Kolkata Court April 1913 Judgments
Baijnath Kedia Vs. Raghunath Prasad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal767,(1914)ILR41Cal6,24Ind.Cas.765
Fletcher, J.1. This is an application by the defendant for leave to administer interrogatories for the examination of the plaintiff. The suit is brought by the plaintiff to recover Rs. 5,000 and interest alleged to be due to him from the defendant on a hundi that was drawn and accepted by the defendant. The facts pleaded in the plaint are first of all the making of the hundi by the defendant, and the advance of Rs. 5,000 as consideration by the plaintiff, and the date when the hundi fell due and the presentation for payment. These are the facts on which the plaintiff relies, and the defendant has put in issue all these facts, and in addition to that he says that he has never at any time had any transaction with the plaintiff. The application is opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that it is not the practice to direct interrogatories in the same manner as is done in England, and in support of that proposition the decision of Mr. Justice Wilson and Mr. Justice Pigot, in the case of Al...
Tag this Judgment!Jogeshwar Singh and ors. Vs. Ramoo Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1913
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.497
Harington, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant in a rent suit. The plaintiff sued for rent of two holdings, one of 3 bighas and odd at a rent of Rs. 11-11 and the other of 5 bighas and odd at a rent payable in kind, 30 mounds 10 seers paddy. The Record of Rights was in favour of the defendants, but it has been held that the evidence as to the rate of rent produced by the plaintiff has met the presumption in the Record of Rights and established the rate as the plaintiff alleged.2. The points of law taken on behalf of the appellant are four in number. The first is that the plaintiff is precluded from suing and recovering the rent claimed by virtue of Section 20 of the Road Cess Act. Secondly, the appellant objects that the kabuliyat which was produced was not evidence. Thirdly, he says that the lands were not identified, and fourthly, he Says that there was a plea of payment as to the rent for the year 1915, and that point has not been dealt with in the lower Appellate Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Abdullah Mandal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal854
Imam and Chapman, JJ.1. This was a Rule calling on the District Magistrate of Hooghly to show cause why the order dated the 6th January, 1913, should not be set aside.2. Information was given to the police by the complainant, Nasirul Huq, at the thana of Dadpur, in respect of the theft of a bullock belonging (sic) brother-in-law, Pachcowrie Shaikh, by (sic) Abdullah Mandal and Neamul Huq. The police, on such information being recorded, submitted a report to the Magistrate in which they stated that the case against the accused might be true, but that the evidence to prove it was not forthcoming. Thereupon the Subdivisional Magistrate made over the case to Mr. N. K. Bose, an Honorary Magistrate, for the purposes of enquiry and report. The Honorary Magistrate examined a number of witnesses on both sides and then submitted a report to the Subdivisional Magistrate, in which he expressed his opinion that it was amply proved that the bullock had been purchased by Abdullah, and that therefore ...
Tag this Judgment!Basanta Kumari Dasi Vs. Mahesh Chandra Laha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal982
Harington, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the second party in a proceeding under Section 145 calling upon the District Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the order made under that section should not be set aside having regard to the case of Ma khan Lai Roy v. Barada Kanta Roy (1906) 11 C. W. N. 512.2. The facts are that the first and second party are members of the same family and reside in the ijmali family dwelling house, each occupying a specific portion of the house.3. The dispute which has given rise to a likelihood of a breach of the peace relates to two plots, Nos. 1 and 2, which are within the premises, and are bounded as shown in the proceedings.4. Each party claims to be in possession of the plots in dispute to the exclusion of the other.5. For the petitioner it is contended on the authority of Makhan Lal Roy v. Barada Kanta Roy (1906) 11 C. W. N. 512, that as the land is ijmali, no order can be made under Section 145.6. For the respondent it is...
Tag this Judgment!Subed Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal849
Harington, J.1. This is a Rule calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction should not be set aside on the first ground mentioned in the petition. That ground runs in these terms---that the conviction is had in law, in that the attachment of the cattle, by the peon whose power to act under the warrant had expired, was illegal.2. The whole question raised by this rule was: Was the peon's act in attaching the cattle illegal under these circumstances?3. The warrant was a warrant addressed to the bailiff, the English word 'bailiff' appearing on the face of it in Bengali character. The nazir of the Court, who appears to have superintendence over the persons who execute the warrants, endorsed it with a direction to the particular bailiff in question to execute it within a particular day; but the warrant itself was a good warrant for some days beyond that date, The ^ bailiff should have executed it, according to the direction of the nazir, on or before the 25th August, ...
Tag this Judgment!Asgar Ali Biswas Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal846
Harington, J.1. This is a Rule calling on the District Magistrate to shew cause why the conviction and sentence should not be set aside on the third ground mentioned in the petition. The third ground is that the joinder of two distinct offences under one charge is an illegality which is fatal to the proceedings We have looked at the charge, and I agree that the charge, as it stands, is an illegal charge, having regard to Section 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are two distinct offences, and for each offence separate charge ought to have been made. Though certain provisions in the Code provide that more that one charge may raider certain circumstances be tried together, that does not justify the inclusion in one charge of several distinct offences, and as that is an illegality, in my opinion, the Rule must be made absolute and the conviction set aside.2. With regard to the future, it will be a matter for the Magistrate to consider whether this man ought to be put on his trial ...
Tag this Judgment!Prosad Chunder De Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal836
Fletcher, J.1. Your proper remedy was by an application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, for a mandamus, or you could have gone on building, and if the Corporation called upon you to demolish, you would have had a good defence.2. An action of mandamus lies: The Queen v. Lambourn Valley Railway Company (1888) L. R. 22 Q. B. D. 463. Acting against the provisions of a statute, is acting mala fide.Fletcher, J.3. Not when there is a wrongful exercise of discretion. Besides you elected to proceed under Section 375. Under Section 375, Sub-clause (2), the decision of the General Committee is final.4. But that clause does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court; a suit is maintainable: Chairman of Giridhi Municipality v. Suresh Chandra Mazumdar (1908) 12 C. W. N. 709. The General Committee have been made defendants in the suit for greater safety, in view of the decision in Bholaram Choudhury v. Corporation of Calcutta (1909) I.L.R. 36 Calc. 671, though the decision in a later case, B...
Tag this Judgment!Jagarnath and Co. Vs. Cresswell and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal814
Imam, J.1. This suit was brought by a Marwari firm of jute balers of the name of Jagarnath & Co. against the several members of two other firms of jute balers, viz., Moran & Co. and Hawarth & Co., asking for damages from the defendants on account of breaches of their covenants in respect of certain jute trade-marks of which the plaintiff firm are the owners, and Moran & Co. and Hawarth & Co. are the licensees and sub-licensees respectively, and for payment of royalty in respect of the trade-marks for the season 1912-13.2. The defendants Cresswell, Smyth and Watson are members of the firm of Moran & Co., while the defendants Hannah and Smallwood are members of the firm of Hawarth & Co.3. The plaintiff firm purchased seven trade-marks, of which four are in suit, from one Gokhul Chand Khettau, on 3rd April, 1908. The marks originally belonged to one S.C. Chatterjee, who carried on a jute-baling business. On his death the marks were assigned by his widow, as executrix of his will, and his ...
Tag this Judgment!Kadir Bux and ors. Vs. Maharaja Birendra Kisore Manikya Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1913
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.914
1. In these two appeals, the right of the Maharaja has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court, and it has been held that he is entitled to have the lands in suit assessed with the rental of Rs. 2 per kani and also to get mesne profits. From the decrees of the lower Appellate Court, the defendants have come to this Court by way of second appeal. Here, as in other cases, much of the difficulty experienced has been created by the disregard of the essential allegations in the pleadings. The plaint here alleged wrongful dispossession and claimed by reason thereof It has possession or, in the alternative, rent as is permitted by the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The defence was nishkar right, limitation and in one case work done of a substantial character. The lower Appellate Court has come to findings which it is difficult to follow, because it declares the existence of a tenancy and at the same time directs that mesne profits be paid. Mr. Sinha has admitted that this is erron...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Birendra Kisore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Bharat Chandra Sinha and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1913
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.910
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit whereby the plaintiff seeks against two defendants khas possession, with an alternative prayer that if the Court should think that defendant No. 1 could not be ejected from the land, then the plaintiff might be declared entitled to rent from him. These prayers are based upon allegations in the plaint, which set up a title in the plaintiff and proceed to state that defendant No. 1 has legally no right to hold and retain possession of the land and that both the defendants are mere trespassers. Both the lower Courts have decided against the plaintiff, holding that the suit is barred by limitation. In my opinion, that decision is correct. It, in effect, is in accordance with our determination in the previous appeals. But it is contended that there is a distinction in this case, which arises out of a decree in what has been termed a resumption suit. The argument is that this decree established the relationship of landlord and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »