Kolkata Court July 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.
Kumar Soradindu Roy and anr. Vs. Girish Mohini Devi Chowdhurani and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.448
1. The present case comes before us in our revisional jurisdiction, and the main ground on which exception is taken by the petitioner to the order of the learned District Judge is that there is no dispute between the co-owners of this estate such as is contemplated by Section 93 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. It is clear that the District Judge bestowed much pains upon the case. He has set out in his judgment in some detail the history of the relations between the co owners during the past quarter of a century or so. It is a history of quarrels and consequent mismanagement, which must have resulted in considerable loss to the co-owners individually and collectively. Towards the end of his judgment the District Judge states his conclusion as follows:On a careful consideration of the evidence in the case, I am clearly of opinion that there are serious disputes between the co-owners of the estate No. 204 as to the management thereof. The result of their disputes, as I have stated before, ha...
Wajid Ali and anr. Vs. Khurshed Assam and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.239
1. The plaintiff, who is the petitioner in this Rule, obtained a decree by consent against the defendant. Sometime after the decree was passed he applied for amendment of the decree. The decree, as we have said, was a consent decree and there is no variance between the decree and the solenamah. That being so, the decree cannot be varied or set aside in this suit under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. Both the solenamah and the decree refer to schedule kha. The plaintiff said that it was schedule kha of a danpattra; but this was denied by the defendant. The Munsif set aside the solenamah decree and restored the original suit. We are, of opinion, that the Court had no power to do so; the decree being one passed by consent it could not be set aside in the way it has been done. Moreover, neither party asked the Court to set aside the decree and restore the suit for trial.2. Under the circumstances the order complained of is set aside and this Rule is made absolute.3. We make no order as ...
Jotindra Nath Baral and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.140
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Rule obtained to show cause why the conviction and sentences passed on the petitioners should not be set aside upon the grounds set out in the Rule.2. The complainants were three individuals, Chatur, Bhagirath and Madhab, three brothers, and Chatur was the only one who gave evidence on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Judge pointed out in his judgment that 'neither Bhagirath nor Madhab had been examined for the prosecution though they took such prominent parts in the affair.' Madhab's absence was explained by the allegation that he was too ill to come to Court, and his wife was called on behalf of the prosecution to prove that fact. No explanation was given for the absence of Bhagirath. Therefore, as far as the complainants were concerned, the case rested upon the evidence of Chatur alone.3. The evidence of Chatur was not entirely satisfactory. The learned Judge pointed out that part of his story was so extraordinary that he could not accept ...
Ram Das Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.302
Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case we think the Rule should be discharged.2. We desire to point out that with regard to two of the convictions which the learned Magistrate considered as proved, they were not in our opinion proved in a proper way. But this matter does not affect our decision, because the learned Magistrate found upon the evidence that there was an overwhelming proof of the petitioner's bad repute as a thief, and further than that, that there were two convictions which were properly proved. Consequently, our decision is that this Rule should be discharged. But coming back for a moment to the two convictions which, in our opinion, were not properly proved, what happened, as far as I can understand was this. A finger-mark expert was called as a witness, and he examined certain finger prints of the accused taken in Court when the trial was proceeding. These finger marks were apparently put upon a piece of paper, which is Exhibit 18 Then was shown to the witness another paper, E...
Mohammad Kazi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.811
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the first accused Mohammed Kazi was charged with an offence under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, with intentionally offering resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or escaping from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence; and the other accused were charged with an offence under Section 22b, that is to say, with intentionally offering resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of any other person for an offence, or rescuing any other person from any custody in which that person is lawfully detained for an offence. All of them were also charged under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, the common object alleged being to rescue Mohammad Kazi from lawful custody.2. Now, the facts of the case may shortly be recapitulated as follows: The accused Mohammad Kazi was suspected of being in possession of opium contrar...
Aswini Kumar Samaddar Vs. Banamali Chakrabarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.607
1. This is an appeal against a suit to set aside an ex parte rent-decree on the ground of fraud.2. In order that the plaintiff may succeed in this suit, it is necessary for him to show that an earlier decree obtained in the High Court is also invalid on the ground of fraud.3. Both the lower Courts have held that the plaintiff cannot maintain this suit without first setting aside the High Court decree by a suit framed for this purpose. The learned Subordinate Judge based his decision on the ground that the plaintiff was no party to the High Court decree. But this is no reason why the plaintiff should not show that the High Court decree was obtained by fraud or collusion under Section 44 of the Evidence Act.4. In Woodroffe and Ameer Ali's Law of Evidence, 5th edition, it is remarked: With regard to the parties who may show fraud, it is clear that a stranger to a judgment, against whom such judgment is used as evidence, may impeach it on the ground of fraud in the suit in which it is so u...
In Re: Babu Jogendra Chandra Nandy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.442
1. This, is a reference by the District Judge of Tipperah under the Legal Practitioners Act against Babu Jogendra Chandra Nandy, a Pleader of the Brahmanberia Bar.2. It appears that one Susil Chandra Chowdhury, brother-in-law of Jogendra Chandra, was also a Pleader of the Brahmanberia Bar. He had a clerk of the name of Mohim Chandra Nath. In August 1915 Susil Chandra left Brahmanberia to practise at Habigunge in the District of Sylhet. It is stated that he had not then made up his mind whether he would practise at Habigunge permanently, and he left his cases in charge of his clerk Mohim Chandra. This Mohim Chandra, it is found, did not take out his 'card' as Pleader's clerk for the year 1915 and was, therefore, not authorized to act as Pleader's clerk in that year.3. One Nabadwip Charan Baisnab, a client of Susil Chandra, complained before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Brahmanberia that Mohim Chandra had, in collusion with Jogendra Chandra Nandy, received money deposited by his judg...
Balai Lall Mookerjee Vs. Pashupati Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.828
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Rule which was granted to show cause why the order of the Magistrate by which he dismissed the complaint should not be set aside.2. The grounds upon which the Rule has been supported are two: first, that the procedure which is laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been followed by the learned Magistrate and, secondly, that if the procedure had been followed by the Magistrate, and if he had confined himself to the materials which he would have had before him if such procedure had been followed, then upon such materials he ought to have issued process.3. With regard to the first point, we are both of opinion that the procedure laid down by the Criminal Procedure Code has not been followed in two material respects, and we wish to say that we think it is most desirable that Magistrates should follow the procedure which is quite clearly laid down in Chapter XVI dealing with complaints to Magistrates. It is not necessary for me to recapitula...
John Carapiet Galstaun Vs. Woomesh Chandra Bannerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.850
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made in a proceeding for rateable distribution under Section 73, Civil Procedure Code. The sequence of events which led to the order in question is really not in controversy and may be briefly stated. On the 23rd August 1915, one Banerjee, now opposite party in this Rule, obtained a decree for Rs. 22,441 against Sullivan on the Original Side of this Court. On the 26th August 1915, one Mohammad Abbas obtained a consent decree against Sullivan for Rs, 5,200 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Pergan-nahs. On the 31st August 1915, Galstaun, petitioner in this Rule, obtained a decree for Rs. 8,105 against Sullivan on the Original Side of this Court. On the 21st and 22nd September 1915, a considerable sum was realised by a sale of the moveable properties of the judgment-debtor held by Mackenzie Lyall and Co. under the orders of the Subordinate Judge. The question in controversy is whether Galstaun is entitled to rateable distr...
Taru Babu Alias Tarak Das Moitra Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.469
Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case we think the Rule should be made absolute. What happened was this. It was brought to the knowledge of the learned Munsif who had tried a particular case, No. 614 of 1915, that certain persons, one of whom was the petitioner to this Court, had endeavoured to rescue a certain person from the custody of the execution peon. The learned Munsif directed these persons to appear before him and to show cause why they should not be committed for trial in the Criminal Court. Then it came to his knowledge that a relation of his was assisting to conduct the case for some of the accused. He, therefore, very properly-felt that he ought not to adjudicate upon the case. Consequently, he proceeded to send 'the aforesaid persons to the Magistrate to try them on the charge of snatching away Sadhan Chandra Nandy from the lawful custody of the said peon.' He also sent 'the said Sadhan Chandra Nandy to the Magistrate to take his trial before him for abetting the aforesaid perso...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »