispute.3. After the hearing in the Munsif's Court had commenced and some evidence had been recorded, the parties agreed (and signified their agreement in a petition to the Court) to leave the questions in dispute between them to the determination of the Munsif after toe had inspected the locality.4. The petition which was presented on 27th April 1906 stated: 'in this suit we shall not raise any objection nor shall we be competent to raise any objection to the decision that your Honour may arrive at upon an inspection of the locality; that we shall be bound by the decision of your Honour and neither of us shall be competent to raise any objection to the same as to...
Abdul Razak Vs. BasiruddIn Ahmed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.980
1. This appeal is directed against an order by which an application under the Provincial Insolvency Act has been dismissed. The learned District Judge has refused the application on two grounds, namely, first, that the petitioner is not shown to have ordinarily resided or carried on business within the jurisdiction of the Court as required by Section 6, Sub-section (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act; and secondly, that he has committed acts of bad faith. In our opinion, neither of these grounds can be sustained, and the order of the Court below must be set aside.2. In so far as the tint ground, upon which the learned District Judge has based his decision, is concerned, it is clear upon the evidence that although the petitioner originally resided at Delhi, towards the end of 1905, he came to the suburbs of Calcutta; he established a factory there, resided up to 1908, and carried on business which was closed on account of financial difficulties about that time. He admits that during th...
Abdul Karim and anr. Vs. Fayez Buksh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.224
Chitty, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of No a khali remanding a case to the Court of first in stance to pass final orders. The learned Judge in remanding the case has set aside the decree of the Court of first instance, and against that order of remand the defendants have preferred this appeal.2. The Suit was brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration of their title to and khas possession of, certain lands as appertaining to howla Muchi Asrap Asab-ud-din.3. The Court of first instance framed six issues in the case, and the Munsif expressed his opinion on all the issues other than the fifth, namely, 'can the plaintiffs get khas possession of the disputed land.'4. It is objected before us that the Munsif's decision was not one upon a preliminary point within the meaning of Order XLI, Rule 23 and that the order of remand is bad for that reason.5. I think that this contention is sound. The new Code of Civil Procedure does not contain the express lim...
Raj Kumar Sen Vs. Annoda Charan Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.246
1. The case out of which this appeal arises was a suit; brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for rent under the Bengal Tenancy Act. That suit came on for hearing before the Munsif, and the defendant summoned the plaintiff to appear as his witness. The plaintiff was examined as the defendant's witness and the Munsif allowed him Rs. 36 as his expenses in the matter of giving his evidence in that case. The plaintiff executed that order at once and realized that amount.2. The Munsif decreed the plaintiff's claim with costs. The Rs. 36 did not form any part of the substantive decree, both because it had been already paid, and because it was part of the defendant's costs, but it was scheduled as an item in the defendant's costs.3. In the appeal before the Subordinate Judge, the defendant took exception both to the decree for rent and to this order for compensation as it has been called. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the defendant's appeal in the rent suit, but passed an order tha...
Surendra Nath Dutt Vs. Kumar Manmotha Nath Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.382
1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the objections of the judgment-debtor to the execution of a mortgage decree have been overruled without any investigation. The decree was made so far back as the 20th January 1904. The execution with which we are concerned was applied for on the 5th June 1907 by the assignee of the decree. The decree-holder claimed to realise Rs. 1,50,956 and he annexed to his application for execution a schedule in which the accounts had been set out showing how this amount was arrived at. The judgment-debtor thereupon preferred objections to the execution and contended that a sum of only Rs. 90,922 was payable by him. At a later stage of the proceedings the money claimed by the decree-holder was brought into Court and satisfaction was entered on the decree. But it is obvious on the face of the proceedings that the judgment-debtor did not abandon his objection to the application for execution. The learned Subordinate Judge appears to have held that ...
Thornton Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal415
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This was a rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show, cause why the conviction and sentence passed upon the petitioner, Mr. E. Thornton, should not be set aside on the ground that his statement was not recorded, and there is no finding that he was not in the car and there is a clear finding in a subsequent case that he was not in the car.2. As regards the first point we think it is to be regretted, considering that this is a case of first impression as to the interpretation of a rule which is not altogether free from difficulties, that a fuller record of the evidence and the plea of the petitioner was not made. It is now clear from the explanation of the Chief Presidency Magistrate that Mr. Thornton did not seek to impeach Mr. Watson's evidence, and in the absence of the chauffeur merely denied all knowledge of the offence. The only question, therefore, to be considered is the responsibility of the owner under the bye-law 4 read with Rule ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »