Kolkata Court January 1912 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.
Atiar Rai Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal476
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Shahabad to show cause why the conviction of the petitioners should not be set aside on the ground that the lower Court inspected the place where the offence is said to have been committed and did not record a note of what he saw.2. Now, what happened in this case was this. The defence urged that the sides of the kote or mound on which the assault took place were unscaleable, and the space was not sufficient to hold so many persons. This being a point on which the Magistrate says he could satisfy himself, he visited the place on the 23rd of July, and found, as he puts it, that his trouble for the defence had been wasted; there was no question of the place being inaccessible, it was merely a slight slope on the south, and on the north it was practically on a level with the village, while as for the place of assault it was sufficient to hold twice the number of persons.3. The learned Judge in appeal, i...
Nalini Behari Roy Vs. Fulmani Dasi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.487
Stephen, J.1. This matter cornea before us on a second appeal and on a Rule. The appellant who is also the petitioner in the Rule is a landlord who is seeking to sell a tenant's holding in execution of a rent-decree. The respondent purchased the holding from an occupancy raiyat and seeks to defeat the landlord's right by depositing the decretal money in Court under Section 170(3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The appellant contests his right to do this on the ground that the holding is not transferable, as it has now been found it is not, and that the respondent has not, therefore, any interest in the holding voidable on the sale. Both the lower Courts have found in the respondent's favour, and have allowed the deposit to be made. The appellants now appeals from the decision in the lower Appellate Court, and in case it should be held that no appeal lies has also obtained a Rule calling on the respondent to show cause why the order accepting the deposit should not be set aside.2. Leaving a...
Annada Prosad Chakravarti and anr. Vs. Sham Sundar Adhikari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.688
Coxe, J.1. This was a suit for recovery of possession of certain land. It appears that, the plaintiff brought a suit, for rent against the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and that question was specifically put in issue and decided in the negative. The plaintiff then brought this suit which was decreed by the Munsif. On appeal, the learned District Judge held that the defendant was the plaintiff's tenant and that, the plaintiff, therefore, was entitled to succeed but was not entitled to get possession of the land but only to get rent.2. The plaintiff appeals to this Court; and the cases of Khater Mistri v. Sadruddi Khan 34 C. 922; Sheikh Miadhar v. Rajani Kunta Roy 14 C.W.N. 339 : 5 Ind. Cas. 708 and Ekabbar Sheikh v. Hara Bewah 15 C.W.N. 335 : 8 Ind. Cas. 660 : 13 C.L.J. 1 have been cited on his behalf. These oases appear to me to apply precisely to the facts of the present case and the plaintiff is entitled to succeed.3. On the other...
Alia Rai and ors. Vs. Jhingur Tewari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.844
1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Shahabad to show cause why the conviction of the petitioners should not be set aside on the ground that the lower Court inspected the place where the offence is said to have been committed and did not record a note of what he saw.2. Now, what happened in this case was this the defence urged that the sides of the kote or mound en which the assault took place are unscaleable and this space was not sufficient to hold so many persons. This being a point on which the Magistrate says he could satisfy himself, he visited the place on the 23d of July and found, as he puts it, that his trouble for the defence had been wasted; there was no question of the place being inaccessible, it was merely a slight slope on the south and on the north it was practically on a level with the village, while as for the place of assault it was sufficient to hold twice the number of persons.3. The learned Judge in appeal in dealing with this point briefly ...
Ramgopal Jhoonjhoonwalla Vs. Joharmall Khemka
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal473,15Ind.Cas.547
Fletcher, J.1. This is an application by the defendant to set aside the order passed by the Small Cause Court of Calcutta. The plaintiff sues in respect of certain items which on the plaint appeared to have been barred by limitation. But the plaintiff sets out in the plaint that his claim was not barred by limitation, as his cause of action had arisen in September 1909, and also because of the acknowledgment made by the defendant in his written statement in suit No. 6581 of 1909. It has been admitted for the purpose of this argument by Mr. Sircar, who shews cause on behalf of the plaintiff, that the decision on the question of limitation was wrong. I think, so far as one can gather from the records and papers, the Court did make a mistake; apparently the case was barred by limitation. That is not the point here. The point is, has the Court jurisdiction to interfere, under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, on the ground that the Small Cause Court acted in the exercise of it...
Bengal Nagpur Railway C. Ld. Vs. Ram Protap Ghaneswam Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.529
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This application arises out of a suit brought, against the Bengal-Nagpur Railway Company for the refund of wharfage charges alleged by the petitioner to have been illegally realized from him.2. A decree was passed againt the Railway Company in petitioner's favour.3. The Railway Company then obtained a Rule under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, questioning the validity of this decree, and it is with that application that we are now concerned.4. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the materials on the record, the only point that arises for decision is whether rules have been made, sanctioned and published as prescribed by Section 47 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, which entitled the Railway Company to make the wharfage charges claimed by them.5. Section 47 provides that every Railway Company...shall make general rules consistent with this Act.... (f) for regulating the terms and conditions on which the Railway Administr...
Janki Das and ors. Vs. the Bengal Nagpur Railway Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.509
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. On the 11th January 1907 the plaintiffs delivered to the defendant Company 290 bags of rice, weighing 580 maunds, for carriage from Raigarh to Shalimar. The goods have not been delivered, and the plaintiffs now claim either delivery of the goods or Rs. 2,280-10 by way of damages.2. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit and his decree was confirmed by the District Court. From this confirming decree the present appeal has been preferred.3. As the case comes before us by way of appeal from an appellate decree it is necessary to see what the facts are as found by the lower Appellate Court, for by its findings we are bound.4. It is common ground that of the 290 bags all but 2 reached Shalimar, and these two were lost.5. The plaintiff's case is that the 238 bags that arrived were partly empty and according to the District Judge, 'The only real complaint is that the Goods Clerk refused to re-weigh the goods and issue a short certificate.' And the learned Judge goes...
Baisnab Charan Majhi Vs. Gatinath Munshi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal469
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the order attaching a certain jalkar should not be set aside, on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to proceed, after all the members of the second party had been bound down under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the 9th December 1910, in a prior proceeding.2. The proceedings under Section 145 were taken on the 23rd February 1911, and the order complained of was passed on the 4th May 1911, and the Magistrate finding it impossible to determine who was in possession of the jalkar attached the property under Section 146. Now, it would be impossible for us to say that in no case can the fact that one party had been bound down to keep the peace under Section 107 leave the Magistrate any jurisdiction to act under Section. 145 when the circumstances so require, and we cannot see our way to making this Rule absolute without laying down such ...
Ambica Prasad Singh Vs. Gur Sahay Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal560
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This Rule was apparently issued on some apparent conflict between the rulings in the cases of Pasupati hath Bose v. Nando Lal Bose (1900) 5 C.W.N. 67 and Lalit Chandra Neogi v. Tarini Persad Gupta (1901) 5 C.W.N. 335 with the later decision in the case of Dalmir Puri v. Khodadad Khan (1909) I.L.R. 36 Calc. 923. All these cases we may say are in direct conflict with the early Madras Killing in In re Lindsay (1881) I.L.R. 4 Mad. 121. But that of course does not affect our decision in this Court. We are bound to follow the rulings of the Calcutta Court. Now, it so happens that this apparent conflict has been dealt with by us in a judgment which was passed in Criminal Revision No. 187 of 1911. Doivlat Koer v. Siva Pershad Pandit (1911) 10 Ind. Cas. 615 but which does not appear in any of the various reports, though we are told it is reported in 'Indian Cases.' We, therefore, hold that the ground upon which the order was set aside in Dalmir Puri v. Khodadad Kh...
JamiruddIn Mollah Vs. Aswini Kumar Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.34
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The two points urged before us are these, first, that the Court in assessing mesne profits should have made an apportionment such as was made in Ram Ratan Kapali v. Aswini Kumar Dutt 37 C. 559 : 6 Ind. Cas. 69 : 11 C.L.J. 503 : 14 C.W.N. 849. We are unable to apply the principle of that case because here no tenures have been proved, and the decree, by which the Court in execution is bound, is one which treats the defendants as trespassers pure and simple. Then it is urged that this order in execution could not be made by the Munsif, as the amount of mesne profits took the case out of his jurisdiction. It is not suggested that the Munsif had no jurisdiction, if regard be had to the value of the suit at the time of its in stitution: that is to say, if regard be had to the value of the property in suit and of the mesne profits that had then accrued due, but it is said that subsequent mesne profits have so swelled the value of the suit that the Munsif had no jurisd...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »