Kolkata Court June 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.
Amodini Dasee Vs. Darsan Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal828
Caspersz and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. When this Rule was heard on the 16th June last, we delivered judgment discharging the same, but on the same day, the case of Mir Ahwad Hossein v. Mahomed Askari (1902) I.L.R. 29 Calc. 726 was brought to our notice, and it subsequently appeared that we were under a misapprehension on the facts of the case. As we had not signed our judgment, we thought it proper to hear both the learned vakils again to-day.2. It has been contended by the learned vakil for the opposite party that we cannot, having once delivered our judgment, review the same. We entertain no doubt that it is competent to us to do so. The terms of Section 369 of the Criminal Procedure Code are general, and we have not signed our judgment. The,, same view may reasonably be inferred from the case of In the matter of the petition of Gibbons (1886) I.L.R. 14 Calc. 42 and a very extreme case is that of Queen-Empress v. Lalit Tiwari (1899) I.L.R. 21 All. 177, where it was held that a judgment or or...
Golap Jan Vs. Bholanath Khettry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal880
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal is described by the plaintiff as one for malicious prosecution or failing that as a suit disclosing injury and damage to him and so entitling him to relief.2. The suit came in the first instance before Pugh J., who gave the parties an opportunity of placing their evidence before the Court, but both sides agreed that it would not be convenient to call evidence until it was determined whether the plaint, supplemented by certain facts as to which the parties were agreed, disclosed a cause of action. To this the learned Judge assented and in the result he has dismissed the suit. From this judgment the present appeal has been preferred.3. So far as the suit purports to be one for malicious prosecution the material facts on which our decision is invited, are briefly these. On the 29th of March 1909, the defendant Bholanath Khettry laid a complaint in the Calcutta Police Court against the plaintiff for criminal breach of...
Amodini Dasee Vs. Darson Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.776
1. When this Rule was heard on the 16th June last, we delivered judgment discharging the same, but on the Game day, the case of Mir Ahwad Hossein v. Mahommad Askari 29 C. 726 (F.B.) was brought to our notice, and it subsequently appeared that we were under a misapprehension on the facts of the case. As we had not signed our judgment, we thought it proper to hear both the learned Vakils again to-day.2. It has been contended by the learned Vakil for the opposite party that we cannot, having once delivered our judgment, review the same. We entertain no doubt that it is competent to us to do so. The terms of Section 369 of the Criminal Procedure Code are general, and we have not signed our judgment. The same view may reasonably be inferred from the case of In the matter of the petition of Gibbons 14 C. 42 and a very extreme case is that of Queen-Empress v. Lalit Tewari 21 A. 177 of the High Court is not complete until it sealed in accordance with the rules of the Court, and up to that time...
Peary Lall Daw Vs. Banamali Dey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1911
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.862
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of. Mr. Justice Stephen under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. An application was made to the learned Judge for a Rule, calling on the opposite party to show cause why an order of the Small Cause Court should not be set aside. The learned Judge refused to grant the Rule. It is from that order of refusal that the present appeal is preferred.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies. Certainly it does not lie under the Code. The only question is whether it lies under the Letters Patent. But in order that it may lie under the Letters Patent there must be a judgment.' In my opinion, the order of which complaint is made cannot be regarded as a 'judgment.' Therefore, I think the preliminary objection must prevail and this appeal must be dismissed with costs.Woodroffe, J.3. I agree....
Bal Kishan Lal Vs. Topeswar Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.845
1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has given rise to this appeal is immoveable property claimed by the plaintiff-appellant as a member of a joint Mitakshara familu. According to the plaintiff, at the time of the institution of the suit, the family consisted of his father, Lachmi Pershad, who is the fourteenth defendant in the suit, one Rajendra Pershad (the fifteenth defendant) and the plaintiff himself. Before the birth of the plaintiff, who is still an infant, his father, as head of the family, executed a mortgage of the disputed properties in favour of the first thirteen defendants. The mortgagees sued to enforce the security and joined the plaintiff as one of the defendants. As the plaintiff was an infant, the mortgagees proposed that the father, who was himself a defendant in his capacity as mortgagor, should be appointed guardian ad litem. The usual notices were issued, but the father of the plaintiff refused to accept service. He subsequently entered appearance on his...
Hewa Mal Vs. Karunamoy Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.542
1. This is as appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to immoveable property and confirmation of possession thereof. The property admittedly belonged to a person by name Dhanukdhari Singh. The case for the plaintiff is that in execution of a money-decree which he held against the admitted owner, he purchased the property On the 19th February 1906, that the defendant in execution of another decree against the same judgment-debtor purchased the property on the 20th January 1907, and that under these circumstances, the defendant has acquired no title to the property and is consequently not entitled to interfere with his possession. The defendant resisted the claim substantially on two grounds, namely, first that the decree which was the foundation of the title of the plaintiff was fraudulent and collusive, and, secondly, that the execution sale was inoperative to pass any title to the plaintiff, because it was (irregular and had been held by a Court which had ...
Abdul Ali Fakir and anr. Vs. Netali Fakir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1911
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.350
1. The substantial question in this Rule is whether on the facts found the offence of theft was committed.2. The facts are that the petitioners out down a large number of valuable fruit trees-mango, jack, areca--on the land of one Jamir who, it is said by the defence, had conveyed his right to the petitioners. In Jamir's kabuliyat there is a clause to the effect that if he out any trees he would pay to the landlord compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 per tree. It has been found that the petitioners, knowing this clause perfectly well, mala fide cut the trees in order to injure the landlord.3. There can be no question that cutting down a large number of valuable fruit trees is a wanton act and the question in the present case is whether it amounts to theft.4. Now it is clear from Explanation 1 to Section 378, Indian Penal Code, that as soon as a tree is severed in order to the taking thereof, theft is committed; and it has been found that the petitioners severed these trees and removed s...
Sukheswar Phukan Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal789
Caspersz and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. The petitioners have been convicted under Section 225B of the Indian Penal Code for resisting the execution of a certain warrant for the arrest of a witness, named Musammat Mahi, whose attendance was desired in the case, No. 610 of 1910. We granted this rule on the ground that the action of the Court issuing the warrant of arrest was illegal, and vitiated the subsequent proceedings including the conviction of the petitioners for resisting an invalid process. The warrant was issued under Section 90 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides that the Court must record its reasons in writing before adopting that extreme measure. It appears from the order sheet of the case, No. 610 of 1910, that no summons was issued on Musammat Mahi. Warrant was ordered in the first instance. That procedure appears to have been illegal inasmuch as, on the face of the order sheet, no reasons were recorded by the Court issuing the warrant. Nor has the Magistrate submitted a...
Kangali Sardar Vs. Bama Charan Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal786
Caspersz and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This Rule is directed against an order of acquittal by the District Magistrate of Burdwan sitting as an Appellate Court.2. A preliminary objection Las been raised by the learned Counsel showing cause that we ought not to interfere in revision with such an order, and he has cited the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That sub-section runs as follows : 'Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceedings by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.' The contention is that, as Government alone could have appealed against the order of the District Magistrate, we ought not to interfere in revision. But this argument overlooks the words 'at the instance of the party who could have appealed.' We are not here dealing with an application for revision at the instance of Government. The petitioner is the complainant, and we entertain no doubt that we...
Abhoy Charan Jalia Vs. Dwarka Nath Mahto
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal53
Coxe and Teunon, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was framed as one for the recovery of possession of a certain portion of the river Daratana on establishment of plaintiff's right to fish therein.2. A Civil Court amin was deputed to locate the site of plaintiff's alleged fishery and the tract of river. in dispute, and it was thereupon found that what plaintiff claimed was (i) the exclusive right to fish for shrimps or prawns by means of a stake-net placed across the river and fastened to posts fixed at stations 1 and 13 on the map prepared by the amin, and (ii) the right to prevent the defendants and others from placing any similar stake-net across the river at any point between his net and stations 17 and 18, some 600 yards to the north, and stations 3 and 8, a similar distance to the south.2. As it appeared that shrimps are caught only at ebbtide, when the current is from north to south, the plaintiff-respondent's claim in respect of the portion, of the river lying to t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »