Kolkata Court December 1918 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.
Chowdhuri Meah and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.174
1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Noakhali to show cause why the order, under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, directing the prosecution of the 1st petitioner under Sections 211, 193 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners for offences falling under Sections 193, 465 or 471 of the Indian Penal Code should not be set aside.2. It appears that the first petitioner, Chowdnuri Meah, lodged a complaint charging two persona, Abdul Rahaman and Fazlar Rahaman, with offences under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of a certain bond. An enquiry was held in the matter by a Deputy Magistrate who discharged the two accused, and by the order which is now in question directed the persecution of the petitioners for the offences I have mentioned. The order of discharge came before the Sessions Judge, Mr. S.P. Bakshi, who set it aside and directed a further enquiry. The case then came before another Daputy Magistrate, w...
The Midnapur Zemindary Company Limited Vs. Abinash Chundra Mitra and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.790
Greaves, J.1. The first of these appeals (No. 501 of 1914) is an appeal by the Company (defendant No. 14 in the suit), against that part of the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Midnapur, dated the 15th July 1914 passed in Civil Suit No. 13/378 of 1913, which declares that the sum of Rs. 5,521-2-9 and Rs. 447, proportionate costs, are a charge over 5/9ths of the tenures set out in the 3rd Schedule (Schedule Ga) to the plaint. The second appeal (No. 505 of 1914) is an appeal by the plaintiffs in the suit against that part of the decree which disallows a portion of their claim. The respondents in Appeal No. 501 who appeared were the defendants Nos. 11, 12 and 13 and the plaintiffs, and in Appeal No. 505 the defendants Nos. 11,12,13 and 14.2. After Appeal No. 505 was opened the learned Vakil for the plaintiffs-appellants stated that he did not desire to press the appeal and this appeal accordingly stands dismissed. We make no order as to costs in this appeal.3. Before dealing with the po...
Jogendra NaraIn Ray Chowdhury Vs. Rai Kiran Chandra Ray Bahadur and an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.406
1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff (who was the purchaser of an estate sold for arrears of revenue) for the annulment of certain intermediate tenures held by the defendants.2. The lands in dispute lie within Mauza Joka which is included in four separate estates, one of which, No. 3845, was purchased by the plaintiff and it is in respect to the lands included in the said estate that the plaintiff seeks to eject the defendants.3. The defendants set up certain tenures as having been held by them from before the Permanent Settlement and Whey pleaded that they are protected from ejectment under the provisions of Section 37 of Act XI of 1859. They further pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to the privileges attaching to the purchaser of an entire estate under Section 37 of the Act.4. The Courts below held with reference to a portion of the lands that the defendant held the tenure from before the Permanent Settlement, and with regard to another portion th...
Jogendra NaraIn Roy Chowdhury Vs. Kiran Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal424,(1919)ILR46Cal730
Chatterjea and Newbould, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff (who was the purchaser of an estate sold for arrears of revenue) for the annulment of certain intermediate tenures held by the defendants.2. The lands in dispute lie within mauza Joka which is included in four separate estates, one of which No. 3845 was purchased by the plaintiff and it is in respect to the lands included in the said estate that the plaintiff seeks to eject the defendants.3. The defendants set up certain tenures as having been held by them from before the Permanent Settlement and they pleaded that they were protected from ejectment under the provisions of Section 37 of Act XI of 1859. They further pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to the privileges attaching to the purchaser of an entire estate under Section 37 of the Act.4. The Courts below held with reference to a portion of the lands that the defendant held the tenure from before the Permanent Settlement, and with r...
Re Suresh Chunder Gooyee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal337,51Ind.Cas.654
Rankin, J.1. I think it will be desirable that I should give judgment in this matter. In this bankruptcy it appears that there was a question as to whether a certain business belonged to the insolvent and his wife or belonged to the respondent. By a petition filed on the 21st April 1918 the Official Assignee, who had already examined some five or six witnesses under Section 36 of the Act, applied and obtained an order for leave to institute the necessary proceedings for the purpose of recovering the property referred to in paragraph 6 and to engage Counsel and Attorney for that purpose and to pay the costs and expenses therefor out of funds to the credit of the estate. That order was made, and thereupon the proceeding that was commenced was this, that first of all a petition was filed on the 7th May 1918 in which the statements were verified to the best of knowledge, information and belief by the Official Assignee, and the petition asked for an order 'that the respondent do make over a...
Dwarkanath Roy and ors. Vs. Fanindra Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.262
Charles Chitty, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge confirming the decree of the Munsif pronouncing judgment in accordance with an award. The appeal is preferred by defendants Nos. 1 and 2, but the ground put forward in support of this appeal is a ground peculiar to defendant No. 2. She is a pardanashin lady residing at Benares. She and her two sons were parties defendant to a suit for recovery of possession of land. An agreement was said to have been made by the parties to refer the matter to arbitration and the Court made an order of reference. Defendant No. 2 afterwards objected to the reference, admitting that one had been made but saying that she did not expect to get justice at the hands of the arbitrator. Before this Court it is urged that there was no valid reference to arbitration made by the parties through the Court. It appears that the provisions of paragraph 1 of Schedule II to the Civil Procedure Code were not complied with in the case of this de...
Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria Vs. Kumudi Kanta Talukdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal414,49Ind.Cas.794
Richardson, J.1. The defendants in the suit out of which this second appeal arises are three brothers, Rebati Kanta Talukdar, Kumndi Kanta Talukdar and Abani Kanta Talukdar.2. It appears that defendant No. 1 had dealings with the plaintiff. In the year 1321 there was an adjustment of accounts and defendant No. 1 executed a hatchita acknowledging his indebtedness to the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 3,062-1. In the following year, 1322, the defendant No. 1 who was a Treasurer in the Mymen-singh Collectorate, was arrested on a charge of embezzlement and was placed in custody in jail pending his trial, In that state of things, defendants Nos. 2 and 13 went to the plaintiff for the purpose of procuring money with which to obtain the release of defendant No. 1, on bail, and to make arrangements for his defence. What occurred according to the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 themselves is thus described in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge in the trial Court. ' Understanding from him ' (the officer...
BipIn Chandra Sarkar and ors. Vs. Basanta Kumar Chakrayarti and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1918
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.454
1. The plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal arises are the proprietors of a plot of land which is in the possession of the defendant. They brought the suit to eject the defendant, on the ground that he was in wrongful possession without, as the plaintiffs allege, obtaining any settlement from the plaintiffs or from the predeoeesor of the plaintiff No. 2. The defendant, on the other hand, claims the right to occupy the land as an ordinary raiyati holding. The issue which arises is, whether the defendant has a right to hold the land as a tenant or raiyat under the plaintiffs. On that issue the Trial Court found in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appealed from that decision. The learned District Judge took a different view of the facts. He found that the defendant had been permitted by the landlord to enter upon the land subject to an agreement to be afterwards arrived at 'as to the rent etc.' He farther found that no concluded agreement was ever ...
Ghasita Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.476
1. In this case the appellant, a previous convict, has been sentenced under Sections 457/75, Indian Penal Code, to transportation for life. As for his guilt there can be no qnestion. He is a resident of a different village and was arrested close to the spot and has been able to give no explanation whatever of his presence. The evidence against him is entirely independent and trustworthy.2. The Sessions Judge was, however, in error in holding the appellant guilty of an offence under Section 457 and applying Section 75 for purposes of an enhanced sentence. The appellant made his way into an open thorned enclosure in which goats and sheep were kept. The owner was disturbed before the appellant was able to carry out his object and the appellant fled. It is plain, therefore, that the appellant cannot be convicted of criminal trespass by night in a house or building and that the only offence of which be can be convicted is one of attempted theft under Sections 379/511, Indian Penal Code. It ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›