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.
Bijoy Kumar Addy Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.889
1. This appeal is directed against what purports to be an award under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act. The claimant, who is the appellant in this Court, was at the time of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, lessee of the land under Government. On the 26th February 1890, his predecessor had executed a kabuliyat in favour of the Collector and had agreed to pay annually Rs. 176 2-2 in respect of the land granted to him. The rent was payable into the treasury on the 28th March each year, and, the kabuliyat provided hat on default to pay the rent, 'the arrears would be realised by the Sarkar in accordance with law.' On the 25th November 1891, the lessee made an addition to the kabuliyat in the following terms: 'In accordance with the order of the Collector, dated the 10th August 1891, I undertake to give up the land without compensation if the Sarkar requires it' Since, then, the lessee and his representatives-in-interest have been in occupation of the land....
Chandra Kumar Ghose Vs. Mohendra Kumar Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.317
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case we think that the Rule should be made absolute.2. It is a small case--the damage that was done was small; the fine that was imposed was small and the compensation that was awarded was small--and if it had not been for the fact that my learned brother and I, when we granted the Rule, thought that a question of principle was involved, we certainly would not have granted it. But inasmuch as there was an allegation that the Magistrate who tried the case had thought it right at the invitation of both parties to go and make a local inspection as to whether the land upon which the fruit trees were growing was outside the accused's land or within the accused's land, and when he got there, he had a sort of indiscriminate talk with everybody who happened to be present there, which might or might not have affected his judgment in the case, we issued the Rule. The Magistrate in his explanation says: 'I had talks with many persons, including parties and their...
Jogesh Chandra Sarkar Vs. Abdul Gani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.994
1. We think that in this case there is just sufficient material to enable us to say that the Magistrate ought to go on and make further enquiry into the case.2. I entirely concur in the remarks which fell from the learned Advocate for the accused Jogesh Chandra Sarkar that process ought not to be issued against a man, unless there are materials to justify the issue of process. The mere fact that a man states certain things in a petition of complaint, which on being examined on oath he does not substantiate, is not sufficient to justify the Magistrate in issuing process.3. But this is a case where a good deal depends upon what inferences are to be drawn from certain facts. We have not only to rend the evidence given by the complainant and the allegations that have been made in his petition of complaint, but also to consider the inferences to be drawn from them. In addition to that there are certain other facts stated in the affidavit of the complainant, namely, that he paid his premium ...
Ashutosh Sadukhan and ors. Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1916
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.93
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs' right to the land upon which a rowah or platform stands and for a further declaration that the defendants, the Corporation of Calcutta, have no right to interfere with the platform situated on the said land and for other reliefs.2. It has been found that the rowak has been in existence for about 50 years, that it rests upon its own foundation and that it is an in-tegral part of the main building of the plaintiffs. Assumisg, therefore, that the land upon which the wall, of the rowak stands belonged to the Municipality as the owner thereof, we think that the Municipality lost their right to that portion of the land upon which the wall stands, having regard to the provisions of Article 146 (a) of the Limitation Act. That Article provides that for a suit by or on behalf of any local authority for possession of any public street or road or any part thereof from which it has been dispossessed or of which it has discontinu...
Debendra Nath De and ors. Vs. Tulsimoni Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1916
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.810
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order, made by a Special Judge under the Land Acquisition Act, for the disposal of a portion of a fund in his custody which had been invested in Government securities under Section 32. It appears that land which formed at one time part of the estate of one Khagendra Nath Dey and had, after his death, vested in his childless widow Tulsimoni Dasi was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The sum awarded as compensation was accordingly invested in Government securities under the provisions of Section 32. The widow has now applied to the Land Acquisition Judge to take steps to sell a portion of the Government securities in order to enable her to satisfy a charge created by a Receiver on land comprised in the estate inherited by her from her husband. Notice of this application was served upon the reversioners who entered appearance and objected. The Land Acquisition Judge thereupon heard the objections and overruled them. We are now invited ...
Emperor Vs. Annada Charan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.695
Fletcher, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Officiating Additional Sessions Judge of Chittagong under the provisions of Section 307, Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused was charged before the learned Officiating Additional Sessions Judge and a Jury with having committed offences under Section 406, Indian Penal Code (two counts), Section 457 read with Section 471 and Section 474, Indian Penal Code, and Section 477A, Indian Penal Code (two counts). The Jury' by an unanimous verdict found the accused not guilty of the first offence charged under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. They were divided in their verdict with regard to the second offence charged under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, and found the accused not guilty by a majority of 3 to 2, and they gave an unanimous verdict of not guilty as regards the charges framed under Section 477A, Indian Penal Code. As regards the divided verdict of the Jury in respect of the second offence charged under Section 406, Indian Penal Co...
Profulla Kumar Ghose and anr. Vs. Harendra Nath Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.761
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this ease criminal proceedings were taken against the molainant Harendra Nath Chatterjee by the petitioners Profulla Kumar Ghose and Jogesh Chandra Sarkar under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate who enquired into the complaint in those proceedings came to the conclusion that it could not be substantiated and discharged the accused person Harendra Nath Chatterjee. Thereupon Harendra Nath Chatterjee applied for sanction under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prosecute Pro-fulla Chandra Ghose and Jogesh Chandra Sarkar under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, and in the alternative asked for process against these two persons under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate refused sanction under Section 195 to Harendra-Nath Chatterjee to prosecute the petitioners under Section 211, but granted process under Section 500.2. An application was made to this Court by Mr. Monmotha Nath Mukherjae on behalf of the petitione...
Chhagmal Chopra and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.146
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. We think that this Rule should be made absolute.2. The charge against the two petitioners was under Section 64(c) of the Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899), which says that 'Any person who, with intent to defraud the Government, does any other act calculated to deprive the Government of any duty or penalty under this Act shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.'3. Now, what happened in this case was that the petitioners alleged that they had lent money to one Lai Mohammad Barkundaz, and Lal Mohammad had signed an undertaking in one of the petitioners' books to this effect: 'I shall pay interest on this hathchitta up to date of realization at the rate of Rs. 3 per cent, per mensem.(Sd). Sri Lai Mahamad.'4. That document was stamped with one-anna stamp. When it was necessary for the petitioners in certain proceedings against Lai Mohammad to put in this document, an objection was taken by the officer of the Court that it was not duly st...
Hrishi Kesh Mandal Vs. Abadhaut Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.421
1. In this case the Magistrate who tried the case acquitted the accused. Then th6 matter was brought before the District Magistrate, who investigated it, examined the evidence, and after such examination referred the matter to the High Court under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code; and he came to the conclusion that the acquittal of the accused was wrong. The grounds of his opinion are summed up in two sentences towards the end of his reference: 'The Magistrate has taken a grossly biased and distorted view of the case. His judgment shows that he did not honestly and impartially apply his mind to the actual evidence before him.'2. There is no doubt about the jurisdiction of this Court, either upon an application of a private individual, or when the case is referred to this Court by a learned Magistrate, that this Court can interfere by way of revision. That has been quite clearly decided in the case to which our attention has been drawn more than once recently--the case of Fauj...
Girish Chandra Bit and anr. Vs. BipIn Behari Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1916
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.159
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title. The disputed land is claimed by the plaintiffs as situated within their village Bhuluk Khulla and by the Khan defendants as comprised within their village Sriramanipur. The Courts below have found that the title of the plaintiffs has been established, and the only question in controversy is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for recovery of possession.2. There are two sets of defendants, the Khans and the Sheikhs. There was a previous suit between the plaintiffs and the Khans, which was instituted on the 13th September 1906 and terminated on the 29th April 1912. The plaintiffs in that suit claimed possession of the land now in dispute. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance, but, on appeal, was decreed by the Subordinate Judge. On second appeal to this Court Mr. Justice Coxe remanded the case to the Subordinate Judge for trial of two issues. The defen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »