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.
Hari Mandal Vs. Keshab Chandra Mana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal37
Asutosh Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. This Rule raises the question, whether when an application has been made to a District Judge under Section 195, Sub-section (6), Criminal Procedure Code, the application can be transferred by him to a Subordinate Judge for disposal. Sub-section (6) provides that any sanction given or refused under the section may be revoked or granted by any authority to which the authority giving or refusing it is subordinate. Sub-section (7) then ,provides that for the purposes of this section every Court shall be deemed to be subordinate only to the Court to which appeals from the former Court ordinarily lie. Now, Section 21, sub-Section (2) of the Bengal Civil Courts Act, 1887, provides that an appeal front an order of the Munsif lies to the District Judge. Consequently, the District Judge is the authority competent under Sub-section (6) of Section 105, 'Criminal Procedure Code, to revoke or grant a sanction which has been given or refused by a Munsif. The Dist...
Balki Mohapatra and anr. Vs. Brojobashi Panda and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.333
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption. The ancestor of the plaintiff was one Ghottoo, and the family is shown in the following genealogical tree. Ghotoo ______________________________|__________________________________ | | Sidheshur Baijnath |__________________________ | ______________________________|___________________________ | | | | | | Mnkteshur, Jambossur. Bisscssur. Bhubanessur. | | | plaintiffs. | ______________________________________| _______________________|_____________________________ | | Brindabaii. Kunjaban.2. The mortgage sought to be redeemed was executed by Sidhessur, Muktessur, Jambessur, Brindaban and Kunjaban. It was a mortgage by conditional sale, and the term expired in April 1888. The next month the mortgagee instituted a suit for foreclosure, and in February 1889, he obtained delivery of possession. The present suit was instituted at the end of 19C7.3. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs have no right t...
Sarat Chandra Bose and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Co ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.726
1. The present appeal arises out, of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for recovery of damages for the loss of a packet containing clothes, alwans and other articles, which were despatched from Calcutta for conveyance by the Eastern Bengal State Railway, the River Steam Navigation Company, and the India General Navigation Company Limited to a place called Bejnishar, a steamer station on the river Padma. The goods were booked on the 13th November 1906 by the plaintiffs in the name of their Calcutta Agent B.K. Sen for delivery to the plaintiff No. 1. From the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant, Eastern Bengal State Railway, it appears that they admitted that the parcel had been booked and had been lost in transit; over that Railway. The defence set up on their behalf was, however, that the Railway was not liable because the plaintiffs had failed, in compliance with the provisions of Section 75 of the Railways Act, to declare the contents of the parcel and their ...
Ramanuj Mahanta Vs. the Midnapore Zemindary Co. Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.729
1. These appeals arise out of a proceeding under Section 158 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and the only point, as the appeals have been presented to us by the learned Advocates on both sides, is whether the appellant before us is a tenure-holder or a ryot holding at fixed rates, and if a tenure-holder whether he is a permanent tenure-holder or not, and whether his rent is liable to enhancement during the continuance of his tenure. The case came in the first instance before a Subordinate Judge who decided that the present appellant was a ryot holding at fixed rates. On appeal to the District Judge, it was held that he was a tenure-holder and his rent was liable to enhancement. On second appeal, it was held by Mr. Justice Coxe that he was not in a position to interfere with the decision of the lower Appellate Court, though the inclination of his mind obviously was in favour of holding that the present appellant was not a tenure-holder bat a ryot. From his judgment, the present appeals have ...
Hari Mandal and ors. Vs. Keshab Chandra Manna
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.760
1. This Rule raises the question, whether when an application has been made to a District Judge under Section 195 Sub-section (6), Criminal Procedure Code, the application can be transferred by him to a Subordinate Judge for disposal. Subjection (6) provides that any sanction given or refused under the section may be revoked or granted by any authority to which the authority giving or refusing it is subordinate. Sub-Section (7) then provides that for the purposes of this section, every Court shall be deemed to be subordinate only to the Court to which appeals from the former Court ordinarily lie. Now, Section 21, Sub-section (2) of the Bengal Civil Courts Act, 1887, provides that an appeal from an order of the Munsif lies to the District Judge. Consequently, the District Judge is the authority competent under Sub-section (8) of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, to revoke or grant a sanction which has been given or refused by a Munsif. The District Judge, in our opinion, is not comp...
Jabbar Sheikh Vs. Tomiz Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.71
1. This Rule must be made absolute on the ground on which it was issued. We are surprised to find that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer should so misapprehend the provisions of the law under Section 263, Criminal Procedure Code. That section does not excuse the Magistrate from hearing the evidence of all witnesses. It excuses him from recording the evidence of any of the witnesses. But it is an elementary point that recording evidence is not the same as hearing evidence. In all criminal cases, if the accused denies the charge, the complainant and such witnesses as he may produce must be examined and the case must be decided upon the effect of their evidence. The order of acquittal is, therefore, clearly without jurisdiction, having been made without evidence having been heard.2. The order of the lower Court is set aside and there will be a re-trial before any Magistrate the District Magistrate may direct....
Sheo Barat Ram and ors. Vs. the Bengal and North-western Railway Co. a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.56
Harington, J.1. This is a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decree of the Court below, in so far as it dismisses a portion of the plaintiffs' claim, should not be set aside. The suit was one in which the plaintiffs recovered a decree for Rs. 30 but they claimed to be entitled to a considerably larger amount representing the value of some bags of black-pepper and catechu which were consigned to them by their vendor and which were not delivered by the Railway Company. The suit was brought against the Railway Company. The terms of the contract under which the Railway Company carried the goods are to be found in a document headed 'Risk Note, Form B'. In that document, a special contract limiting the liability of the Railway Company was made. And it was agreed between the parties that in consideration of the Railway Company accepting a lower freight than that which they were entitled to charge, the person who consigned the goods would absolve them from al...
Shashee Bhushan Das and ors. Vs. Rasik Lal Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.583
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in an action for recovery of possession of immoveable property, which has been concurrently dismissed by the Courts below. It is plain that the decision on the merits cannot be successfully challenged in second appeal. But it has been ingeniously argued by the learned Vakil for the appellants that no decision on the merits ought to have been given by either of the Courts below inasmuch as the defendants successfully urged before the Court of first instance that the plaint had not been properly verified. In support of this proposition, reliance has been placed upon the case of Baroda Prosad Bose v. Girija Nath Roy Chowdhury 2 C.L.J. 11. In our opinion, this position cannot be supported.2. There were six plaintiffs in the suit, of whom three were sui juris and the rest were infanta on whose behalf their mother acted as next friend. The plaint was verified by the first three plaintiffs for themselves, and on behalf of the mother of the othe...
Jaiparkash NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Basanta Kumari Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.604
1. This appeal is directed against an order of attachment before judgment, under Rule 6 of Order XXXVIII of the Code of 1908. The order is assailed on behalf of the defendants-appellants on the ground that the learned Judge has not, as required by the statute, determined upon the materials on the record that they were about to dispose of the whole or any part of their property. In our opinion, this contention is well founded, and the order in question cannot be supported.2. The plaintiffs-respondents, in an action to enforce a mortgage security, applied, on the 22nd December 1910, for an order of attachment before judgment on the allegation that the mortgaged property would not be sufficient to satisfy the mortgage-debt and that unless an order for attachment before judgment was granted, the defendants would dispose of the whole of their property. The affidavit in support of this application was of the vaguest character. The deponent stated that he had been informed and believed that t...
Ram Lal Dubey Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1912
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.690
1. The sole point in controversy in this appeal is whether the plaintiff-appellant has forfeited his right to renewal of a lease granted on the 1st April 1899 for a term of five years under the Arable Waste Land Rules. After the expiry of the lease on the 31st March 1904, the plaintiff made an application for renewal on the 9th April following. Proceedings were then taken for the survey and measurement of the land, which did not terminate till the 13th December 1905. On that date, the Sattlement Officer called upon the plaintiff to execute a kabuliyat within the 3rd January 1906; the plaintiff complied with the requisition on the very next day. The records were thereupon submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, who, however, refused sanction on the ground that the plaintiff was not a suitable tenant. On the 16th January 1908, the plaintiff commenced this action for declaration that he was entitled to a renewal of the lease. The claim was resisted on the ground that the plaintiff had not a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »