Kolkata Court August 1912 Judgments
Harihar Guru Vs. Ananda Mahanty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal365
Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ.1. The valuation of this appeal will be considered as Rs. 17,961; the sum of Rs. 235 has, therefore, been overpaid as court-fees; let the Taxing officer issue the necessary certificate to enable the appellant to apply to the Revenue authorities to obtain a refund of the excess court-fee. We make this order on the authority of the case of In the matter of Grant (1870) 14 W. R. 47.[In accordance with the above order, the Deputy Registrar of the High Court, for the Taxing officer, issued the following certificate to the Board of Revenue, Bengal, on the 27th September 1912:It appears that the memorandum of the above appeal was filed in this Court by the vakil for the abovenamed appellants on two court-fee stamp papers denoting rupees nine hundred and fifty in all, i.e., one paper of the value of rupees nine hundred and the other of the value of rupees fifty.The value of the appeal, however, is rupees seventeen thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, and the ad val...
Tag this Judgment!Sati Prosad Garga and anr. Vs. Radha Nath Maity and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.197
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside a decree made by the Court of Appeal below, in affirmance of that of the Court of first instance, in a suit for what has been described as assessment of rent. The plaintiffs are members of a joint Mitakshara family and commenced this action on the 12th September 1910, for assessment of rent under Section 52 of the Bengal Tenancy Act in respect of a holding in the occupation of the defendants. The case for the plaintiffs is that the defendants hold a tenancy of 29 bighas, 12 cottahs at an annual rent of Rs. 25, that upon measurement, it has been discovered that the area in the occupation of the defendants is 44 bighas, 17 cottahs and 4 chittaks and that, consequently, the defendants are liable to pay fair rent in respect of the excess land. The plaintiffs, therefore, pray that rent may be assessed at Rs. 46-7-3 for 15 bighas, 5 cottahs, 4 chittaks of excess land and that the aggregate rent of the land in the occupation of the defendants may be...
Tag this Judgment!Madhu Sudan Mandal Vs. Radhika Prosad Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.927
1. This is an appeal on be-half of the defendant in a suit for declaration of title to land, for cancellation of a permanent lease and for recovery of possession. The plaintiff, who sues as shebait of Issur Radha Damudor Thakur, alleges that the disputed property is part of the endowment of the idol and was wrongfully granted in putni on the 9th September 18l8 by Utsabananda Das, who was at that time the shebait. Utsabananda died in 18S5 and was succeeded by Gur Das who retired on the 17th November 1903 in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff contends that the lease was granted for a small premium of Rs. 91 and at an inadequate rent of Rs. 67-2-7 per annum, that the alienation was without legal necessity and in no way beneficial to the endowment, and that, consequently, it is not binding upon the endowed property in his hands. The defendant resisted the claim on the merits and pleaded the bar of limitation. The Courts below have concurrently decreed the suit. On the present appeal, t...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Das Hazra Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.922
Ashutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for the declaration that he has been wrongfully dismissed from Government service and for recovery of arrears of salary. On the 12th August 1890, the plaintiff was appointed to a ministerial post in the Burdwan Collectorate. On the 12th November 1900, he was suspended. He was subsequently prosecuted along with the other persons for offences under Sections 116, 161 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code. The Jury returned a somewhat ambiguous verdict which was interpreted by the Sessions Judge as a verdict of not guilty. The Sessions Judge made a reference to the High Court under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as he disagreed with the verdict of the Jurors. This Court ultimately acquitted the accused on the 20th May 1902. King Emperor v. Chidghan Gossain 7 C.W.N. 135. The Collector subsequently perused the records and came to the conclusion that, although the appellant had been acquitted by the High C...
Tag this Judgment!Haripada Mandal and ors. Vs. Sanyasi Charan Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.264
1. This is a Rule calling on the District Magistrate of Hughly and the opposite party to show cause why an order under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be set aside on the ground that, as the Magistrate went out of his way to issue process for the attendance of witnesses after the date on which the case should have been disposed of, he was bound to exhaust the processes of the Court in order to enforce the attendance of such of those witnesses as did not appear.2. The facts underlying the case appear to be these. The 18th June was the date fixed for the disposal of the proceeding under Section 145. On that day, the opposite party produced and examined their witnesses. The petitioners then applied for an adjournment and the issue of process on some 14 persons on the ground that they were not sure that the service of notices on the parties would be completed before the 18th June. On this application, the reasons for which appear to us to be wholly inadequate, the Mag...
Tag this Judgment!Sundar Mal Marwari and anr. Vs. J.C. Murray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.963
1. The substantial question in controversy in this Rule is, whether the suit instituted by the opposite party falls within the scope of Clause XI Sub-clause (e) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as held by the Subordinate Judge, or within Sub-clause (e) of Clause IV of Section 7, as suggested by the Counsel for the plaintiff in this Court, or within Clause V of Section 7 as contended by the petitioner.2. On the 14th September 1911, the plaintiff commenced this suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge and prayed for possession of a mine, for mesne profits till possession was delivered to her, and for damages, costs, and interest. Her case is that she is the representative of a person to whom a grant was made by the mother of the first defendant on the 15th July 1900 for a term of 24 years. The grantee transferred his interest to the husband of the plaintiff on the 25th March 1902. On the 12th April 1911, the first defendant gave a letter of authority to the other defendants, a...
Tag this Judgment!Gokhai Padhan and ors. Vs. Gones Lal Pandit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.936
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment debtors against an order for execution of a mortgage decree. The predecessor-in interest of the respondent obtained an ex parte mortgage decree against the appellants on the 19th September 1903. The decree was drawn up in the following terms: 'The suit be decreed ex parte with costs, and interest do run on the principal amount at the bond rate up to six months. If the decretal amount be not paid within six months, then the mortgaged properties be sold in auction.' The decree was made under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act, but for some unexplained reason, possibly through oversight, no provision was made in the decree for interest on the decretal amount from the expiry of the period of grace to the date of realisation. The decree was made absolute on the 17th July 1905, and shortly afterwards, the decree-holder applied, for sale of the mortgaged properties. The sale proclamation was duly published, and the sale was fixed for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Legal Remembrancer Vs. Kadir Mirza
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.416
1. One Kadir Mirza was ordered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tamluk, under Section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to give security for his good behaviour for a period of two years. The case was referred in due course, under Section 123 of the Code, to the Sessions Judge who, while holding that there was good evidence for binding the man down, set aside the order on the ground that, 'unfortunately the proceedings were very defective.' The defect in them seems to consist of this, that it is stated in the order drawn up under Section 112 of the Code that, as it appeared to the Magistrate that Kadir was 'by general repute' a thief and burglar, he was called upon as such to show cause why he should not give security. The point is that he ought to have been called upon to show cause as being 'by habit' a thief and burglar, and that, as he was not so addressed, he could not be bound down under that description.2. We find that the evidence was directed mainly to show that Kadir Mirz...
Tag this Judgment!Suknandan Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.531
1. Two sentences, each of six months' imprisonment, passed simultaneously under Section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 and directed to run concurrently cannot, in our opinion, be held to be, in the aggregate, a single sentence of one year's imprisonment. The word 'aggregate' in Sub-section (3) of the section connotes the combined effect of the different sentences passed and, if two concurrent sentences could properly be said to be aggregated in the sense of being merged together, the result of the so-called aggregation would, we think, be a single sentence of six months' imprisonment. The intention which is to be gathered from, for example, Section 411 of the Code, is that a person who is to suffer by being imprisoned for more than a certain period shall have the privilege of an appeal. If he is, in fact, to be imprisoned for a shorter period, whether under one or two sentences, we do not understand how the privilege can, or why it should, be extended to him.2. This appeal i...
Tag this Judgment!Sito Mahton and ors. Vs. F.F. Christien
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.361
1. The respondent instituted a suit for ejectment against the appellants on the 10th December 1910. On the 11th February 1911, he prayed for the issue of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from working the mica mines on the disputed property and raising mica therefrom. The application for injunction was opposed by the defendants. The Court thereupon directed that the matter be taken up on the 12th August. On that date, an order was made in these terms,--'The plaintiff has brought a suit for ejectment. The defendant alleges himself to be a lessee of a mica mine. The plaintiff is afraid that the defendant will appropriate a major quantity of the mica in the mine and thus prejudice the plaintiff seriously. Notice has been served on the other side to show cause why he should not be prevented from working in the mica mines. Ordered that the defendant do furnish security to the extent of Rs. 5,000 and submit accounts of the monies appropriated every week from the date of the a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »