Kolkata Court August 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.
Radha Kant Aich and anr. Vs. the Sectery of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal281,50Ind.Cas.94
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of a Chur called Chur Khondkar. The Chur is an accretion to a permanently settled estate (Jugdia), No. 11 of the Noakhali Colleotorate, which is owned by a large body of proprietors.2. The Jugdia estate has for a long time past been managed by one or two Sadar Malguzars appointed under Section 10 (Clause 3) of Regulation VII of 1822, who are also part proprietors of the estate. The Sadar Malguzars represent the entire body of proprietors and their names are registered in the Collectorate in that capacity.3. Chur Khondkar first formed in the year 1842, and remained unassessed from 1843 to 1847 as the proprietors refused to take settlement. In 1848 the proprietors took a settlement of the Chur. Since then up to 1865 through some mistake the Chur was included in three other Mouzas belonging to the proprietors and was apparently lost sight of by the authorities. From 1866 to 1881 the Government granted farming settlement of the...
Beni Madhab Kundu Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal212
Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Rule obtained on behalf of Beni Madhab Kundu catling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the trial of the petitioner should not be stayed, or why such other order should not be passed in the matter as to this Court might seem fit.2. In this case the petitioner was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge with a jury, and the verdict of: the jury was that he was guilty of: an offence of receiving stolen property obtained by means of dacoity, and he was sentenced to live years' rigorous imprisonment. An appeal was made to this Court based upon the ground that, after the jury had retired to consider their verdict, one of the jurymen had spoken to a person who was not a juryman, outside the retiring room, and that this person had asked him a question and he had replied to it. On the hearing of the appeal, this Court set aside the verdict on the ground of the irregularity to which I have just referred, and the judgment contained the following sentence:--...
Krishnadhon Ghose and anr. Vs. Mahendra Nath Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.992
1. In this case against the petitioners before us a complaint was made disclosing offences punishable under Section 409 and Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code. The case was by some mistake made over for trial to an Honorary Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate of the Second Class. He proceeded to deal with the case as one under Section 408, Indian Penal Code, and finally acquitted the accused. After certain intermediate proceedings to which we need make no further reference, the complainant presented a further complaint to the District Magistrate praying for the trial of the accused under Sections 409 and 477A, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate thereupon took cognizance of this complaint and has referred the same to a Magistrate of the First Class for disposal.2. It appears that the Magistrate of the Second Class who has dealt with the case is not empowered to commit accused person for trial to the Court of Session. If he had been so empowered, we might possibly have con...
Beni Madhub Kundu Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.849
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Rule obtained on behalf of Beni Madhub Kundu calling upon the District Magistrate to snow cause why the trial of the petitioner should not be stayed, or why such other order should not be passed in the matter as to this Court might seem fit.2. In this case the petitioner was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge with a Jury, and the verdict of the Jury was that he was guilty of an offence of receiving stolen property obtained by means of dacoity : and, he was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. An appeal was made to this Court, based upon the ground that after the Jury had retired to consider their verdict, one of the Jurymen had spoken to a person who was not a Juryman, outside the retiring room, and that this person had asked him a question and he had replied to it. On the hearing of the appeal, this Court set aside the verdict on the ground of the irregularity to which I have just referred, and the judgment contained the following se...
Kunja Behari Ghose Vs. Lalit Mohun Singh Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal162,50Ind.Cas.154
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge of 24-Pergannas, by which he allowed the appeal to him and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. It was a claim for the return of Rs. 1,000, which had been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in pursuance of a contract for a lease which was to be granted by the defendant to the plaintiff The material part of the contract runs as follows: It was in respect of 103 bighas of land, and the defendant agreed to execute a maurasi mokarari lease on the annual rent of Rs. 200; and the premium was to be Rs. 1,200 and the terms were these: 'I execute this agreement oil receipt of Rs. 1,000 as earnest money on account of salami from you today and promise that on reoeipt of the remaining Rs. 260 from you within the month of Chaitra of the current year, I shall execute and register a maurasi mokarari patni patta in your favour at the said rent and for the said salami.... Be it stated that if for an...
Jagat Chandra Shaha Vs. Birendra Nath Dutta Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.805
John Woodroffe, J.1. The only paint in this appeal is as regards the question of interest. The interest in the kabuliyat is at the high rate of 300 per cent per annum. The first Court found that rate to be extortionate and unconscionable, and gave a decree for the interest at the rate of 12 per sent, per annum. Under the terms of Section 21 of Act VIII of 1869, which is applicable to the present case, the interest is to be at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum, unless otherwise provided for by a written agreement.2. The Appellate Court concurred with the first Court in holding that the interest was extortionate and unconscionable and awarded interest, 75 per cent., apparently by way of compensation under the provisions of Section 74 of the Contract Act. The Additional District Judge has, however, held that the rates were exorbitant and high rates 'and from their nature it seems that they were not intended to be realised but were put in by way of penalty to ensure punctual payment of th...
Sital Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal700
Teunon, J.1. I respectfully submit that the class of cases of illegal pardon and illegal withdrawal was in express terms distinguished (reads passage on p. 724). In fact the true question in such class of cases was stated, at page 724, to be 'whether several persons having been placed on their trial together, the proceedings as against one of them, have come to an end so as to remove the impediment to his being examined as a witness.' This is just my present contention and I rely on the passage which clearly supports my contention. This ruling was cited by me on the application of the Rule, and Richardson J., who was a member of the Court which decided it, also was a member of the Bench which granted this Rule, showing that in his opinion it did not cover the present matter. If the ruling applies here, it is in conflict with Paban Sing v. Emperor (1906) 10 C.W.N. 847 and Banu Singh v. Emperor (1906) I.L.R. 33 Calc. 1353, and the point should be referred to a Full Bench. Though the last...
Legal Remembrancer Vs. Tularam Barodia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal544
Teunon and Cuming, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an acquittal. A preliminary objection is taken that the appeal has not been presented by a Public Prosecutor within the meaning of Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The appeal was presented by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, the officer, who by notification of date the 19th May of 1915.has been appointed by the Local Government to be, by virtue of his office, Public Prosecutor in all cases heard by this Court in the exercise of its Appellate Jurisdiction. The objection is founded on the fact that the office of Legal Remembrancer, which received legislative sanction in Regulation VIII of 1816, was abolished by Regulation XIII of 1829, and appears to pre-suppose that there is no office or officer properly so-called. Prom the official papers placed before us we find, however, that the office of Legal Remembrancer was revived in 1814 or 1845, and the fact that the office is now the creation of e...
Kailash Chandra Pal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal712
Teunon and Cuming, JJ.1. In this case the two petitioners, Kailash Chandra Pal and Rash Behari Dhar, have been convicted of cheating, and sentenced, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, each to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts found are that in February, 1916, one Safar Ali and 11 others took from Government on a joint bond a sum of Rs. 300 by way of an agricultural loan. At the same time one Sibram and ten others similarly borrowed a sum of Rs. 265. In each case the bond was repayable by two instalments, the first instalment becoming due a year and a half after date. On the 23rd of January 1918 a Sub-deputy Collector went to realise the first instalment. He allowed the petitioners, who are spoken of as 'village touts', to interfere in the matter. The result was that while from each borrower, including interest for a year and a half, the sum due was Rs. 14-3-5, the two petitioners acting in concert induced the borrowers to believe that the sum payable by ea...
Sital Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1918
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.53
1. In these five connected cases the twenty petitioners have been convicted under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. In the Rules issued at their instance the questions raised are three, namely, (i) whether the evidence of an accomplice of the name of Ramraj was properly admitted, (ii) whether evidence regarding certain cocaine and gambling dens should have been admitted and (iii) whether the statement made before trial but after arrest by a co accused of the name of Baijnath was admissible in evidence.2. It appears that the petitioners, the accomplice Ramraj and Ors. were placed on trial together on a charge of the offence of which the petitioners have been convicted. After the case had been opened, on the 14th of June 1917, the Pleader appearing for the Crown, one Agenda Nath Banerjee, with the consent of the Court, withdrew from the prosecution of Ramraj, who was thereupon discharged. He was thereafter examined as a witness.3. Agenda Nath Banerjee was not a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »