Kolkata Court September 1911 Judgments
Mahammad Mehdi Hassan Khan Vs. Sheoshankar Pershad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal353
Mookerjee, J.1. This is a reference under Section 98, Sub-section (2) of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. The reference is not strictly in form, because the learned Judges have omitted to state specifically the point of law upon which they differed. The difference between Section 575 of the Code of 1882 and Section 98 of the Code of 1908 appears to have been overlooked. Under the former Code, it was the appeal that was referred to a third Judge when the Judges bearing the appeal differed in opinion on a point of law, and on such reference the whole appeal was open for argument and not merely the point of law on which the Judges had differed in opinion. Under the Code of 1908, the proper procedure is to state the point of law upon which the Judges differ; the appeal is then to be heard upon that point only, and what is to be decided is not the appeal but the point of law only. In the case before me, this procedure has not been followed; but the parties are agreed that there is only one...
Tag this Judgment!Mehi Singh Vs. Mangal Khandu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal157
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J., Woodroffe, Mookerjee, Carnduff and D. Chatterjee, JJ.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether an Appellate Court can order compensation such as is contemplated by Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.2. Section 250, being confined by its terms to the Courts of Magistrates trying cases in the first instance, does not confer the requisite power. But it is suggested that Clause (d) of Section 423(1) does.3. Section 423(1), which defines the powers of an Appellate Court in disposing of an appeal, begins by setting forth those powers in precise terms, and concludes with Clause (d), which enables it to ' make any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper.'4. Now, in a Criminal Court, this phrase cannot be construed so liberally as to embrace any and every ancillary order which is capable of being described as 'consequential or incidental.' Otherwise an Appellate Court, affirming, for instance, a conviction of...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Abbas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal150
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J., Woodroffe, Mookerjee, Carnduff and D. Chatterjee, JJ.1. There is in our opinion no conflict between Sections 107 and 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, so that the fact that there is a dispute concerning land, likely to cause a breach of the peace, does not deprive a Magistrate of jurisdiction under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, where he is informed that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity, or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity.2. Whether, after proceeding under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it will be proper for a Magistrate to act under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, must depend on the circumstances of each case as it arises. It may be that after an order under Section 107 no likelihood of a breach of the peace would continue.3. The competence of the Magistrate to proceed under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumari Debi Vs. Barkatulla Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal278
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J., Woodroffe, Mookerjee, Carnduff and D. Chatterjee, JJ.1. The decision of the question referred in this case depends upon the proper construction of Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Chapter VII of the Act, which deals with the under-raiyats, consists of two sections. Section 48, speaking of the limit of rent recoverable from under-raiyats, divides rent into two classes: rent payable under a registered lease or agreement, and rent payable in any other case, thus comprising all classes of under-raiyats. Section 49, dealing with the ejectment of under-raiyats, divides them into two classes: Clause (a) speaks of those who hold under a written lease, and Clause (b) speaks of those who hold otherwise than under a written lease. The term 'written lease' in Clause (a) is necessarily restricted by the word 'term' used before to written leases which arc for a term or period of duration mentioned in the lease. The word 'term' is not repeated in Clause (b), ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Karim Abu Ahmed Khan Vs. Abdus Sobhan Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal146
Woodroffe and Teunon, JJ.1. This Rule must, I think, be made absolute, because the notification of the 4th July 1911 was not such a notification as was contemplated by Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was a notification directed to a particular Judge and purported to deal with a particular litigation; and that litigation was, at the date of the notification, already pending in the Court of the District Judge. It follows that the Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh was not competent to try or dispose of the suit; and the District Judge had no power to transfer the suit to a Court which was not then competent to dispose of it. In, however, making the Rule absolute we desire to make it clear, in order to avoid any possible objection in future, that the District Judge has, notwithstanding anything that has hitherto been done, power to try this suit. The result of our holding that the Subordinate Judge was not competent to try the suit is that the District Judge effected nothing by...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunandan Ramanuja Das Vs. Bibhuti Bhushan Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal304
D. Chatterjee and Teunon, JJ.1. This appeal arises oat of a suit for rent brought by the sole surviving member of a Committee, appointed under Section 7 of the Religions Endowments Act (XX of 1863). The Committee originally consisted of three persons as required by the section, but the two other members being dead and their successors not having been appointed at the time, the suit was brought as stated above by the sole survivor. Successors to the deceased members were appointed pending the suit, but the learned Deputy Collector refused to add them as parties and the plain till chose to carry on the suit alone. The plea of the incompetency of the suit was overruled by the first Court, and was not argued in appeal before the District Judge. It has, however, been strenuously urged before us that as a point of law going to the root of the jurisdiction, we are bound to entertain the plea and we have allowed the point to be discussed. Section 7 provides that a Committee of three or more pe...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Mohan Ghosh Vs. Gopali Chuck Coal Company Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal284
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J., Woodlroof, Mookerjee, Carnduff and D. Chatterjee, JJ.1. The questions referred, for decision to the Full Bench have been framed as follows:(i) Has the case of Durga Prasad Singh v. Rajendra Narain Bagchi (1909) I.L.R. 37 Calc. 293 been correctly decided in so far as it determines that a document, though not amounting to a lease, requires registration if it be an agreement for reduction of rent under a previously existing registered lease?(ii) Does a document which is not a lease, but which varies the amount of rent to be paid under an existing registered lease is also the incidents of such payments, namely, the date of payment and consequences of default of payment, require registration?2. It is necessary to premise at the outset that the original lease in the case before the Court, dated the 25th July, 1890, and varied by a registered deed, dated the 22nd December, 1903, was compulsorily registrable under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act...
Tag this Judgment!Kartick Chandra Ghose Vs. Ashutosh Dhara
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal298
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J., Woodroffe, Mookerjee, Carnduff and D. Chatterjee, JJ.1. The question referred for decision to the Full Bench has been formulated in the following terms:If A, in execution of a decree for money against B personally, attaches and proceeds to sell properties of which B alleges that he is in possession, not in his own right, but as shebait of a deity to whom the properties have been dedicated, does the question raised fall within the scope of Section 244 or 278 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882?2. In order that a question may be determined under Section 244, it must arise between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed. The question sought to be raised is not of this description, because while B is a party to the suit in his personal capacity, the claim is advanced by him in his capacity of shebait of a deity who is not a party to the suit.3. In the opinion of the Full Bench, therefore, the question raised does not fall within the scope...
Tag this Judgment!East Indian Railway Company Vs. Sispal Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal311
Mookerjee, J.1. This Rule raises an important question of law about the liability of a Railway Company to pay compensation for loss of goods or damage caused to them, while in their custody, though the claim is not put forward by the consignee till after he has taken delivery and granted 'a clear receipt.' The circumstances, under which the question requires consideration, may be briefly narrated as found by the Small Cause Court Judge. On the 7th October, 1910, the opposite party tendered to the East Indian Railway Company at Delhi four bales of cloth for despatch to Buxar. The goods arrived at Buxar on the 14th October; the consignee took delivery of the bales which were apparently in good condition, and granted a simple receipt. On the 5th December, 1910, another bale was delivered to the Company at Delhi for carriage to Buxar, and duly carried there in apparent good condition. The consignee took delivery on the 14th December, and granted receipt as before. He subsequently reported ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Karim Abu Ahmed Khan Ghaznavi and anr. Vs. Abdus Sobhan Choudhur ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.243
Woodroffe, J.1. This Rule mast, I think, be made absolute, because the notification of the 12th July 1911 was not such a notification as was contemplated by Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was a notification directed to a particular Judge and purported to deal with a particular litigation, and that litigation was, at the date of the notification, already pending in the Court of the District Judge. It follows that the Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh was not competent to try or dispose of the suit and the District Judge had no power to transfer the suit to a Court which was not then competent to dispose of it. In, however, making this Rule absolute I desire to make it clear, in order to avoid any possible objection in future, that the District Judge has, notwithstanding anything that has hitherto been' done, power to try this suit. The result of our holding that the Subordinate Judge was not competent to try the suit is that the District Judge effected nothing by his order ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »