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.
Torap Ali and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.818
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the appeal is by both the accused Gohar Ali and Torap Ali against the conviction of murder by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bakarganj. The assessors apparently had some difficulty in coming to a conclusion. But the learned Sessions Judge after asking them questions came to the conclusion that the first assessor had really arrived at the conclusion that the two accused committed the murder and that the second assessor had arrived at the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to convict the two accused of murder. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, as I have already said, agreeing with the first assessor and differing from the second, found both the accused guilty.2. Now, after listening to the argument of the learned Vakil who appeared for both the accused and who put the case very clearly before us, and reading the evidence, my learned brother and I have come to the conclusion that as regards Torap Ali there is no doubt t...
In Re: Haripada Rakshit and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.94
JUDGMENT 1. This is an application by Sreemutty Binodini Daasee to set aside an order of the Registrar in Insolvency, dated the 6th June 1916, for her examination under Section 36 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. The order was obtained upon the application of the Official Assignee and the applicant seeks to set aside the order on three grounds: (i) that the insolvent having obtained his discharge no order under Section 36 can now be made; (ii) that the application on which the order was made disclosed no grounds for making such order; (iii) that as litigation may ensue between the applicant and the Official Assignee, an order for her examination would be inequitable. 2. I deal with the third ground first; and with regard to this ground I hold that the case is upon the facts eminently one for the examination of the applicant under Section 36, if such an examination can now be ordered, and I see no ground for refusing an order under Section 3d because litigation may ultimately ens...
In Re: Jewa Nathoo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.48
Chaudhuri, J.1. This is anapplication under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, on behalf of five persons, inhabitants of Surat, who state that 'they had been working as traders in South Africa for some years and had lately invested all their savings in gold and sovereigns, as they considered it the most safe and convenient form of investment during the War; that they were coming from South Africa by 'S. S. Kathiawar', which arrived in Calcutta on the 19th June 1916 when they were arrested under the orders of the Commissioner of Police, with all their belongings including 58 lbs. of gold nuggets and 119 sovereigns, without any warrant being produced or read out to them.' They further state that they have been continually in custody ever since their arrest; that they applied for*bail to the Senior Deputy Commissioner of Police (in whose hands the case had been placed by the Commissioner of Police) on three occasions* but that it was then said that they had been arrested under Section ...
In Re: Charu Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.57
Chaudhuri, J.1. This is an application under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the production of one Charu Chandra Majumdar, who was arrested under Section 54 by the Calcutta Police. A Rule was issued by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Walmsley constituting the Criminal Bench; but a question having been raised as to what the proper procedure is in a case of this character, as to whether such applications ought not to be made to the Judge exercising the Ordinary Criminal Jurisdiction of this Court, the matter has been sent to me for disposal. For a great number of years all these applications have been made as a Rule to the Original Side of this Court. With the exception of one case, namely, that of Rudolph Stallmann, I do not remember any single case in which that practice was departed from. An application was made in that case to a single Judge of this Court, but the Rule was evidently heard by three Judges forming a Special Bench constitute ed by the Chief Justice. Hav...
Srimantes Lal Maity and ors. Vs. Sibu Raul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.755
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge of Midnapur, dated the 22nd August 1914 reversing the decision of the Munsif. The suit was brought to recover certain rent alleged to have been dug under a kabuliyat, the rent being payable in paddy. The defendant in their written statement denied the paddy rent but admitted a cash rent of Rs. 6-12-0. So, presumably, the only question to try was whether the rent was, as stated by the plaintiff, the paddy-rent or whether the story set up by the defendants that the rent was a cash rent of Rs. 6-12-0 was correct. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court found the rent to be a cash rent; but he has given a smaller rent than that admitted by the defendants and the ground on which he has done so is that be considers that by reason of Section 20 of the Cess Act, IX(B. C.) of 1880, the Court is precluded from giving the plaintiff a larger amount than the amount mentioned in the cess return, The question is: '...
Chandra Kanta Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. Lakshman Chandra Chakravarty ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.460
1. We are invited in this Rule to determine, whether the Court of Appeal below had jurisdiction to entertain an application for review of a judgment passed by it. The circumstances which led to the application are not in controversy, and may be briefly recited. On the 17th July 1911, the plaintiffs instituted a suit for recovery of possession of land against five defendants, who claimed to hold it under one title. The Trial Court found in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. The five defendants appealed to the District Judge on the 8th July 1912. The appeal was heard by the Subordinate Judge, and was dismissed on the 23rd May 1913. Three of the defendants i. e., the defendants other than the first two) then preferred a second appeal to this Court on the 1st September 1913 and made respondents the plaintiff as also the defendants who had not joined them in the appeal. The appeal was summarily dismissed by this Court on the 5th December 1913 under Order XLT, Rule 11, Civil Proc...
Hon'ble Maharajadhiraj Sir Bejoy Chand Mahatab Bahadur Vs. Mamezedar R ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.917
Fletcher, J.1. These are two appeals by the second defendant against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Bankura in two suits. The suits were brought to set aside a sale held under the Putni Regulation, namely, Regulation VIII of 1819, under which two putni tenures, one known as lot Gopalnagore and the other as lot Uttarkhandu, were brought to sale and at which sale the present appellant, the defendent No. 2, became the purchaser, lot Gopalnagore being purchased for a sum of Rs. 1,000 and lot Uttarkhandu for the sum of Rs. 500. That sale took place on the 15th May 1909. The plaintiffs are some of the co-sharers in the putni. The first defendant, the Maharaja of Burdwan, is the zemindar. The second defendant, the appellant before us, is the son of the defendant No. 3 who is also a co-sharer and the defendants Nos. 4 to 11 are the other co-sharers, the remaining defendants being formal defendants who were joined because they would not act along with the plaintiffs. The sale ...
Ram Sunder Gope Sikdar and anr. Vs. Haribala Dhubi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.911
D. Chatterjee, J.1. The question in this case is whether the plaintiff has a jote right in the disputed lands. The lower Appellate Court has held that he has and that would ordinarily conclude a second appeal. It is contended, however, that for arriving at that finding the lower Appellate Court has relied upon the recital of a previous statement of the defendants contained in Exhibit 7, a judgment in a case under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, whereas that recital is not admissible in evidence. Reliance is placed in support of this contention on the case of Denomoni Chowdhrani v. Brojo Muhini Chowhdrani 29 C. 187 : 29 I.A. 24 : 12 M.L.J. 83 : 4 Bom. L.R. 167 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 224 : 6 C.W.N. 386, in which the Judicial Committee held that orders under Section 530 of the old Criminal Procedure ' Code (corresponding with Section 145 of the present Code) are admissible on general principles as well as under Section 13 of the Evidence Act to show the fact that such orders were mad...
Nabakumar Chakraburtty and anr. Vs. Syed Abdul Jabbar Mian
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.721
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent, based upon a kabuliyat which provided for the payment of interest at the rate of 75 per cent, on arrears of rent besides 'full damages'. The Court of Appeal below held in appeal that the stipulation was in the nature of a penalty and awarded damages only at 25 per cent.2. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court, and it is contended on his behalf that as the lease is a permanent mokarari lease, he is entitled to the interest at 75 per cent, as well as the damages stipulated for.3. It is true Section 67 of the Bengal Tenancy Act does not control the provisions of Section 179, and it has been held with reference to the provisions of Section 179 that a contract for the payment of interest on arrears of rent, at a vale higher than that provided for by Section 67, entered into by a landlord and a permanent tenure-holder under him is enforceable by law see Matangini Debi v. Mokrura Bibi 29 C. 671 : 5 C.W.N. 433 (F.B.). But all that Sec...
Rai Bahadur Lalit Mohan Sinha Roy Vs. Haran Chand Khamrui and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.243
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, dated the 5th February 1915, affirming the decision of the Munsif at Arambagli. The suit was brought against certain tenants to recover arrears of rent. It appears from the evidence that one Gour Mohun and his brothers were entitled to the holding. Gour Mohun was dead and the suit was brought against his brothers and some of his heirs, the remaining heirs of Gour Mohun not being made parties to it. The rent in this case sued for in the plaint, which was traversed in the written statement, was clearly the rent that had become due from the defendants. There is no suggestion in the case anywhere that portion of this rent accrued due in the lifetime of Gour Mohun. But the point that was urged before the learned Judge in the lower Appellate Court and before the learned Munsif and with success was that, as the heirs of Gour Mjhun succeeded on his death, therefore, no suit could be maintained again...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »