Kolkata Court April 1916 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.
Nishi Kanta Lahiri Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.314
1. This is a Rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the case against the petitioner should not be committed to the Sessions, on the ground that the case falls within Section 20 of the Arms Act and chat the Magistrate has, therefore, no jurisdiction to try it himself. We have heard the learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer who has shown cause on behalf of the Crown; but we must say that we fail to understand the attitude taken up. He has read us the evidence which has been recorded in this case. So far as the offence under Section 19F is concerned, it rests mainly on the evidence of two Police Officers who are said to have found the ammunition in the possession of the petitioner. If that evidence is believed, it is abundantly clear that an offence under the first portion of Section 20 was also committed. It would be for the Court to determine whether that evidence is to be believed. But, so far as the point before us is concerned, it is clear that that evidence ...
Rai Charan Mahanti and ors. Vs. Kanai Kamar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.72
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. The facts of this case are that the plaintiffs purchased at an auction-sale, held under a decree which had been obtained against the defendants, the mocurari tenant right of the village of Jhilimili.2. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and another are tenants of the plaintiffs under a lease granted by the plaintiffs, dated 14th April 1892, in respect of the lands in the village, except 30 bighas of lands which the plaintiffs 'kept in khas' and the trees hereinafter referred to. The defendants Nos. 4 to 6 are sub-tenants of defendants Nos. 1 to 3. In the action the plaintiffs ask for a declaration that the right of the plaintiffs as stated in the plaint may be declared in the trees in the land described in schedule (ka) in the plaint which, as I understand, include all the trees on the land demised by the plaintiffs, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from opposing the plaintiffs in any way in their possession of the aforesaid trees and for a d...
Umakunta Sen Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Hira Lal Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.86
1. In Appeal from Order No. 161 of 1913.2. The decree-holder obtained a decree for money against the judgment-debtors in 1911, when their estate was in charge of the Court of Wards. The decree not being satisfied by the Court the properties of the judgment-debtors, were sold on the 15th April 1912. The Court of Wards did not apply for setting aside the sale and the judgment-debtors after waiting for the Court of Wards to take action in the matter, made an application for setting aside the sale under Section 47 and Order XXI, Rule 90, of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court below has rejected the application as incompetent in that it was not made by the Court of Words Manager. This was on the 11th January 1913. This appeal was filed on the 11th of April 19 3 and the estate was released by the Court of Wards on the 14th of June 1914. It is contended in appeal before us that the order of the Court below is wrong:(1) Because the judgment-debtors were competent to prosecute the application f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›