Kolkata Court May 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.
Tarak Chandra Goswami Vs. Satya Charan Patni and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.504
1. This Rule was obtained on the opposite party to show cause why a certain order, passed by the learned Judge of Hooghly, under the provisions of Act XIX of 1841, should not be set aside on the ground that under the law it does not appear that he had jurisdiction to pass the order or that the requirements of the law necessary to pass the order do not appear to have been properly complied with. It appears that one Tinkori Dasi died at Benares after a short illness. Before her death, she left her house at Bhadreswar and went with the members of the family to which the present opposite party belongs to Benares. There she died. An application was made by the opposite party claiming to be related to the lady as relatives of her husband for proceedings to be taken by the District Judge under Act XIX of 1341. The Act was passed more than 70 years ago and it is not clear why, in the circumstances, the opposite party did not in the first instance adopt the ordinary course open to them under th...
Emperor Vs. Sheikh Idoo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal71,15Ind.Cas.488
Holmwood and Imam, JJ.1. We think that the question raised on this Rule can be simply answered by pointing out that the order of discharge made by Mr. Justice Stephen cannot be set aside by any tribunal and does not require to be set aside. * Upon all the authorities an order of discharge does not operate as any bar to fresh proceedings being taken before a competent Magistrate upon complaint or upon a Police report or under Section 190 (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This was finally settled in the case of Mir Ahwad Hossein v. Mahomed Askari (1902) I.L.R. 29 Calc. 726 by a Full Bench of this Court. If this is the rule of law in the case of Presidency and Provincial Magistrates, where the higher Courts have been specially empowered to interfere and order fresh enquiry, and if in. these cases it is unnecessary to set aside the order of discharge or order fresh enquiry, a fortiori it is unnecessary in the case of discharge by the High Court in the exercise of its original criminal ju...
Ligraj Patjosi Vs. Mahadeb Ram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1912
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.882
1. This appeal is directed against an order made apparently under Order XXI, rule 2, of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. On the 14tb September 1910, a consent decree was made between the parties to this appeal. Under that decree the respondent, who was the defendant in the suit, undertook to deliver to the plaintiff-appellant, within seven days, a parcel of land and to raise a wall within the 14th January 1911. The decree further provided that if the defendant failed to carry out the terms of the decree, the plaintiff would be at liberty to execute the decree. The decree further stated that the defendant, as soon as he had carried out the terms of the decree, would notify the fact to the Court. On the 12th January 1911 the defendant intimated to the Court that he had complied with the terms of the decree. This application was received but no action was taken upon it. On the 17th February 1911 the Pleader for the plaintiff discovered that this application had been made and he forth wit...
Feroja Peshakar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.499
IN NO. 568 OF 1912.1. This Rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Rangpur to show cause why these proceedings should not be stayed until proper procedure is taken, on the ground that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction either under Sections 190(a), 190(b) or 190(c) to take cognizance of the offence alleged to have been committed on the report of a Town Sub-Inspector of Police.2. It appears that certain inhabitants of Rangpur complained that the houses of certain prostitutes, 20 of whose cases are before us in connection with these analogous rules, were used as brothels, or for the purpose of prostitution or as disorderly houses to the annoyance of the inhabitants of the vicinity, and the Magistrate expressly states that he issued an order summoning the tenants to appear and show cause why the use of those houses should not be discontinued for any of those purposes under Clause (6) of Section 2 of the Act. The order was to take effect within one month. But the Magistrate appears t...
Shakhi Chand Vs. Ram Chandra Marwari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.906
1. We are invited in this Rule to modify the decree in a suit for enhancement of rent. The case for the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the Court below, is that he let out three shops and two almirahs to the defendant on an oral lease from month to month. The rent settled was Rs. 10-8 for the shops and Rs. 8 for the almirahs. On the 4th September 1910, the plaintiff served a notice upon the defendant in the following terms: 'Whereas two almirahs and three shops are in your tenancy and the rent for the same has been paid up to Bhadro 1317, and as in respect of this, some persons offer Rs. 27 a month, you are, therefore, informed by this notice that if from the 1st Aswin 1318 you want to keep the shops and the almirahs in lease, you shall have to pay Rs. 27 a mouth.' The defendant continued in occupation but refused to pay rent at the enhanced rate. Subsequently, on the 2nd December 1910, the plaintiff served a notice upon the defendant calling upon him to pay rent at the enhanced r...
Manmohan Dutt Vs. Collector of Chittagong
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal64
Stephen and Richardson, JJ.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Chittagong on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The decision under appeal was arrived at on a remand from this Court which prescribed the way in which the lower Court has in fact dealt with the case. The question that the Court had to try under these circumstances was how a sum of Rs. 1,251-10-4 awarded as compensation for land acquired under the Act should be apportioned. The three parties interested are the Government who are the zemindar, Jagat Chandra Dutt and others described by this Court as jotedars and Shariatullah and another similarly described as under-raiyats, and the lower Court has apportioned the compensation money to these three parties, respectively, in the proportions of six, three and seven annas.2. The first question that we have to decide is whether the apportionment of a 6-anna share to the Government in their capacity as zemindar is correct. Th...
Jagat Chandra Dutt and ors. Vs. the Collector of Chittagong and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.551
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Chittagong on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The decision under appeal was arrived at on a remand from this Court which prescribed the way in which the lower Court has in fact dealt with the case. The question that the Court had to try under these circumstances was how a sum of Rs. 1,251-10-4 awarded as compensation for land acquired under the Act should be apportioned. The three parties interested are the Government, who are the zemindar, Jagat Chandra Dutt and others described by this Court as jotedars and Shariatullah and another similarly described as under-raiyats, and the lower Court has apportioned the compensation money to these three parties respectively in the proportions of six, three and seven annas.2. The first question that we have to decide is whether the apportionment of a six annas share to the Government in their capacity as zemindar is correct. The land acquired, namely, ...
Mohabir Prosad and anr. Vs. Bandi Prosad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.397
1. This appeal is directed against a decree whereby the Court of Appeal below, in concurrence with the Court of first instance, has dismissed a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs, who are members of a joint Mitakshara family, are not bound by a conveyance executed by their father on the 4th November 1894, and by a consent decree obtained against themselves on the 12th August 1902, in a suit to enforce a mortgage security executed by their father on the 80th August 1897.2. In so far as the conveyance is concerned, it has been found concurrently by the Courts below that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the debts, for the satisfaction whereof it was executed, were either illegal or immoral; it has been found on the other hand that the debts were, as a matter of fact, contracted mostly for legal necessity. In view of these findings, the decree of the Court below must be maintained in so far as it disallows the claim for declaration that the conveyance is not binding upon the ...
Mohesh NaraIn Roy Vs. Maharaj Bahadur Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.171
1. This appeal arises out of a suit by a landlord to recover khas possession of the lands of certain jotes purchased by the defendants-appellants at a sale in execution of a mortgage-decree on the ground that occupancy-holdings are not transferable without the consent of the landlord. The Court of first instance decreed the suit and that decree was confirmed on appeal. The defendants have appealed to this Court.2. It appears that the lands in suit, which constituted five different occupancy-holdings and stood in the names of several persons, belonged to one Protab Bag. The defendants took a mortgage of the jotes from Protab Bag in July 1895. The plaintiff-respondent, who is the landlord, took a mortgage of the jotes from Protab's mother, Jogeshdari, in March 1897. A rent suit was, however, brought against Protab as the tenant by the plaintiff and the decree was paid up by the defendant by depositing the decretal amount in Court and the same was withdrawn by the plaintiff. Subsequently,...
Mr. K.B. Dutt and anr. Vs. Gostha Behary Beuiya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.207
1. No one appearing to oppose the Rule, we are of opinion that it should be made absolute and for the reason that the suit in which the decree was obtained by the petitioners was a suit to which the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act did not apply. The suit was not one brought by the present petitioners as co-sharer landlords under the provisions of Section 148A or Section 158B of the Bengal Tenancy Act and, in such circumstances, the decree which they obtained was a simple money-decree and, so far as we can ascertain from the materials before us, there is nothing to indicate that, in that decree, the petitioners invoked the application of the provisions of any section of the Tenancy Act. In our opinion, the present case is distinguishable from the case of Thakamani Dasi v. Mohendra Nath Dey Sarkar 10 C.L.J. 463 : 3 Ind. Cas. 389 on which the lower Courts relied, so that, even if we were prepared to follow the decision in that case, as to which it is not necessary for us in this case...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »