Kolkata Court July 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.
Lakhi NaraIn Das and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal460,49Ind.Cas.165
Richardson, J.1. The only questions which arise on this Rule are questions of law. The Rule was not issued on the merits, and on the merits the petitioners have no case.2. There is now ample authority for the proposition that Section 11Q of the Criminal Procedure Code does not require that the person proceeded against should reside within the local limits of the Magistrate empowered to take action under the section. It is sufficient that the person should be within those limits at the time when proceedings are taken. See Sona Ram v. Emperor 3 C.L.J. 195 : 3 Cr.L.J. 246, Emperor v. Durga Halwai 30 Ind. Cas. 442 : 19 C.W.N. 1022 : 43 C. 153 : 16 cr.L.J. 618; Monindra Mohan Sanyal v. Emperor 46 Ind. Cas. 152 : 28 C.L.J. 25 at. p. 32 : 19 cr.L.J. 696 : 23 C.W.N. 193; Kora Rangan, In re 17 Ind. Cas. 413 : 36 M. 96 : 23 M.L.J. 535 : 13 Cr.L.J. 781 and Emperor v. Munna 35 Ind. Cas. 822 : 39 A. 139 : 14 A.L.J. 1074 : 17 Cr.L.J. 390. The case of Ketaboi v. Queen-Empress 27 C. 993 : 11 Ind. Dec....
Ashraf Ali and anr. Vs. Mahammad Nurajjama and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal179,49Ind.Cas.355
Shamsul Huda, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by two worshippers of a mosque situated Rahmatgunge, one of the quarters of the town of Chittagong, for themselves and as representing other worshipers in 'the locality for a declaration that' a permanent lease granted by the Mutwallies, defendant No. 4 and another, in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the name of their mother, the defendant No. J, is void and inoperative and for a decree' for khas possession with mesne profits, either in favour of the Mutwallies or in favour of the plaintiffs, on the ground that it was not within the competency of the Mutwallies. to grant such a lease The plaintiffs have complied with the requirements of Rule 8, Order I. Both the Courts have decreed the suit in part only and have declared that the property in. still is part of the Wakf property dedicated to the mosque and that the permanent lease granted by the Mat-wallies in favour of the defendant No. 1 is void and inoperative. The praye...
Mohini Mohan Sirkar Minor and ors. Vs. Navadwip Chandra Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.911
1. This appeal arises out of certain execution proceedings. It appears that on the 10th December 1913 the decree-holder-appellant obtained a decree for arrears of rent against the judgment-debtor-respondent in this appeal. On the 26th August 1916 the , decree-holder made an application for execution, and in the same application prayed for the attachment and sale of the judgment debtor's moveable properties. Processes were issued accordingly, but as the result of proceedings taken apparently by the judgment-debtor the attachment of moveables was found to be impracticable. Thereupon on the 22nd February 1917 the decree-holder prayed that he should be permitted to proceed against the judgment-debtor's immoveable properties. Permission was granted and on the 24th February 1917, the decree-holder filed a list of the immoveable properties against which he desired that proceedings should be taken. .2. The application made on the 26th August 1916 was admittedly within time. But the Court of fi...
Bibhuti Bhusan Biswas Vs. Bhuban Ram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal515
Richardson and Shams-ul-Huda JJ.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Dinajpur under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Sessions Judge states the facts as follows: 'A steam paddy-husking machine was set up in Dinajpore Municipality in 1912 with the permission of the Municipality. Up to December 1917, it appears to have worked only by day and there was no complaint. But in that month it began working both by day and by night, and a complaint was filed, on the 11th January 1918, by ten persons living near it that the dust, smoke, smell and noise of the machine were a public nuisance both by day and by night. The District Magistrate, thereupon, prohibited, the working of the mill by night and summoned the proprietors and the manager under Section 290 of the Penal Code. At the trial ten persons living close to the mill, said that they were annoyed by the mill in various ways, but chiefly because it disturbed their sleep at night--the man who signed the petiti...
Sheikh Ghulam Rasul and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal872,48Ind.Cas.510
Richardson, J.1. The petitioners are persona against whom proceedings have been taken under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code. A Rule was issued upon the District Magistrate to show cause why those proceedings should not be quashed on the grounds, firstly, that in consideration of certain proceedings under the Criminal Tribes Act and of the result of the inquiries made into certain cases of alleged dacoity, there was no material disclosed in the Police report on which the proceedings under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, could be based and, secondly, that in view of the sentences of imprisonment which the petitioners Nos. 1, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are undergoing under the provisions of the Criminal Tribes Act the proceedings under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, against them cannot stand. In his argument before us to-day the learned Pleader for the petitioners has confined himself to those petitioners who have been registered under Section 4 and the following sections of the ...
Sanni Bibi and anr. Vs. Munshi Siddik HossaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.76
1. The plaintiffs who are the appellants before us brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for the recovery of possession of a share of certain land on declaration of their title thereto. They also asked for cancellation of a deed of sale by which they had transferred the property in suit to the defendant No. 1, alleging that they had executed the deed in consequence of a fraudulent representation by this defendant that the deed was a jimba-nama for their maintenance for a term of three years.2. The plaintiffs originally claimed fifteen plots of land. At the trial the claim to plots Nos. 5, 6 and 7 was abandoned. It has been found that the plaintiffs have been out of possession of plots Nos. 3, 9, 11 and 13 for more than twelve years, and it is conceded that as regards these plots it cannot be disputed on second appeal that this portion of the claim is barred by limitation. We are ' now, therefore, concerned only with plots Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 15. As regards these ...
Bhuban Ram and ors. Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.287
1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Dinajpur under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Session Judge states the facts as follows: 'A steam paddy husking machine was set up in Dinajpur Municipality in 1972, with the permission of the Municipality. Up to December 1917 it appears to have worked only by day and there was no complaint. But in that month it began working both by day and by night and a complaint was filed on the 11th January 1918 by ten persons living near it that the dust, smoke, smell and noise of the machine were a public nuisance both by day and by night. The District Magistrate thereupon prohibited the working of the mill by night and summoned the proprietors and the manager under Section 290, Indian Penal Code. At the trial the persons living close to the mill, said that they were annoyed by the mill in various ways bat chiefly because it disturbed their sleep at night. One man who signed the petition, however, said that it did not inconvenienc...
Mohesh Chandra Shaw and ors. Vs. BipIn Behari Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.510
1. The first point taken in this appeal is that certain additional evidence has been wrongly admitted by the lower Appellate Court. We have heard the learned Pleaders on both sides and we think this objection is maintainable and that in consequence the appeal must be remanded fora farther hearing. It appears that after the appeal was partly heard the learned District Judge allowed the appellant to file certain documents and ordered a relay of certain boundaries by a Commissioner. He states in. his judgment that 'this was done on appeal at the request of the appellant in Order to check the previous maps.' The only section of the Civil Procedure Code which provides for taking' further evidence in a Court of Appeal is Order XLI, Rule 27, and that rule requires 'wherever -additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court' shall record the reason for its admission.' Here no reason has been recorded.' In the well-known Privy Council case of Kessowji Issur v. G.I....
Bulaichand Dutta Vs. NaraIn Chandra Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal168(2),49Ind.Cas.624
1. We think that the word recusancy' in Section 45 of the Guardians and Wards Act means something more than mere disobedience of an order to pay and that the opposite party should not be sent to jail in the absence of proof that he has some means. We accordingly discharge is Rule but make no order as to costs.2. We note that the District Judge has held that at any time the petitioner is able to show to the Court on proper materials that the opposite party is in possession of property, which he has concealed, coercive action may be taken according to law. In that event further application may be made to the Court of the District Judge....
Khettra Mohan Singh and anr. Vs. Shib Das Chander
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal965(1),48Ind.Cas.612
1. This is an application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. It is directed against an order by which, proceeding under Section 23 of that Act, the Judge of the Court of Small Causes has returned the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the question of title raised in the suit. 'That the right of the plaintiffs in the suit in question did depend upon proof of plaintiffs' title to immoveable property cannot be disputed, and we see no ground for thinking that in returning the plaint the Judge of the Court of Small Causes has improperly exercised the discretion vested in him under Section 23 of the Act. It has been suggested that the question of title is in fact res judicata by reason of a suit brought in the preceding year between the present plaintiffs and the lessor of the present defendant. But for the reasons given by the Subordinate Judge and also by reason of the fact that the Court of Small Causes cannot finally determine a qu...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »