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.
Alimuddi Bepari Vs. Chintaharan Mukhopadhyay
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.403
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to eject the defendant, who is found to be an under-raiyat, after service of a notice to quit under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The defendant set up a permanent sublease granted by the plaintiff's vendor and pleaded that he could not be ejected. The Court of first instance held that the plaintiff was bound by the sublease granted by his vendor, and that it was not invalid by reasons of the provisions of Section 85, Clause (2), of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and accordingly disallowed the claim for ejectment. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge upon a consideration of some decisions of this Court held that the lease was invalid and allowed ejectment. The defendant has appealed to this Court.3. Section 85, Clause (2), of the Bengal Tenancy Act expressly lays down that a sublease by a raiyat shall not be admitted to registration if it purports to create a term exceeding nine years.4. The decisions of this Court, however, upon the questions w...
Kailash Chandra Pal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal367,49Ind.Cas.106
1. In this case the two petitioners Koylash Chandra Pal and Rash Behari Dhar have been convicted of cheating and sentenced under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, each to undergo six months' rigorous, imprisonment,2. The facts found are that in February 1916 one Safar Ali and eleven 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 1st instalment becoming due 1 1/2 years after date. On the 23rd of January 1918, a Sub-Deputy Collector went to realize the 1st 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 1 1/2 years, the sum due was Rs. 14-3-5, the two petitioners acting in concert induced the borrowers to believe that the sum payable by each was Rs. 15 8.0 and realized this sum fro...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Tularam Barodia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.490
1. This is an appeal against an acquittal.2. A preliminary objection is taken that the appeal has not bean presented by a Public Prosecutor within the meaning of Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. 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 III of 1829, and appears to pre-suppose that there is no office or officer properly so called. From the official papers placed before us we find, however, that the office of Legal Remembrancer was revived in 1844 or 1845, and the fact that the office is now the creation of executive or administr...
Bejoy Krishna Pal Vs. Balai Chand Bhandari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.683
1. In this case it appears that one Balai Chand Bhandari brought a petition of complaint against the present petitioner, alleging that he had committee offences punishable under Sections 352 and 504, Indian Penal Code. Process was issued upon the petitioner directing him to appeal and take his trial only under Section 352 The case was tried summarily, and the petitioner was given to understand, and the Magistrate himself believed, that he was trying a charge merely of assault. Having heard the complainant and his witnesses he came to the conclusion that the charge of assault had not been made out. He, therefore, acquitted the petitioner of the offence punishable under that section. At the same time being of opinion that on the evidence adduced a prima facie case of an offence punishable under Section 504, Indian Penal Code, had been made out and believing also that process under that section not having been issued against the accused he could not then proceed to try him under that sect...
Azem Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.687a
1. This Rule is based upon an application for transfer. Even if it had to be held that the Magistrate took cognizance under the provisions of Section 190(1)(c), Criminal Procedure Code, still that is no bar to the Magistrate holding an enquiry preliminary to commitment. We have read the Magistrate's explanation and we can find no reason to think that the petitioner will not be accorded a full and fair hearing before that officer. This Rule is discharged....
Abha Munshi Vs. Kamu Molla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.970
Fletcher, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the petitioner, who is a purchaser at a sale in execution of a rent decree held on the 27th November 1916, calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the learned Additional District Judge should not be set aside. The case is a perfectly simple one. As I have already stated, the present petitioner purchased in execution of a rent decree on the 27th November 1916, The opposite party claims l/3rd of the property to which the present application relates as being the purchaser at a sale in execution of a mortgage decree. The present case is this: On the 2nd April 1917, the opposite party made an application to the Court under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the rent sale on the ground of material irregularity and fraud. It is quite clear that that application Gould not be heard, because the period for making such an application was thirty days from the date of the sale, unles...
KufiluddIn Sarkar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.862
1. In this case the petitioner before us has been required to find security for good behaviour under the provisions of Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code.2. The Rule is issued on the ground that the appellate judgment of the District Magistrate did not enter sufficiently into the facts of the case. His judgment no doubt is short, but it is, we observe, one of affirmance or confirmation. Evidence was given that in at least five cases of fire the occurrences were preceded by threats from the accused. Evidence was also given of eight or more oases of extortion. In the judgment of the first Court the evidence is set out at great length, discussed in detail and the reasons for believing the prosecution evidence to be true fully explained. 'When that has been done in the first Court in the judgment confirming the decision of the trial Court, it does rot appear to us that any useful purpose is served by setting out again in detail the whole of that evidence and proceeding to give reasons fo...
Harihar Roy Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal383
1. The petitioner in this case was a Havildar of Police serving in that capacity in the town of Jalpaiguri. He has now been prosecuted under Section 384, Indian Penal Code, on charges of extortion. His application is one for a transfer of the proceedings against him from the District of Jalpaiguri to some neighbouring District. It is based, not on allegation of any bias or partiality against the Magistrate in whose Court the petitioner is under trial, but on the allegation that by reason of orders made by the superior officers of Police he has been hampered in his defence.2. From the papers that have been placed before us it appears that from the 30th April onwards he has been in. what may be termed detention in the Police lines, has been refused permission to go to (he town for purposes of marketing and has also been refused permission to go to legal practitioners at their homes or their places of business, the suggestion being that he is at liberty to bring to the lines such Mukhtear...
Shashi Bhusan Dhur and ors. Vs. Istismam-ul-mulk Rats-ud-dowa Amir-ul- ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.951
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the learned Vakil for the appellant has relied upon two points. The first point is that the learned Subordinate Judge's finding as to the effect of Section 3 of the Murshidabad Act, XV of 1891, is incorrect. As regards that matter I agree with the learned Subordinate Judge, and I think that by reason of Section 3 the notification of March 1900 was conclusive proof of all the subject-matter of the notification, and in my judgment the area--which is mentioned in the notification--of 514 bighas is part of the subject-matter of the notification; and consequently upon that point, namely, whether the holding of the plaintiff was of 514 bighas or of 344 bighas, I think that the notification by reason of Section 3 is conclusive and that the holding must be taken as 514 bighas.2. The second point urged by the learned Vakil was that the Subordinate Judge's finding of fact, namely, that the 18 bighas 18 cottas appertained to the holding of the 514 bighas, w...
Srilal Chamaria Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal607
Richardson J.1. The two appellants before us, Srilal Chamaria and Mimraj Bania, have been convicted by the Third Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta on charges framed under Sections 161 and 109 of the Penal Code. The appellant Srilal has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, or in default to suffer a further period of two months' rigorous imprisonment. The appellant Mimraj has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appeals are preferred from these convictions and sentences.2. At the trial charges were also framed against the appellants on the footing that they respectively attempted and abetted an attempt to commit an offence punishable under Section 161 read with Section 109, and were, therefore, punishable under Section 511 of the Code, or in the case of Mimraj under that Section read with Section 109. These charges, however, were not pressed by the prosecuti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »