Kolkata Court April 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.
Nilmoni Singh Vs. Brinda Dasya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.436
1. This appeal is directed against an order granting an application for reversal of a sale in execution of a decree for, arrears of rent. The sale took place on the 12th July 1908. On the 10th August 1909 a person claiming to he a mortgagee of the holding applied for reversal of the sale. The Court of first instance dismissed the application on the 28th February 1910. Upon appeal, that order was reversed by the District Judge on the 12th August 1910. We are now invited by the appellant to consider the propriety of the latter order. On behalf of the respondent, a preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that it is incompetent. In our opinion, this contention must prevail. The application was made under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code; the Court made an order under Rule 92; that order was appealable under Order XLIII, Rule 1, Sub-rule (j). Consequently, under Section 104, Sub-section (2), no appeal lies to this Court from the order passed in appeal...
Ganendra Nath Roy Chowdhury Vs. Surja Kanta Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.39
Carnduff, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for the recovery of possession from defendant No. 1 of a piece of their chadrasan, or ancestral homestead, which had been allotted to the former on partition.2. Both the Courts below found that as the plaintiff had transferred the whole of his interest in a number of parcels of land (including this chadrasan) by exchange with defendants Nos. 2 and 3, he had no cause of action. The suit was in consequence dismissed, and, as between the parties as arrayed in it, this was bound to be the result. But the plaintiff had set up the plea that his agreement for exchange with defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had been contingent on the defendant No. 1 giving up possession of the chadrasan, and that, owing to the defendant No. 1's failure to do so, it became and remained inoperative. This plea was rejected by the Court of first instance. In the lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff persisted in it, but prayed, in the alternative, that,...
Bhagabat Shaha Vs. Sadique Ostagar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal1050
Holmwood and Imam, JJ.1. We are of opinion that this Rule must be made absolute on the ground on which it was issued. Thee considerations which moved the Full Bench in the case of Mehi Singh Mangal-Khandu (1911) I.L.R. 39 Calc. 157 seem to apply with equal or even more force to an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. It is clear that the confirming of a conviction on appeal where the Magistrate had not thought it necessary to act under Section 522 cannot make such an order a consequential relief, or an order ancillary in character for which no separate authority is needed. Separate authority under Section 522 was distinctly needed before any Criminal Court could have such extra ordinary powers as are given thereby. The power is an unusual one. It is one certainly not inherent in the ordinary Courts of criminal jurisdiction, and it certainly could not be exercised by any person other than the Court which convicted of an offence attended. with criminal force and held indepen...
Basanti Lal Vs. Chhedo Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal1048
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. This I think is a very clear case; money was deposited by the surety as security for the benefit of the decree-holder whose rights were interfered with, to enable the judgment-debtor to make an application in insolvency with a view to his protection from arrest. The insolvency application failed, and so it became incumbent upon the surety to produce the debtor before the Court. This he failed to do, and, in the circumstances the officiating District Judge has determined that the sum of Rs. 500 deported by the surety is forfeited to the Government. The Secretary of State has been represented before us, and the learned pleader tells us--I think most properly--that he leaves the matter in the hands of the Court. It is to my mind obvious that there was no power in the Court ot declare a forfeiture in favour of the Government. The surety was anxious to suggest that his suretyship did not extend beyond the pendency of the insolvency proceedings. But he ha...
Basanti Lal and anr. Vs. Cheddu Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.118
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This, I think, is a very-clear case; money was deposited by the surety as a security for the benefit of the decree-holder, whose rights were interfered with, to enable the judgment-debtor to make an application in insolvency with a view to his protection from arrest. The insolvency application failed, and so it became incumbent upon the surety to produce the debtor before the Court. This he failed to do, and in the circumstances, the Officiating District Judge has determined that the sum of Rs. 500 deposited by the surety is forfeited to the Government. The Secretary of State has been represented before us and the learned Pleader tells us--I think most properly--that he leaves the matter in the hands of the Court. It is to my mind obvious that there was no power in the Court to declare a forfeiture in favour of the Government. The surety was anxious to suggest that his suretyship did not extend beyond the pendency of the insolvency proceedings. But he has not a...
Bhagbat Shaha Vs. Siddique Ostagar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.176
1. We are of opinion that this Rule must be made absolute on the ground on which it was issued. The considerations, which moved the Full Bench in the case of Mehi Singh v. Mangal Khanda 12 Ind. Cas. 297 : 16 C.W.N. 10 at p. 13 : 14 C.L.J. 437 : 39 C. 157 : 12 Cr.L.J. 529 seem to apply with equal or even more force to an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. It is clear that the confirming of a conviction on appeal, where the Magistrate had not thought it necessary to act under Section 522, cannot make such an order a consequential relief, or an order ancillary in character for which no separate authority is needed. Separate authority under Section 522 was distinctly needed before any Criminal Court could have such extraordinary powers as are given thereby. The power is an unusual one. It is one certainly not inherent in the ordinary Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction and it certainly could not be exercised by any person other than the Court which convicted of an offence attend...
Ranjit Kumar Ghosh Vs. Jogendra Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.561
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made under Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. A holding was sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent on the 13th September 1911 and purchased for Rs. 2,500 by the present petitioner. Two days later, an application was made for reversal of the sale under Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That application on the face of it purported to be made on behalf of two of the judgment-debtors by one Jogendra Nath Roy, who alleged that he held a power-of-attorney from them, executed in his favour on the 31st January 1908. The auction-purchaser resisted the application. He impugned the authority of Jogendra Nath Roy to act on behalf of the judgment-debtors in this matter, and suggested that the application was not mads on behalf of the judgment-debtors but for the benefit of a person who claimed to have acquired an interest in the holding by purchase and was, consequently, not competent to apply under Section 174. The Court did ...
ManiruddIn Sircar Vs. Abdul Rauf
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal41
Holmwood and Imam JJ.1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Mymensingh to show cause why an order for farther enquiry in this case should not be made, and why the order for prosecution under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code passed should not be set aside on detailed grounds which after considering the general allegations of the petitioner we ourselves formulated with some care. The learned Judge takes exception to the Rule on the ground that these reasons which, as we have said, we ourselves formulated with some care, are not grounds which were urged before him, and this is an infringement of the spirit of the High Court's order that in revision matters must first of all be urged before the first Court of revision. We do not think it is so. The matter was put before us by the learned vakil ill precisely the same general way in which it was put before the learned Judge, the principal arguments being, first, that on the evidence further enquiry should be ordered, ...
Bhiku HosseIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal1041
Holmwood and Imam, JJ.1. This was a Reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Dinajpore recommending that the order passed by the Deputy Magistrate at head-quarters, under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, directing the trial of the complainant under Section 211 and sending the case to the District Magistrate for orders, should be set aside. At the same time he informed us that there was a motion before him to order farther enquiry into the matter. He did not think it proper to deal with it himself, because it might prejudice our order in regard to the matter under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He says it seemed to him that the proper course to take was to submit this Reference for decision before proceeding to dispose of the other motion.2. We need not, therefore, go into the point of the necessity for further enquiry under Section 203, as we have dealt with it in a similar case to this in a some-what lengthy judgment delivered this morning in which we po...
Nilambar Sahu Vs. Suttyo Priya Ghoshal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.568
1. The present appeal is against an order in certain execution proceedings taken by the respondent for realization of a decree for rent which he obtained against his tenant. It appears that the respondent is a co-sharer landlord and he brought a suit (No. 621 of 1906) to recover his share of the rent from 1909 to 1312 making the other co-sharer landlord a party defendant. On the same day, the other co-sharer landlord brought a suit (No. 752 of 1906) to recover his share of the rent making his co-sharer, namely, the present respondent, a defendant in that suit. The claim of the present respondent was decreed on the 21st July 1906 and that of his co-sharer was decreed on the 17th August 1906. The other co-sharer landlord, however, took out execution of his decree first, put up the tenure to sale and, on the 15th March 1909, it was purchased by the present appellant for Rs. 1,200. The sale was confirmed on the 7th May 1909 and possession was given in August 1909. The decree under which th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »