Kolkata Court August 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.
In Re: Bonomally Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.423
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This matter came before the Court yesterday by way of an appeal from an order made by my learned brother Mr. Justice Chitty. The application made to him was that a Rule might issue to the officer in charge of the Alipore Central Jail, calling upon him to show cause why the petitioner should not be set at liberty or brought before the Court to be dealt with according to law.2. The petitioner was tried at the Sessions, convicted by a majority of the Jury, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.3. The learned Judge refused the application and it was from that refusal that the application, which was really by way of appeal, was made to us yesterday.4. The ground upon which the application was made was that the petitioner was illegally and improperly detained at the Alipore Central Jail, and, we are asked to exercise the jurisdiction, which is vested in us by Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.5. The first question raised was whether this Court had jur...
Srimati Narayani and anr. Vs. NabIn Chandra Chowdhari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.803
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of a decree. The decree-holder-respondent in execution of a decree for money attached certain raiyati holdings belonging to the judgment-debtor. He obtained the consent of the entire body of landlords to the attachment and sale of some of the holdings, and with regard to some others he obtained the consent of the landlords representing a 10 annas 8-pies share. The judgment-debtor objected to the attachment and sale on the ground that they are not transferable. The holdings have been found to be non-transferable but the Court of Appeal below has overruled the objection holding that a non-transferable holding may of course be attached with the consent of the landlords and in the case of fractional landlords to the extent of their share The judgment-debtor has appealed to this Court.2. Now, the Full Bench in the case of Dayamoyi v. Ananda Mohan Roy Ghowdhury 27 Ind. Cas. 61 : 42 c. 172 : 18 C.W. have laid down that an involuntary trans...
Surendra Nath Goswami and ors. Vs. Bansi Badan Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.457
1. We are invited in this Rule to examine the legality of an order made by the Court below for the payment of a sum of money to the decree-holder, opposite party. The facts material for the determination of the questions in controversy may be shortly stated. On the 30th June 1914, the plaintiffs instituted a suit for recovery of money against the defendant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia. On the next day, they applied for an order for attachment before judgment in respect of a sum of Rs. 4,200 due to the defendant from the East India Railway authorities for work executed under a contract. The Subordinate Judge, on that date, made a preliminary order on the application under Rule 5 of Order XXXVIII of the Code. The order called upon the defendant to show cause why he should not furnish security for the sum mentioned and why, on his failure to do so, an order for attachment of the sum before judgment should not be made. The Court also proceeded to make an ad interim order ...
In Re: Regina Guha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.925
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This matter comes before this Court upon a petition of Miss Begina Guha.2. The circumstances are set out therein as follows:1. That your petitioner obtained the Degree of the Bachelor of Law of the University of Calcutta in the year 1916.2. That your petitioner desiring to be admitted to practise as a Pleader in the District of 24-Perganas paid into the Government Treasury of the said District the fee prescribed by Rule 27 of the Rules framed by the Hon'ble High Court under the Legal Practitioners Act and also presented her diploma, the receipt for the said fee and a stamp paper of necessary value of her first certificate to practise to the learned District Judge of 24-Perganas together with the necessary application for admission.3. That the learned District Judge of 24-Perganas by a memorandum, dated the 3rd April 1916, forwarded the said application to the Hon'ble High Court for orders as to your petitioner's enrolment.4. That about the 16th of June 1916 y...
Surendra Lal Chaudhuri Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.702
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for the recovery of value of goods made over to a Railway administration for transmission but not delivered at the destination. The case for the plaintiff is that the Secretary of State for India in Council owns the Eastern Bengal State Railway, that on the 12th October 109 the plaintiff made over to the Railway authorities at Rungpore 250 bundles of tobacco worth Rs. 15,335 for despatch and carriage to Calcutta, but that the goods have never been delivered to him. The defendant pleaded in substance that the goods were destroyed while in course of transmission on the 17th October 1909 by an act of God, namely, a severe cyclone, and that be is, consequently, not liable for the value of the goods. The Subordinate Judge has held that the loss of the goods was caused by an act of God beyond the control of the defendant, and that this furnishes a complete answer to the claim. The plaintiff has now appealed to this Court, and has invited us to ...
Fateh Chand Agarwalla Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.945
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the charge against the accused was as follows:--That he the said Fateh Chand Agarwalla on or about the 26th day of November in the year of our Lord 1915 in Calcutta aforesaid, fraudulently or with intent that fraud might be committed, had in his possession certain counterfeit coins, that is to say, 160 counterfeit rupees, being counterfeit of the King's coin, having known at the time when be became possessed of them that they were counterfeit, and thereby he the said Fateh Chand Agarwalla committed an offence punishable under Section 243 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Secondly, that he the said Fateh Chand Agarwalla at or about the time and in the place aforesaid, fraudulently or with intent that fraud might be committed, had in his possession certain counterfeit coins, that is to say, 3 counterfeit rupees, being counterfeit of the King's coin, having known at the time when he became possessed of them that they were counterfeit, and thereby he the s...
Sasi Bhushan Bose Vs. Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.835
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an interlocutory order in an administration suit instituted by a creditor. The order in question calls upon the plaintiff to amend his plaint in the manner following, namely, to ascertain all the creditors of his debtor and the sums payable to them, to alter the valuation of the claim by the addition of the amount so ascertained to the amount due to himself, and to pay Court fees ad valorem on the amended valuation. The plaint recites that the first defendant, Amarnath Bose, on the 4th April 1911, borrowed from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,000 on a promissory note re-payable on demand with interest at 18 per cent. per annum that he has neither paid the prinoipal, nor the interest, and that, on the 23rd September 1911, he executed a trust deed in favour of the second defendant the Maharaja of Cossimbazar, whereby he transferred all his immoveable properties to the trustee with direction to pay up all his creditors inclusive of the plaintiff. T...
Durga Prasanna Roy Vs. Ishan Chandra Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1916
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.461
1. In the case out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff, one of the co-sharers in an estate for which a common manager had been appointed under Section 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, sued the common manager for accounts after the release of the estate. The Court of first instance gave him a preliminary decree for accounts, hut the lower Appellate Court has dismissed his suit, holding that the permission necessary for a suit of this nature had not been given by the District Judge, and also that the suit was not maintainable, for the reason that the accounts of the defendant had already been regularly checked and passed in the office of the District Judge. These two findings are challenged on second appeal.2. As regards the former, the appellant relies on an order passed by the District Judge in releasing the estate, which runs: 'permission to sue the common manager is granted.' He contends that this permission extends to all the co-sharers, himself included. The respondent on the ot...
Tarapada Ghose Vs. Jagat Mohini Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1916
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.751
1. We are invited in tins Rule to set aside an order of a Small Cause Court Judge, which sets aside an ex parte decree under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The ground assigned is that the order has been made though the requirements of that section have not been fulfilled. It appears that the ex parte decree was made on the 26th August 1915. On the 30th November 1915 the defendant made an application to set aside the ex parte decree, and, as required by the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 17, filed along with the application what purported to be a security bond to cover the amount due under the decree. By this instrument, immoveable property was offered as security, The document and the title-deeds of the properties offered by way of security were examined by an officer of the Court and he reported in favour of their sufficiency. The document was then placed before the Judge who, on the day following, accepted the report of the officer. Nothing was done subse...
BepIn Behary Mozumdar and ors. Vs. Jogendra Chandra Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.641
1. We are invited in this Rule to direct under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure code, 1908, that a suit for rent in the Court of the (Subordinate Judge of Khulna be stayed daring the pendency of an appeal in this Court. The petitioners were defendants in a suit for rent instituted against them by the opposite party on the 6th May 191 J. in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Khulna for settlement of fair rent and for recovery of arrears of the years 1314--17 B.S. The claim was resisted on various rounds amongst which we may mention one, namely that the plaintiffs had evicted defendants from the lands of Mauza Ula claimed by the defendants as include in their tenure. The plaintiffs did no admit that Mama Ula was so included am apparently maintained that they themselves were lawfully in possession of those lands The Subordinate Judge tried the suit of evidence, overruled the plea of suspension of rent by reason of eviction, and made modified decree in favour of the plaintiffs, in his ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »