Kolkata Court May 1912 Judgments
Abdul Khalek Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.813
1. It is perfectly clear that the Judge is bound to entertain and hear the appeal in this case. Under the rulings of this Court, concurrent sentences for the purpose of appeal must be taken in the aggregate. The interpretation of Section 35(3) appears to leave it without doubt that concurrent sentences come within the meaning of that clause; otherwise there would be no distinction whatever between a concurrent sentence and a single sentence in which no sentence was passed under the second charge.2. The Rule is made absolute and the appeal will be heard in due course by the learned Sessions Judge.3. The petitioner will remain on the same bail pending the hearing of the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Kanchan Mandar and ors. Vs. Kamini Prashad Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.572
1. This application raises a question apparently of first impression. The petitioners were the defendants in an action for recovery of land and mesne profits. The plaintiff valued the relief for recovery of the land at Rs. 1,020 and of the mesne profits antecedent to the suit at Rs. 4,199-8. The Court below made a decree in favour of the plaintiff, which entitled the plaintiff to recover possession of the land and also to realise mesne profits to be subsequently ascertained. The defendants appealed to this Court, valued their appeal at Rs. 5,219-8 and paid Court-fees on the memorandum of appeal ad valorem. Daring the pendency of this appeal, proceedings for the assessment of mesne profits have been carried on in the Court below and mesne profits have been assumed at Rs. 2,570-1-10. A decree for this sum has now been made in favorer of the plaintiff. The defendants now, desire to appeal against this decree for mesne profits. The question arises, whether they can be called upon to pay Co...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Jewandas Jhawar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal78,18Ind.Cas.908
Fletcher, J.1. This is an application under Section 126 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act of 1909 asking for an order that under Section 126 and Section 50 of the Provincial Insolvency Act of 1907 the District Court of Delhi should be asked to act as provided by those sections and to make over the sale proceeds of certain properties attached at Delhi to the Official Assignee. It appears that the Additional District Judge is of opinion, that Section 17 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act does not apply to the mofussil. In my opinion the Additional District Judge is clearly in error in that opinion. The Presidency Towns Insolvency Act is an Act of the Legislative Council of the Governor-General, and purports to vest the property of the insolvent wherever situate in the Official Assignee. Clearly, therefore, Section 17 vests the property of the insolvent in any part of British India, in the Official Assignee. The wording is substantially the same as that of the Imperial Statute wh...
Tag this Judgment!Meajan and ors. Vs. Sharafatullah Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.415
1. This Rule must be made absolute on the ground on which it was issued. The explanation of the Magistrate admits that there is no finding that the accused's claim was in the nature of a sham or pretext. It may have been or it may not have been so, the only finding is that the land was in the possession of the complainant. The placing of haystacks and manure in another man's land need not necessarily be annoyance. It is not annoyance in law. It may be annoyance in fact. If it is annoyance in fact, then it must be clearly found in the judgment not only that it is annoyance but that it was intended by the accused to be annoyance. There is no such finding in this judgment and there is no other possible ground upon which a purely civil trespass can be treated as criminal trespass. The distinction between civil trespass and criminal trespass is one which is lost sight of by too many of the Subordinate Magistrates.2. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the fine, if paid, will be re...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Lal Nandy and ors. Vs. Rakhal Das Bishai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.809
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of moveable and immoveable properties; they were successful in the primary Court in respect of a portion of their claim and have appealed as to the remainder. The controversy is now limited to a house and to ornaments and a sum of money in cash. As regards the ornaments and the money, in the course of the hearing of this appeal, the parties have come to terms, and agreed to divide equally the subject-matter of dispute. In so far as the house, however, is concerned, they have asked for judgment of the Court.2. The house in question belonged to one Brojo Nath Das, who made a testamentary disposition of his estate on the 5th May 1889. He left two widows, a widowed daughter and two nephews, the sons of his sister. The nephews are not mentioned in the Will, and, so far as we can gather from his testament, the testator appears to have considered only the claims of his widows and his widowed daughter. In so far as the hou...
Tag this Judgment!Ramjiban Shah and anr. Vs. Dhiku Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.246
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit to enforce four mortgage securities executed by the members of a Mitakshara family. The members of this family were Dhiku, his two sons, Guli and Gopi, and Anku, the son of Gopi. On the 21st January 1904, Dhiku, Guli and Gopi executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs. On the 17th September 1904, 31st March 1905 and 16th September 1907, Dhiku alone executed three other mortgages in favour of the plaintiffs for different sums. The plaintiffs have joined as parties defendants to the suit, not merely Dhiku and Gopi, but also Anku who, it has been found, was born after the execution pf the latest of the four mortgages. The Subordinate Judge has found that the mortgages were executed for legal necessity, but he has directed a sale of the life-interest only of Dhiku and Gopi, on the ground that as the properties included in the mortgages, formed part of a maintenance grant, it was not competent to the mortgagors to execute a mor...
Tag this Judgment!Assaram and ors. Vs. Kesri Chand and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1912
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.247
Fletcher, J.1. This is a Rule obtained by the defendant in a Small Cause Court suit calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the decree passed by that Court in a suit between the plaintiff and the defendant should not be set aside. The point is one of some nicety. The facts are as follows: The plaintiff on the 7th March 1911 brought a suit in the Small Cause Court against the defendant to recover a sum of Its. 806, being the amount of principal and interest due by the defendant to the plaintiff on two hundis for Rs. 400 each executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff at Calcutta for valuable consideration payable after 562 days and 573 days respectively after the execution. The defence in the written statement of the defendant who has been called the added defendant, is that the hundis were not admissible in evidence. The case came on for trial before the learned Second Judge. The learned Second Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and on an application to th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: William Rennie
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal74
Fletcher, J.1. This is an application for a grant of Letters of Administration with will annexed to the estate of one William Rennie who was apparently a Marine Engineer employed in the B. I. S. Navigation Co. Ld. The testator was a Scotchman, domiciled in Scotland at the time of his death. The Trust, Disposition and Settlement has been proved in the Court of the Sheriff of Dumbarton, and apparently confirmation of the Inventory has been granted by the Probate Division in England. The present application is for a grant of Letters of Administration with copy of the will annexed to the estate and effects of the deceased in British India. Now, in British India the practice differs from that of other parts of the British Empire. In other parts of the British Empire the Colonial Probates Act applies, and the practice is not to make a grant of Letters of Administration with copy of the will annexed but to send an exemplification of the Probate granted in any part of the United Kingdom, and t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Goods of William Rennie
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.907
Fletcher, J.1. This is an application for a grant of Letters of Administration with Will annexed to the estate of one William Rennie who was apparently a Marine Engineer employed in the B.I.S. Navigation Co., Ld. The testator was a Scotchman, domiciled in Scotland at the time of his death. The Trust, Disposition and Settlement has been proved in the Court of the Sheriff of Dumbarton, and apparently confirmation of the Inventory has been granted by the Probate Division in England. The present application is for a grant of Letters of Administration with copy of the Will annexed to the estate and effects of the deceased in British India. Now, in British India the practice differs from that of other parts of the British Empire. In other parts of the British Empire, the Colonial Probates Act applies, and the practice is not to make a grant of Letters of Administration with copy of the Will annexed but to send an exemplification of the Probate granted in any part of the United Kingdom, and t...
Tag this Judgment!Adamji Khadi Bhai Vs. Issuf Ahmed Mulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.750
1. This is an appeal on be-half of the defendant against the preliminary decree in a suit for accounts made by the Court of Appeal below in reversal of the decree of dismissal made by the primary Court. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, who resides at Colombo in Ceylon, has acted as his Commission Agent and claims full accounts from him. The suit was commenced on the 23rd August 1907 in the Court of the Munsif at Cuttack. The written statement was filed on the 3rd February 1908 and the issues were framed on the 27th February following. On the 28th March, the defendant applied that he might be examined on Commission. On the 2nd issue, if the necessary fee was paid. We have not been informed as to the precise date when the fee was paid, but we find from the order-sheet that on the 7th May, the defendant prayed for the actual issue of the Commission. But on the 9th May, the order for the issue of a Commission was cancelled, under very exceptional circumstances. The Pleader for the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »