Kolkata Court December 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.
Bhim Lal Shah Vs. Bisa Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.345
1. The petitioner, Bhim Lal Shah, on the 2nd January 1912, complained against Atraj Singh and others of having 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 complainant. 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 under, stand how the Magistrate who passed it can 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 tried and that until they had be...
Umesh Chandra Haldar Vs. Umesh Chandra Bag and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.46
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage, dated the 20th Ashar 1266, by one Nobin Bag, the predecessor of defendants Nos. 5 and 6 in favour of defendant No. 1 for Rs. 75. The plaintiff is the purchaser of the same land from the heirs of Nobin Bag and his purchase was a registered purchase, dated 14th Ashar 1316, corresponding to 20th June 1909, for Rs. 600, keeping Rs. 75 in hand for payment of the mortgage. The defence was that on the 7 th Chaitra 1283 corresponding to the 19th March 1877, Nobin Bag had sold the equity of redemption to defendant No. 1 for Rs. 130 and, therefore, there was nothing to redeem.2. The first Court held that the alleged sale to defendant No. 1 was not proved. The lower Appellate Court held that the sale is genuine though it was made by an unregistered document and that being before the Transfer of Property Act was enacted, it would not be compulsorily registrable. He also disagrees with the Munsif...
Shambhu Mahto and ors. Vs. the Midnapur Zemindari Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.90
1. This appeal is preferred by four minor plaintiffs whose suit to set aside an ex parte decree and a consequent sale of their property in execution has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Midnapur, confirming the decree of the Munsif. On 23rd December 1904, the Midnapur Zemindari Company Ltd., (defendant No. 1 in this case) obtained an ex parte decree for Rs. 5-14 as. 18 gandas rent alleged to be due from the defendants. The defendants were the first three plaintiffs in the present suit and their co-sharers Sridhar Mahato, Hari Charan Mahato and Arun Mahato. The first three plaintiffs are sons of Nemai Mahato, a brother of Sridhar, and Sridhar was the guardian ad litem proposed by the plaintiff Company. No order appears to have been made appointing him guardian nor was his consent ever obtained to such appointment. On 12th December 1904, the defendants were absent and the case was on the plaintiff Company's petition adjourned to 23rd December for ex parte trial, when the decree...
Emperor Vs. Jiban Kristo Bagchi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal318
Carnduff, J.1. The accused has been arraigned on three charges, and, on his behalf, Mr. Ghose, citing Kasi Viswanathan v. Emperor (1) (1907) I.L.R. 30 Mad. 328. has objected to the joinder. The objection must, I. think, prevail.2. The first charge is that, on the 1st November, 1910, the accused committed criminal breach of trust, punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, in respect of a sum of Rs. 500 entrusted to him by his employer.3. The second is that he, on the same day, falsified his employer's cash-book by making an incorrect entry regarding the said Rs. 500, so as to cloak the breach of trust referred to in the first charge, and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code as amended by Section 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1895.3. The third charge is that, on the 9th February, 1911, he again falsified his employer's cash-book by showing the total on the credit side as less by Rs. 500 than he ought to have shown it, and so...
Cheodditti Vs. Tulsi Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal428
Chitty and Teunon, JJ.1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for rent in which the plaintiff also claimed enhancement on account of an alleged rise in the price of staple food crops, under Section 30 (6) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff obtained a decree for the arrears of rent, but his claim to enhancement was rejected by both Courts on the ground that he had previously preferred an application for the same relief under Section 105, it is admitted that an application under Section 105 was preferred in 1906. The plaintiff did not, or could not, proceed with it, and accordingly applied for leave to withdraw it. This was allowed, but no leave was reserved to him to prefer a fresh application. He appealed on this point, and his appeal was dismissed on 3rd April, 1907. On 7th January he filed the present suit. In our opinion, an application under Section 105 cannot be regarded as a suit. The cases of Upadhya Thakur v. Persidh Singh (1896) I.L.R. 23 Calc. 723 and Janar...
Maheshpur Coal Company, Ld. Vs. Jatindra Nath Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal386
Fletcher, J.1. This is an application for a change of attorneys by the defendants in the suit.2. The applicants ask that the order for change be made without ordering the clients to pay to the attorneys the amount of their bill which may be found due on taxation, on the ground that the attorneys have discharged themselves.3. It appears that in September last the accountant of the attorneys had an interview with one of the defendants, when the latter promised to make a payment on account of the attorneys' costs.4. The clients having failed to fulfil their promise, the attorneys on the 7th October wrote to the clients pressing them to make the payment and informing them that 'otherwise we shall not be able to proceed in your matter.'5. On the 21st November one of the clients called on the attorneys and requested them to brief two gentlemen as counsel in the suit, but the attorneys refused unless they wore put in funds by the clients to pay the fees to counsel.6. Now, pausing there for on...
Hari Charan Bose, Agent and Manager, Eastern Mortgage Agency Co. Ld., ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.84
1. We are of opinion that this appeal fails upon both the grounds which have been taken against the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge in the Court below. As regards the question of limitation, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the alleged damage having been caused by order of the Magistrate purporting to be under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, falls within Article 2, 2nd Schedule of the Limitation Act, and as the case was brought five months after the damage and not within 90 days as laid down in that Article, the suit is clearly barred; and as regards the want of jurisdiction in the Municipality under Section 243 to forbid any person to erect, huts that question does not arise. We may remark in passing that Section 243 only enables the Municipality to correct the alignment of huts, see that they are put up in a safe and sanitary way, and there appears to have been no provision by which they can take any action themselves to remove such huts unless the owners have ...
A.B. Chiodith Vs. Tulsi Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.130
1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for rent in which the plaintiff also claimed enhancement on account of an alleged rise in the price of staple food crops under Section 30(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff obtained a decree for the arrears of rent but his claim to enhancement was rejected by both Courts on the ground that he had previously preferred an application for the same relief under Section 105. It is admitted that an application under Section 105 was preferred in 1906. The plaintiff did not or could not proceed with it, and accordingly applied for leave to withdraw it. This was allowed, but no leave was reserved to him to prefer a fresh application. He appealed on this point and his appeal was dismissed on 3rd April 1907. On 7th January, he filed the present suit. In our opinion, an application under Section 105 cannot be regarded as a suit. The cases of Upadhya Thakur v. Persidh Singh 23 C. 723 and Jonardhan Misser v. J. Barclay App. from Order No....
Moheshpur Coal Co. Ld. Vs. Jotindra Nath Gupta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.315
Fletcher, J.1. This is an application for a change of attorneys by the defendants in the suit.2. The applicants ask that the order for change be made without ordering the clients to pay to the attorneys the amount of their bill which may be found due on taxation on the ground that the attorneys have discharged, themselves.3. It appears that in September last the accountant of the attorneys had an interview with one of the defendants when the latter promised to make a payment on account of the attorney's costs.4. The clients having failed to fulfil their promise, the attorneys on the 7th October wrote to the clients pressing them to make the payment and informing them that 'otherwise we shall not be able to proceed in your matter'.5. On the 21st November, one of the clients called on the attorneys and requested them to brief two gentlemen as Counsel in the suit, but the attorneys refused unless they were put in funds by the client to pay the fees to Counsel.6. Now pausing there for one ...
Jagabandhu Biswas and anr. Vs. Srinath Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.392
1. There is no second appeal in this case under the provisions of Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.2. But we find that the lower Court has not decided the question of limitation which was raised in the Munsif's Court and decided by him, and we, therefore, think that the matter comes within the purview of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and as we have the record and both parties before us, we can proceed to determine that question.3. The question, which arises upon this revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, which the learned Judge in the lower Appellate Court has not decided, is whether a furzidar can be added out of time in the shoes of his benamdar who has been sued within time. We are of opinion that this cannot be done. But it does not make any difference in this case, inasmuch as the decree has been given against the benamdar and the respondent does not object to giving up the decree for the rent of the year ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »