Kolkata Court May 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.
Bimal Chandra Banerjee Vs. Tez Chandra Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.92
1. In this case a Rule was issued at the instance of the petitioner, Bimal Chandra Banerjee, sailing on the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence upon him (the petitioner) should not be set aside on the ground that the Alipore Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. The petitioner was a Tahsildar in the employment of Mr. Beyomkesh Chakerbertty with reference to Mr. Chakerbertty's Jessore estates. The complaint against him was that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 800 which he had received by way of selami from tenants on three dates between January and March 1917. The charges, which are in identical terms, mutatis mutandis were that the petitioner at 'Gangralia Cutchery, Police Station Magnra, District Jessore, being a servant in the employment of Mr. B. Chakerbertty, in such capacity being entrusted with such and such a sum committed criminal breach of trust with respect to the said amount by criminally misappropriating the same and thereby committed ...
Secretary of State for India Vs. Bijoy Chand Mahatap
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal390
Fletcher, J.1. The question involved in these appeals is whether the plaintiff, the Maharaja of Burdwan, is entitled to the churs that form in the Rivers Damodar and Darakeswar without liability to further assessment of Government Revenue. The appeals which are preferred by the Secretary of State for India in Council have reference to the portion of the river which lies wholly within the limits of the permanently settled estate of the plaintiff, on which the learned Judge in the Court below, held that the Government were not entitled to assess further Government revenue. The appeals by the plaintiff refer to the portion of the river of which the plaintiff is proprietor of the riparian mouzas on one side of the these, that by the rule of the 'middle thread' the soil in one half of the river was vested in the plaintiff but that he was liable to assessment to further Government Revenue in respect of churs forming in the river.2. One of the main questions that has been raised in these appe...
Aghore Nath Banerjee Vs. Kalyaneswari Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.883
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the defendant No. 1 against the decision of the learned District Judge of Birbhoom, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Suri. The suit was brought for possession of certain land. The land was originally what is called the Ghat Chaukidari Chakran land held by the second defendant. The tenure was resumed by the Government, and the question is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to it or whether the defendant No. 1 should get it. The plaintiffs are the Zemindars or the proprietors of the Mouza within the ambit of which the laud in suit lies. The defendant No. 1 purchased at a sale for arrears of Government revenue an estate which had been formed of portions of Ghat Chaukidari Chakran lands in the district. The land in suit did not form a portion of the land comprised in that new estate. It is said that it was omitted by mistake. It makes not much difference whether it was omitted by mistake or not: one thing is quite obvious that the defen...
Gangadhar Nanda and ors. and the Secretary of State for India Vs. Srim ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.524
Fletcher, J.1. The question raised in these two appeals is whether the suit was competent. That arises on a consideration of the terms of Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy Act. First of all, it is quite clear that, as against the Nandas, that is, one set of defendants who has preferred one of these appeals,, namely, Appeal No. 2072 of 1916, the suit was brought eight months after the final publication of the Record of flights. There does not seem to be any ground why as against them the period should be extended. As against the Secretary of State for India in Council, the reason why the suit was brought beyond six months is this; The Secretary of State was entitled to two months' notice under the provisions of Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure, and the plaintiff's view is that he was entitled under the provisions of Section 15, Sub-section (2) of the Indian Limitation Act, to exclude the period during which the notice to the Secretary of State was, current. That, of course, depends ...
Manik Chandra Roy Vs. Ismail Kalu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal98,50Ind.Cas.1006
1. In this case the petitioner, Manik Chandra Roy, was convicted by an Honorary Magistrate of Goalundo of offences under Section 24 of Act I of 1871 (Cattle Trespass Act) and Section 352, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 or in default to undergo two weeks' rigorous imprisonment. He was further directed to pay Rs. 5 to the complainant as compensation. The petitioner appealed to the District Magistrate, who upheld the conviction under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act but said nothing about the conviction under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, nor did the District Magistrate say anything about the order for compensation. As to the order for compensation it is clear that in the form in which it was made it was illegal. The Magistrate had be power to award compensation in addition to the fine, though he might have directed a part of the fine, if recovered, to be paid to the complainant as compensation. The petitioner applied to this Court and obtained a Rule ...
E.D. Murray Vs. East Bengal Mahajan Flotilla Co., Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal156
Greaves, J.1. This is an application by the defendant Company for an order that the plaintiff be directed to give security for the costs of the suit. The plaintiff is an undischarged insolvent and he is suing to recover from the defendant Company a sum of Rs. 33,731 for brokerage, said to have been earned by, him subsequent to his adjudication. The total liabilities of the insolvent are said to amount, according to his schedule of affairs, to Rs. 11,604. In reply to an enquiry addressed by the defendant Company to the Official Assignee on the 22nd January 1918 as to whether he claimed any interest in the suit and if it had been instituted with his knowledge or consent, he replied on the 25th January 1918 that the suit would be continued by him; but so far as I am aware, he has not taken any steps with regard to it.2. It is admitted that this application is not covered by any provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, but that Code is not exhaustive, and I must deal with it under the gen...
Jogemaya Dassi Vs. Baidyanath Pramanick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal258(2),(1919)ILR46Cal245
Greaves, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff for the attachment of certain properties of the defendants. On the 2nd May last, I granted a Rule calling on the defendants to show cause why these properties should not be attached and the Rule now comes on for hearing. On the 28th September 1913 the plaintiff advanced to the defendants the sum of Rs. 6,000 and the defendants thereupon deposited the title deeds of No. 3, Jebb's Lane in this city to secure the sum advanced and interest thereon at 6 per cent, per annum. The defendants agreed to repay the advance together with interest thereon at the rate aforesaid within 6 months from the date of the advance; default was made by the defendants in repaying the advance and, on the 21st November 1914, the plaintiff commenced a suit to recover the money advanced together with interest thereon. On the 28th May 1917 a preliminary mortgage decree was passed in the suit declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to a charge for the sum advanc...
E.D. Murray Vs. East Bengal Mahajan Flotilla Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.622
Greaves, J.1. This is an application by the defendant Company for an order that the plaintiff be directed to give security for the costs of the suit. The plaintiff is an undischarged insolvent and he is suing to recover from the defendant Company a sum of Rs. 33,731 for brokerage, said to have been earned by him subsequent to his adjudication. The total liabilities of the insolvent are said to amount, according to his schedule of affairs, to Rs. 11,604. In reply to an enquiry addressed by the defendant Company to the Official Assignee on the 22nd January 1918 as to whether he claimed any interest in the suit and if it had been instituted with his knowledge or consent, he replied on the 25th January 1918 that the suit would, be continued by him; but so far as I am aware, he, has not taken any steps with regard to it.2. It is admitted that this application is not covered by any provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, but that Code is not exhaustive, and I must deal with it under the ge...
Joy Gobinda Chowdhury Vs. Debendra Nath Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal979(1),46Ind.Cas.216
1. This appeal must stand dismissed. The sale, took place under the old Code of Civil Procedure. Section 317 of the old Code enacted that no suit should be maintained against the certified purchaser. The decisions of this Court show that the certified purchaser meant the certified purchaser and only the certified purchaser. Now, considerable alterations have been made in the wording of Section 66 of the present Code of Civil Procedure, which corresponds to Section 317 of the old Code. It is said that the provision extends not only to the certified purchaser but also to persons claiming through the certified purchaser and that, therefore, the present suit could not be maintained against the present defendants. There is no reason to think that the passing of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 took away the rights that the plaintiff had before that Code came into operation. The present appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs....
Grande Venkata Ratnam and Vs. Nity Charan Hazra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.593
John Woodroffe, J.1. This matter has been referred to me on a difference of opinion between my brothers Chitty, J. and Smither, J. It is to be observed that there were before them three revision cases and one appeal. Strictly the revision cases and the appeal should have been dealt with separately. If this had been done, then in the appeal the matter would have stood in this way. The trial from which the appeal arises, was heard ex parte. There was then in this case only the prosecution evidence and no cross-examination, It is doubtful whether under these circumstances the appeal, in which the facts were open, could succeed unless a retrial was ordered. And it was doubtless for this reason that the accused asked for a retrial in the event of the Court holding that a prima facie case had been made oat. Again in the revision cases the Court would not ordinarily interfere*' on a question of fact. However, the cases were ordered to be heard together and apparently the evidence taken in one...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »