Kolkata Court November 1914 Judgments
Nanda Kumar Barua Vs. NabIn Chandra Barua and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal638(1),30Ind.Cas.878
1. This appeal arises out of an application under Order XLI, Rule 19, of the Civil Procedure Code for re-admission of an appeal dismissed for default. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondents that no appeal lies in this Court as the appeal was not dismissed under Order XLI, Rule 17. The whole question is, whether there was appearance of the appellant within the meaning of Order XLI, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code. It appears that 13th of June 1910 was fixed for the hearing of the appeal. The appellant's Pleader was ill that day and did not appear in Court. The appellant happened to be present in Court and, on the case having been called on, he asked for time to get his Pleader. This was disallowed and the appeal was dismissed without hearing. Thereupon, on the 1st of July 1910, the appellant made an application under Order XLI, Rule 17, and that application was dismissed by the learned District Judge, on the ground that the appellant had appeared in the case a...
Tag this Judgment!Sheonandan Lal Vs. Zainal Abdin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal849
Coxe, J.1. This was a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,000 said to be a portion of the unpaid purchase money of Mouzah Dam Duma and therefore charged upon that village. This village was sold in 1902 by Ashruf Hossain and Abdul Huq to the appellant. Out of the purchase money a sum of Rs. 1,000 was kept by the appellant on the understanding that he should in September 1903 pay it to one Mahomed Kazim in payment of a mortgage by conditional sale of two villages which may briefly be described as Galib and Katsa.2. Abdul Huq died and this suit was brought by Ashraf Hossain as one of Abdul Huq's heirs and by the other heirs of Abdul Huq. The facts are not very definitely found by the Courts below, but, if I understand their judgments right, they think that Ashraf Hossain in 190i gave the right of redeeming Galib and Katsa to his daughter Bibi Azizan, in order that she might obtain those villages by paying the mortgage money viz. Rs. 1,000 from her own pocket;, and that in 1905 he gave to Abdul...
Tag this Judgment!The Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Promotho Nath Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1914
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.643
Fletcher, J.1. This case comes before us on a reference made by the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta in his capacity as a Presidency Magistrate under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Certain proceedings had been taken against Promotho Nath Mullick, the opposite party in this case, under Section 450(3) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, III (B.C.) of 1899, for his failure to comply with a notice served under the Act, the offence being under Section 341(1) for not having removed or altered a fixture within the period prescribed by the notice served under the Act.2. The points which have been referred to us are as follows:(1). Whether Section 589 of the Act stands in the way of the Secretary to the Corporation, who is also Secretary to the General Committee, signing a notice under Section 341 of the Act. Section 589 obviously does not. Section 589 is a special rule of evidence applying to all proceedings under the Act and when the notice is signed as mentioned in Section 589, it...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Sheo Nandan Lal Vs. Moulvi Jainul AbdIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal543,29Ind.Cas.869
Coxe, J.1. This was a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,000 said to be a portion of the unpaid purchase-money of Mauza Dumdama and, therefore, charged upon that village. This village was sold in 1902 by Ashraf Hossain and Abdul Haq to the appellant. Out of the purchase-money a sum of Rs. 1,000 was kept by the appellant on the understanding that he should in September 1903 pay it to one Mahomed Kazim in payment of a mortgage by conditional sale of two villages, which may briefly be described as Galile and Katsa. Abdul Haq died and this suit was brought by Ashraf Hossain as one of Abdul Haq's heirs and by the other heirs of Abdul Hag.. The facts are not very definitely found by the Courts below, but, if I understand their judgment right, they think that Ashraf Hossain in 1904 gave the right of redeeming Galib and Katsa to his daughter, Bibi Azizan, in order that she might obtain those villages by paying the mortgage-money, viz. Rs. 1,000, from her own poaket; and that in 1905 he gave to Abd...
Tag this Judgment!Tarak Nath Adhikari Vs. Bhubaneshwar Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal427,(1915)ILR42Cal780
Sharfuddin and Teunon, JJ.1. This is a Rule on the opposite party to show cause why the order passed by the learned Judge in appeal should not be set uside on the ground that the sale was contrary to the provisions of Order XXXIV, rule 14, and also on the ground that the sale was made without taking the permission of the Court which appointed a receiver.2. The second point (in the Rule) has not been argued by Dr. Ghose who appeared on behalf of the petitioner.3. The petitioner is the judgment-debtor. Some of his properties have been sold and he complains against the sale. It appears that the opposite party had obtained a money-decree against the judgment-debtor and in execution of that money-decree, ho sold and purchased certain properties which were mortgaged to him by the petitioner judgment-debtor under a certain mortgage deed. The opposite party had also instituted a mortgage suit for the recovery of his mortgage money under his mortgage deed and while this mortgage suit was pendin...
Tag this Judgment!Tarak Nath Adhikari and ors. Vs. Bhubaneshwar Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1914
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.988
1. This is a Rule on the opposite party to show cause why the order passed by the learned Judge in appeal should not be set aside on the ground that the sale was contrary to the provisions of Order XXXIV, Rule 14, and also on the ground that the sale was made without taking the permission of the Court which appointed a Receiver.2. The second point (in the Rule) has not been argued by Dr. Ghose who appeared on behalf of the petitioner.3. The petitioner is the judgment-debtor. Some of his properties have been sold and he complains against the sale. It appears that the opposite party had obtained a money-decree against the judgment-debtor and in execution of that money-decree, he sold and purchased certain properties which were mortgaged to him by the petitioner judgment-debtor under a certain mortgage-deed, The opposite party had also instituted a mortgage suit for the recovery of his mortgage-money under his mortgage-deed and while this mortgage suit was pending, he executed his money-d...
Tag this Judgment!Gulli Sahu Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal426,(1915)ILR42Cal793
Jenkins, C.J. and Teunon J.1. The applicant, Gulli Sahu, has obtained a Rule calling in question the legality of his arrest under the Indian Extradition Act of 1903. The Rule was granted with some hesitation for great doubt was felt as to the Court's jurisdiction to interfere in the exercise of its re visional powers. This doubt was well-founded. The powers of the Act were set in motion by the Political Agent in and for the State of Nepal who issued a warrant addressed to the District Magistrate of Darbhanga for the arrest of the applicant Gulli Sahu, and his delivery as in the warrant described.2. The applicant is a Nepalese subject who had fled from Nepal to British territory. The case against him is that he has committed, or is supposed to have committed, murder and that is an extradition offence. The proceedings thus fell within Section 7 of the Act. Subsection (1) empowers a Political Agent to issue a warrant addressed to a District Magistrate for the arrest of a person 'by whom a...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Nath Saha Vs. Collector of Faridupur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1914
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.36
1. We are invited in this Rule to consider the legality of an order made ostensibly under Section 7 of Regulation V of 1799. It appears that one Soudamini Peshakar, a woman of the town, died leaving personal property of some value. The Police appeared on the scene immediately after her death. The petitioner claimed the property in dispute, on the allegation of a gift to him by Soudamini who was in his keeping. The Police submitted a report to the Magistrate; he, thereupon, directed the matter to placed before the District Judge, who initiated the present proceedings under Section 7 of Regulation V of 1799. The District Judge has taken evidence and has overruled the claim, on the ground that the gift was in the nature of a donatio mortis causa and was not operative in law. On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to take proceedings under Section 7. We are of opinion that this contention is well founded and must prevail. That section ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Singh Mohopatra and ors. Vs. Srimati Preya Sakhi Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal595,28Ind.Cas.598
1. In this case the only ground which is alleged for the application is that the appellant has no money of her own. That is, as it has often been hold, in itself no sufficient ground for demanding security for costs. It cannot be said that the shit is merely vexatious in its nature, as one Court has held that the appellant is entitled to relief and the fact that her husband and her father-in-law may, as is alleged, have money to pay, is not to the point, as they are not called upon to pay costs which may be due by the appellant.2. The Rule must, therefore, be discharged with costs, which we fix at one gold mohur....
Tag this Judgment!Harsha Nath Chattrjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal1153
1. These are two appeals by the two accused against their conviction and the sentences passed on them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of the 24-Parganas.2. The two accused were charged before the learned Sessions Judge with having committed offences under three heads. The first charge against the accused was that they had in their possession or under their control certain arras in contravention of the provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Arms Act (Act XI of 1878). The second charge was that they had in their possession or control such arms in contravention of Section 14 of the Indian Arms Act in such a manner as to indicate the intention that such act might not be known to any public servant. The third charge was that during a period from the 2nd of December 1913 to the 26th January 1914, they conspired to manufacture or keep fire-arms in contravention of the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Arms Act. The two Assessors who assisted the learned Judge at the trial, were o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »