Kolkata Court December 1912 Judgments
Kailash Chandra Nag Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal452
Stephen and D. Chatterjee, JJ.1. The facts of this case, so far as they are material to the decision of the questions before us in second appeal, are as follows:2. In August, 1907, the Government of Eastern Bengal and Assam, acting under Section 15 of the Police Act 1801 (as amended by the Amendment Act of 1895), declared that from the conduct of the inhabitants of certain parts of the district of Mymensingh it was expedient to increase the number of police in those places. Their number was accordingly increased, and under Section 15(4) it became the duty of the District Magistrate to apportion the costs among the inhabitants of the places in question: but the apportionment was, as is admitted by the respondent, made by a Deputy Magistrate. The present appellants appealed to the District Magistrate to alter the apportionment, and he dismissed the appeal, but it is impossible to hold that this amounted to the making of an apportionment by him, under the rather stringent terms of the Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra Nag Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.112
1. The facts of this case, so far as they are material to the decision of the questions before us in second appeal, are as follows:2. In August 1907, the Government of Eastern Bangal and Assam, acting under Section 15 of Police Act, 1861,(as amended by the Amendment Act of 1895) declared that from the conduct of the inhabitants of certain parts of the District of Mymensingh, it was expedient to increase the number of Police in those places. Their number was accordingly increased and under Section 15(4), it becomes the duty of the District Magistrate to apportion the cost among the inhabitants of the places in question, bat the apportionment was, as it is admitted by the respondent, made by a Deputy Magistrate. The present appellants appealed to the District Magistrate to alter the apportionment and he dismissed the appeal, but it is impossible to hold that this amounted to the making of an apportionment by him under the rather stringent terms of the sub-section in question. After the d...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadananda Asram Vs. Rajendra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.129
1. This is an application for leave to prosecute an appeal to His Majesty in Council in forma paupuris and exonerate the appellant from depositing the respondents' costs and paying Council office fees.2. Leave to appeal has already been given, that is to say, a certificate has been granted under the Code of Civil Procedure. The question then arises what powers have we to accede to this prayer. Our powers are defined by the Code and in particular by the group of sections which begin with Section 109 and by Order XLV.3. Leave to appeal in this case was obtained without any mention of pauperism and it was given as, of course, because the subject-matter in dispute was over Rs. 10,000 and the decree appealed from did not affirm the decision of the Court immediately below. There was no investigation into the merits of the appeal, nor was there any certificate of Counsel that the petitioner had reasonable grounds for appeal. The certificate being granted under Rule 7, Order XLV of the Code, i...
Tag this Judgment!Makund Singh and ors. Vs. Saraswati Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1912
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.98
1. This appeal is directed against an order in a proceeding for assessment of mesne profits. The appellants, who were plaintiffs in the original suit, obtained a decree in the primary Court, on the 30th June 1902, for recovery of possession and mesne profits. This decree was affirmed by this Court on the 14th June 1905, The decree directed that if possession was delivered by the defendants to the plaintiffs within one month from the date thereof, the defendants would not be held liable for mesne profits; but if possession was not so delivered, the defendants would be liable for mesne profits for the period antecedent to and during the pendency of the suit. The decree also contained a direction that in the event of ascertainment of mesne profits, the shares of the parties would be first determined and possession would be delivered according to the shares so calculated. The case for the appellants is that possession was not amicably delivered, and on the 13th December 1905 they applied f...
Tag this Judgment!Sir William Dring, Kt., Agent, East India Ry. Co. Vs. Shiv Prosad Bhak ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.216
1. These are three Rules issued at the instance of the East India Railway Company, defendants in three Small Cause Court suits, calling on the plaintiffs to show cause why the decrees passed in their favour should not be set aside and the suits dismissed. The facts are as follows. The plaintiffs despatched consignments, each of several tins of ghee, for carriage by the defendant Company's railway upon the special terms as to rates and liability contained in the risk note, Form B. The risk note was duly signed by or on behalf of the plaintiffs, and it is conceded that it is in the form sanctioned by the Governor-General in Council as required by Section 72(2)(b) of the Railways Act, 1890. On arrival at their destination, it was found that some of the tins had been cut open and there was a shortage in their contents. For compensation for these shortages, the three suits were brought, and the Small Cause Court has granted the plaintiffs decrees holding that the defendant Company are liabl...
Tag this Judgment!Tarini Kanta Majumdar Vs. Ishur Chandra Chakravarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.240
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for khas possession brought by the plaintiff on the footing that the land in dispute fell into the plaintiff's share on partition against the different defendants. The defendants admitted the partition but they say as they were no parties to it and as the partition was between the co-sharer proprietors, they the defendants, who hold sikmi taluks under another co-sharer cannot be ejected by the plaintiff unless and until he establishes affirmatively that the lands in dispute do not appertain to their sikmi taluks, which really involves the assertion that the plaintiff cannot obtain any portion of the land which was allotted to them by partition if any body chooses to say that it belongs to the sikmi taluks. But the contention in this appeal is that the onus has been wrongly thrown upon the defendants of showing that these lands really appertain to their sikmi taluks.2. Now we do not think that this question of onus arises at all The sikmi ...
Tag this Judgment!Tinoodhan Chatterjee, Minor by His Guardian, Khetra N. Chatterjee Vs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.177
1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal arises are as follows: The property in suit belonged to two brothers, Rajendra and Kedar. The latter, without any authority from Rajendra, mortgaged the entire property to the defendant. A suit was brought by the defendant on the mortgage on the 11th January 1904 against the heirs of Kedar (Kedar having died in the meantime), which was decreed on compromise. In execution of the decree, the property mortgaged was sold on the 6th October 1904 and the sale was confirmed on the 11th November 1904. In the meantime, the rights of Kedar and his brother Rajendra in the property were sold in execution of a decree which was in effect a money decree on the 16th June 1904 and were purchased by the pro forma defendant, Upendra Ganguly, who sold the same to the plaintiff in December 1907. The plaintiff brought this suit for declaration of his right to, and recovery of, possession of the 8-annas share which belonged to Rajendra, and for redemption of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kari Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal433
Sharfuddin and Coxe, JJ.1. The accused in this case has been convicted of defaming one, Mr. Macpherson. It appears that in a former case lie applied to the District Magistrate for a transfer, and in that application he stated that Mr. Macpherson had brought to Court the manager of the Majhoul Factory, who was the trying Magistrate's tenant, and had had a private talk with the trying Magistrate. He inferred that this was done to put pressure on the trying Magistrate, and to induce him to convict the petitioner.2. It appears that this was all pure invention. The manager of the Majhoul Factory was not brought to Court at all, and Mr. Macpherson had no private talk with the trying Magistrate. The assertion clearly amounted to an accusation against Mr. Macpherson that he had attempted to corrupt justice, and it cannot be gainsaid that it was defamatory, and made in bad faith.3. The petitioner has obtained a rule on the Magistrate to show cause why the conviction should not be set aside, on ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhim Lal Sah Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal444
Sharfuddin and Coxe, JJ.1. The petitioner, Bhim Lal Sah, on the 2nd January, 1912, complained against Atraj Singh and others of halving committed certain offences. On this the following order was passed: 'Complainant to prove his case on 18th January, 1912. Accused may cross-examine.' No local investigation was ordered. No reasons were recorded for distrusting the complaint. Indeed, it is difficult to see what reasons there could be. The order was absolutely illegal, and, considering how opposed it is to the plain words of the Code, and how frequently orders of this kind have been condemned, it is very difficult to understand how the Magistrate who passed it could have, believed that he was doing what he was entitled to do. The case dragged on till near the end of February, when the complaint was dismissed. The prosecution of Bhim Lal was then ordered under Section 211. The case then seems to have come before this Court, and this Court held that the accused persons should be properly t...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Doyal Samonta Vs. Upendra Nath Samonta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.298
1. These two Rules have been obtained by the plaintiff in two cases under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff brought two suits to recover lands from which he said he had been dispossessed on different dates in Chaitra 1318. The Munsif granted him a decree in one suit for possession of 5 bighas of which the plaintiff had been in possession for some years but refused a decree with regard to the rest of the lands on the ground that the plaintiff had only been let into possession of those lands during the year 1318; and as he was evicted just before the close of that year, he must be regarded as a tenant of those lands for one year only, that is, a ticca tenant or a tenant-at-will. It may be remarked in passing that this inference of the Munsif was hardly justifiable. But the question in this case is whether we should interfere in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is argued by the opposite party that there has been no refusal in these cases by t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »