Kolkata Court February 1917 Judgments
Mrs. B.H. Jolly Vs. St. John William Jolly
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.706
1. In this case the petitioner before us applied to the Chief Presidency Magistrate under the provisions of the Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application was against one St. John William Jolly who, it appears, is her husband. They have not been living together and the lady applies for maintenance. At the hearing of the case a preliminary objection was taken on the ground of jurisdiction. It is stated that the husband has lived in Darjeeling from the year 1913, and that he is still a resident of Darjeeling. But in his own affidavit the opposite party, the husband, admits that he was in fact in Calcutta on business from the 29th November till the 9th of January. The petitioner's first application bears date the 9th January. The husband says that he left Calcutta for Darjeeling on that day, and though it is clear that the petition was written on the 9th it is not clear that it was actually presented to the Magistrate before the 10th January But the husband further adm...
Tag this Judgment!Munsur Ali Vs. Abhoya Charan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.816
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Noakhali, reversing the order of the Munsif of the 2nd Court at Sudharam. The admitted facts are as follows :-- The respondent to this appeal on the 5th of November 1908 obtained a decree absolute for Rs. 847 in a mortgage suit against the appellant. The appellant having instituted a suit against the respondent attached this decree before judgment on the 7th of April 1909. On the 30th September 1909, the appellant obtained a decree against the respondent for Rs. 851. On the 7th of September 1909, the appellant applied that both decrees should be set off one against the other but this application was on the 26th of January 1911 rejected as premature. The appellant applied on the 20th November 1913 for execution of his decree.2. The learned District Judge held that the decree of Me respondent was barred by-limitation but it was equitable to allow the respondent to set off his Statute barred decree against the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Budhu Lall Vs. Chotu Gope
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.313
Teunon, J.1. These are six applications made to this Court under the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and of Section 195 (6) read with Section 195 (7) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. In each case the applicant was the defendant and the opposite party the plaintiff in a suit brought in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta. The suit having been dismissed, the defendants applied to the Trial Judge for sanction to prosecute the plaintiffs under Sections 209 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Sanction having been refused, in these applications, for the hearing of which I and Chaudhuri, J., have been constituted a Divisional Bench by his Lordship the Chief Justice, we are invited to revise and set aside the order of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes and to giant the sanction for which application was, and is, made.3. At the hearing Babu Manmatha Nath Mukerjee, a Vakil enrolled and ordinarily practising in this Court, was authorised by the plaintiffs-opposite ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor on the Complaint of Kaji SafiuddIn Vs. Fazal Shaik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.657
1. We have read the letter of reference in this case. It is abundantly clear from the facts set out by the learned Sessions Judge that there was a misjoinder of charges, that is to say, there ought to have been at least two trials, one in respect of one kabuliyat and one in respect of the other. On that ground alone we must accept this reference and set aside the conviction and the Sentence and imposed upon the accused. The question then remains whether this is a case in which we ought to direct a re-trial. Having regard to the facts set out in the letter of reference submitted to us by the learned Sessions Judge and also to the explanation of the trial Magistrate, we are of opinion that this is not a case in which it would be proper for us to direct a re trial. We desire to say further that we are satisfied from the explanation of the Honorary Magistrate that he gave the parties a fair trial and there is no reason whatsoever for the suggestion that he has in any way wilfully disregard...
Tag this Judgment!Jadub Chandra Maulik Vs. Manik Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.91
1. In our opinion this judgment of Mr. Justice Chapman must be reversed. The learned Judge has allowed a point to be taken before him which was not taken in either of the lower Courts and which involves two questions of fact. In the first place, it had to be shown before Section '29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act came into operation that the defendant was an occupancy ryot, and, even if that were shown, it would further have to be proved that the contract was a mere device to evade the provisions of the Statute.2. The appeal, therefore, is decreed with costs and the decree of the first Court restored....
Tag this Judgment!Ramratan Sukul Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.977
1. In this case the petitioner Ramratan Sukul has been convicted under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the period of two years. It appears that on the night of the 14th October there occurred a theft in the house of a Marwari banking firm in Chittagong, and that in the course of this theft notes, cash and ornaments to the value of some Rs. 30,000 were stolen. On the 15th October two currency notes, each of the value Of Rs. 100, was found with Ramratan, the petitioner. He was placed on his trial jointly with one Loke Nath Singh. Loke Nath like Ramratan has also been convicted under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge says that this joint trial was not improper, because there was but one transaction in which the two appellants were jointly concerned. Baton the facts, so far as we have been able to ascertain them from the judgment, this cannot be. The case for the prosecution apparently was that Loke Nath was himself the th...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Krishna Shaha Vs. Abdul Jalel Miyan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.500
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated the 27th August 1913. The plaintiffs who were the owners of a certain taluk brought the suit to set aside a sale that had been made of their taluk on the 22nd August 1911 for arrears of Government revenue under Act XI of 1859 and Act VII of 1868. The plaintiffs' taluk was Noabad Taluk. Fateh Ali bearing Tauzi No. 1408/20626 of the Chiitagong Collectorate. The Government revenue assessed on the taluk was a sum of Rs. 30 only payable by two instalments namely, an instalment of Rs. 18-12-0 payable on the 25th of February every year and an instalment of Rs. 11-4-0 payable en the 25th of May every year. The sale which was made by the Government under the provisions of the Revenue Sale Law was made on the 22nd August 1911 and it was purported to be made for default in the payment of the May instalment of the same year. The evidence establishes it conclusively that on the 13...
Tag this Judgment!Rajani Kanta Mondal Vs. Haji Lal Muhammad Sardar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.242
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Rajsbahi, dated the 22nd September 1916. The plaintiff brought the suit for a declaration that his right in certain property had not been affected by the charge said to have existed in favour of the defendant No. 1 under Section 171 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The facts are somewhat complicated as they appear from the judgment of the Court below, but from the very clear and lucid statement made by Mr. Roy Chowdhury who opened the appeal, the following may be taken as the facts necessary to be considered far the purpose of this case. There was a putni in which one Nafar Mandal had a 9 annas share. The other 7 annas was vested in two persons named Ram Coomar and Mahabharat. Nafar Mandal died leaving three sons, Srinath, Lakshi Kant, and Baruni. Srinath died without issue leaving a widow Nayantara. Lakshi Kant also died without issue leaving a widow Bisseswari. Baruni died le...
Tag this Judgment!Sati Nath Alias Sitanath Sikdar and ors. Vs. Ratanmani Naskar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.200
George Woodroffe, J.1. The plaintiff seeks in the first place to recover possession of a property purchased from one Aditya Chakravarti He was a decree-holder who purchased the property at a sale held under his decree. After his sale to the plaintiff, the Court sale was set aside on notice to Aditya but in the absence of and without notice to the plaintiff.2. It is conceded that the plaintiff is not in the position of a stranger who has purchased at a Court sale and who is pleading a bona fide purchase without notice; and, it is conceded, he is, therefore, a person taking through the decree-holder purchaser at the sale and standing in the same position as the decree-holder. The question, therefore, before us is whether or not we should treat the order setting aside the execution sale as a nullity or as a mere irregularity. If it was a nullity, then of course the plaintiff's title is made out; if, however, it was an irregularity then the plaintiff's remedy was in the execution Court to ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohini Mohan Guha and ors. Vs. Jhanda Mia Chowkidar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.596
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decision of the learned District Judge of Chittagong, dated the 29th July 1915, reversing the decision of the Munsif of South Raujan. The plaintiffs brought the suit to recover possession of a share in the tank. The first Court decreed the suit. The lower Appellate Court has reversed that decision and dismissed the suit.2. Two points have been argued in this appeal. First of all, the learned Judge has found as a fact that the defendant No. 4 obtained a settlement from the Government of this tank. It is said that that was a new case and, therefore, the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court was not entitled to find that case in favour of the defendant No. 4. I do not think that that is so. That case seems to have been set up at the outset and the statements of the Munsif in his judgment, though perhaps not so clear, go to warrant the fact.3. The other point that has been raised is that this land forms a part of what is known ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »