Kolkata Court June 1917 Judgments
Badal Mirza and ors. Vs. Tinkori Koley and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.736
Walmsley, J.1. The plaintiffs as mutawalis of certain waqf property brought this suit to recover possession of land belonging to the waqf and for a declaration that a mokarari maurusi lease, dated the 30th Aswin 1313, executed by a previous mutawalli, their' father Jamir-ud-din, in favour of the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was void. The first Court decreed the suit on the ground that the maurusi lease was void. On appeal it was held that the lease was not void if it could he shown that there was urgent necessity for granting it and the case was remanded to the first Court for a finding on that question. This remand was based on the authority of the case of Nemai Chand Adhya v. Mir Golam Hossein 3 Ind. Cas. 353 : 11 C. L. J. 317 : 140. W.N. 535 : 37 C. 179 at p. 187. On remand, the first Court found that there was no urgent necessity for the lease and, in consequence, it decreed the plaintiffs' suit. The lower Appellate Court, however, has reversed this finding and dismissed the suit and...
Tag this Judgment!Wazuddi Vs. Rahimuddi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.817
Teunon, J.1. On the general question of applications made to this Court by complainants in respect of the acquittal of persons whom they have charged with the commission of offences I adhere to the views expressed in my dissentient judgment in the case reported as Faujdar Thakur v. Kasi Choudhuri 27 Ind. Cas. 183***, 19 C. W. N. 184 : 21 C. L. J. 53 : 16 Cr. L. J. 122 : 42 C. 612. I need add nothing to what I then said beyond this that to lay down as a hard and fast Rule that such applications are to be discouraged is for this Court to abdicate its functions and in present conditions in India must necessarily result in denials of justice. Every such application should, in my view, be considered on its own facts.2. As to the merits on the evidence of the acquittal with which we are now concerned it is unnecessary and in my opinion undesirable to express any decided opinion.3. It is sufficient to show that the decision of the Magistrate is vitiated by a series of misconceptions which per...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Chandra Roy Vs. Satis Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.998
1. This Rule is directed against an order made by the Sub- Divisional Officer of Uluberia under the provisions of Section 494 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. It appears that on the application of the Court Sub-Inspector acting as Public Prosecutor the Magistrate accorded his consent to the withdrawal by the Public Prosecutor from the prosecution of three persons, who under the provisions of Section 170 of the Code had been sent up for trial on charges of rape and murder. For this order, according his sanction to the withdrawal from the prosecution and to the subsequent or consequential order discharging the accused, the Magistrate gave no reasons. As from the petition presented by the complainant it appeared that one of the persons put on their trial had made a confession implicating himself and the others, we were of opinion that these orders should be examined by this Court.2. The learned Counsel who has appeared to oppose this Rule on behalf of the accused persons has conte...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Romesh Chandra Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.157
Teunon and Huda, JJ.1. This is a reference made by the District Magistrate of Tipperah under the provisions of Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that the accused with whose case we are now dealing one Romesh Chandra Gupta was employed in Chandpur Post Office as a postal clerk, and it has been found that he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 151 8-0 made over to him by the addressee of a value payable parcel. When his offence was detected, he admitted his guilt to his superior officer and subsequently to the departmental officer who held an enquiry into the matter. When placed on his trial he again pleaded guilty. It further appears that the money misappropriated, has been made good by his relatives. Now these are all matters which may properly be taken into account on the question of sentence. But still we cannot but think that the sentence of one day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 is not an adequate punishment for the offence committed. His age was also taken into...
Tag this Judgment!Genu Sheikh and ors. Vs. Taramani Choudhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.259
Chitty, J.1. I agree in the judgment about to be delivered by Mr. Justice Beachcroft.Beachcroft, J.2. This is an appeal by the tenant defendants in proceedings under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act The Assistant Settlement Officer without going into the details of th eholdings of the various tenants decided in general terms that the tenants were entitled to the presumption provided for in Section 50 of the Act. On appeal the learned Special Judge remanded the case to the Assistant Settlement Officer, for the purpose of deciding which tenants held at fixed rents and of disposing of the applications in view of the other considerations affecting enhancement of rent, which arose in the ease.3. The learned Special Judge rightly held that the case of each tenancy must be considered separately. He further made certain observations with regard to the fixity of rent, and it is these remarks that have been called in question in the present appeal.4. For the respondents it has been argued t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Tarit Kanti Biswas, Printer and Publisher of the amrita Bazar P ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.338
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this matter the Rule was issued by me as Chief Justice of this Court after consultation with the learned Judges in consequence of two articles which appeared in the 'Amrita Bazar Patrika' newspaper on the 18th and 2.2nd of May 1917, respectively. The Eule was directed to Tarit Kanti Biswas, the printer and publisher of the newspaper, and to Moti Lal Ghose, Golap Lal Ghose and Pijush Kanti Ghose, Directors, and Golap Lal Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Ghose, the Managers of the Company called the 'Amrita Bazar Patrika Ltd.,'having its registered office at No. 2 Anando Chatterjee's Lane, Calcutta, and the Rule called upon them to show cause why they should not be committed or otherwise dealt with according to law for contempt of Court alleged to have been committed by them by unlawfully publishing the two articles concerning the High Court and the Chief Justice in his administration thereof.2. The respondents to the Rule hare all appeared by learned Counsel.3. The f...
Tag this Judgment!Manmotha Nath Dey and anr. Vs. Gadadhar Manna and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.751
1. This appeal is directed against an order whereby the Court below has refused to set aside an order of dismissal of an appeal for default. A preliminary objection has been taken to the competence of the appeal.2. The suit was instituted under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and was dismissed by the Court of first instance. An appeal was thereupon preferred to the Special Judge under Sub-section 2 of Section 109 A. When the appeal was taken up for disposal, neither the appellant nor his Pleader appeared and it was consequently dismissed for default. An application was thereupon made to re-hear the appeal. That application has been refused and the present appeal is directed against this last order. On behalf of the respondent, it is contended that the appeal is incompetent and reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in Mothur Chandra Majumdar v. Tara Sunkar Ghose 7 C. W. N. 440. In our opinion, that case is clearly distinguishable and has no application to the circumst...
Tag this Judgment!Campbell and Co. Vs. Jeshraj Giridhari Lall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.687
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case a preliminary point has been taken that there is no right of appeal.2. An application was made before Mr. Justice Greaves by the present appellants, and they obtained a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the award made in these matters should not be taken off the file and set aside, or why, in the alternative and without prejudice to the petitioners, the said award should not be remitted, and why an injunction should not be awarded against the opposite party restraining them and their assignees, servants and agents, until the further order of this Court, from executing the said award.3. As I understand, the award had been made against the petitioners, and it had been sent by the arbitrator to the Registrar, who, in accordance with the rules, filed it I ought to have said that the arbitration was under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, which applies to the Presidency Towns, and so to Calcutta, The rule which applies is Rule 12 ...
Tag this Judgment!Braja Nath Pal Chowdhury Vs. Surendra Krishna Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.181
1. This is an appeal against an order refusing to set aside an ex parte decree. The decree was made in a mortgage suit on the 21st January 1913. The application to set aside the decree was made on the 17th April 1915. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the application on the ground that the summons was duly served upon the applicant. In our opinion the evidence does not support that conclusion. The summons is said to have been served on the 1st December 1912 at a place called Bantra in the District of Howrah, The case for the petitioner is that he resides ordinarily in his house at Cawnpore in the same District and that he has done so for many years past. He further asserts that on the day the summons is said to have been served, he was not in Bantra, but in his house at Cawnpore. These statements were made on oath and make out a prima facie case. To rebut this, the decree-holders bring forward the peon who served the summons. The indentifier is not produced because he is dead, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Nafar Joardar Vs. Pratima Sundari Dassya and Shyama Charan Biswas and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.726
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Nadia affirming the decision of the Munsif of Kushtea. The suit was brought for a declaration that the lands appertained to the jote of the plaintiff held by her under one Bama Sandari and that the defendant was a tenant under her at a rent payable in kind. There was a clear and definite finding made by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court, quite apart from the question of the chitta and the exchange, that the defendant held on barga the disputed land under the plaintiff. If that finding is not displaced there is nothing to say in the case. The appeal has been argued on two points. First of all there was the point that the exchange had not been proved. I do not know that having regard to the finding of fact it was necessary to prove the exchange. That, in any case, was merely a formal omission and probably, as Mr. Roy Chowdhury said, it was overlooked by everybody, as t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »