Kolkata Court February 1919 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.
Lakshmi Kanta Hazra Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal825
Richardson and shams-ul-Huda, JJ.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted under Section 76(b) of the Bengal Embankment Act (Act II of 1882) on the ground that, within an area included in a prohibitory notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, be had, without the previous permission of the Collector, added to an existing embankment. For this offence he has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. An order has also been made under Section 79 directing him to remove the added portion of the embankment.2. It is contended on his behalf by his learned Counsel that the conviction is bad:--first, because there is no proof on the record that a notification covering the land, on which the embankment stands, was issued under Section 6; secondly, because the petitioner holds the land under a lease from the Government requiring him to erect embankments and maintain them; thirdly, because the petitioner being an occupancy raiyat has statutory rights under the Bengal Tenancy Act which i...
Amrit Majhi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal854
Richardson and Shams-ul-Huda, JJ.1. Jahiruddi preferred a complaint against the petitioners charging them with theft. The Magistrate receiving complaints, who was the Subdivisional Officer, suspecting that he had to do with a civil dispute, referred the complaint to a Deputy Magistrate for enquiry and report. On the transfer of the Deputy Magistrate to another district, the Subdivisional Officer made a second order referring the complaint to the Sub-Deputy Magistrate for enquiry and report. Unfortunately the Sub-Deputy Magistrate fell ill and, on the 9th November, a third order was made referring the complaint to Babu P.L. Neogy, an Honorary Magistrate, exercising second class powers, again for enquiry and report. Babu P.L. Neogy, after examining the complainant and some of his witnesses on oath, submitted his report with the depositions, taken by him to the Subdivisional Officer on the 16th November 1918 On the 19th November the District Magistrate, for reasons stated by him, withdrew...
Mohini Lal Pakrasi and ors. Vs. Nogenda Nath Pakrasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.672
Teunon, J.1. In this case it appears that on an application made on the 3rd September 1907 one Amulya Chandra Banerjee was appointed common manager under the provisions of Section 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act of two estates, namely, Estate Dihi Adgola bearing No. 76 or 79 of the Bogra Collectorate and Dihi Suratoil or a 13-annas 15 gandas 2-karas share therein spoken of as a Subam and apparently representing a separate estate created by partition. Amulya Chandra Banerjee died sometime in the month of April 1916 and thereupon, after directing the issue of and endeavouring to serve notices upon all the proprietors of these estates, the District Judge proceeded to appoint a successor of the said Amulya Chandra Banerjee. Subsequently on the 20th September 1916 the District Judge did appoint one Nogendra Chandra Ganguli to be the common manager on the conditions and in the terms and with the powers under which Amulya Chandra Banerjee had held the office. Meanwhile it appears that of the Dih...
Majid Ali Sardar Alias Majid Ali Chakar Vs. Ali Asrab and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.942
Huda, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Sessions Judge of Backer-gunj, dated the 29th of October 1918, declaring that the order made by the trial Court under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code, should be treated as void, should not be set aside on the 7th and 8th grounds mentioned in the petition or why such other order should not be made in the matter as may seem fit.2. The circumstances of the case leading up to the order under consideration are shortly these. In execution of a rent decree against Atabaddi ' Howladar, Akram Ali Howladar, and several others, Howla Mohamad Ghazi was sold and purchased by Armada, 0 bar an Singh and his cousin Chandi Charan Singh on the 29th of November 1915. Ali Asrab, opposite party No. 1, is the son of Atabaddi, since deceased. The com-plainant Majid Ali Sarkar is a servant of Annada Singh. The homestead of Atabaddi Howladar and Akram Ali Howladar was included in the Howla. The purchasers seem to ...
Amrit Majhi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.668
1. Johiruddi preferred a complaint against the petitioners charging them with theft. The Magistrate receiving complaints, who was the Sub-Divisional Officer suspecting that he had to do with a civil dispute, referred the complaint to a Deputy Magistrate for enquiry and report. On the transfer of the Deputy Magistrate to another district the Sub-Divisional Officer made a second order, referring the complaint to the Sub-Deputy Magistrate for enquiry and report. Unfortunately the Sub-Deputy Magistrate fell ill and on the 9th November a third order was made referring the complaint to Babu P.l. Neogi, an Honorary Magistrate exercising second class powers, again for inquiry and report. Babu P.L. Neogi, after examining the complainant and some of his witnesses on oath, submitted his report with the depositions taken by him to the Sub-Divisional Officer on the 6th November 1918. On the 19th November, the District Magistrate for reasons stated by him withdrew the case to his own file. He read B...
Bai Das Vs. Ali Bux Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.554
1. The petitioner in this case was found in possession of a chuddar which we understand was an old one. He could not indicate the exact person from whom he had purchased it, but examined two witnesses to show that he had purchased it as an old cloth from a pilgrim at a dharmasala. Whether this account is correct or not need not be considered, for, in our opinion, the possession of an old chudder is not enough in itself to arouse suspicion. The conviction is under Section 54A of the Calcutta Police Act; and to justify a conviction under that section there must be reason to believe that the article has been stolen or fraudulently obtained. We are not satisfied that there was any reasonable ground for suspicion in this case. 2. We accordingly make the Rule absolute, acquit the petitioner and set aside the conviction and sentence. The petitioner will be discharged from his bail-bond....
Lakshmi Kanta Hazrah Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal669,50Ind.Cas.669
1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted under Section 76(6) of the Bengal Embankment Act (II of 1882), on the ground that within an area included in a prohibitory notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, he had without the previous permission of the Collector added to an existing embankment. For this offence he has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. An order has also been made under Section 79 directing him to remove the added portion of the embankment.2. It is contended on his behalf by his learned Counsel that the conviction is bad Firstly, because there is no proof on the record that a notification covering the land on which the embankment stands was issued under Section 6.3. Secondly, because the petitioner holds, the land under a lease from the Government requiring him to erect embankments and maintain them.4. Thirdly, because the petitioner, being an occupancy raiyat, has statutory right under the Bengal Tenancy Act which includes the right to erect, or add ...
Panchanan Pal Minor by His Mother, Srimutty Basanta Kumari Dasi Vs. Su ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal85(1),50Ind.Cas.299
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. The only point raised in this appeal is whether the present suit is maintainable. The suit is brought by the decree-holder, who himself purchased in execution, to recover possession of the property purchased. The answer is that this application ought to have been made under the terms of Order XXI, Rule 95, read with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The cases of this Court have not been all uniform. But a strong balance of judicial opinion adopting the view that the auction purchaser, even when he is the decree holder himself, is not bound under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 95, to apply under Section 47 but he may maintain a suit like the present. The matter has been considered quite recently by this Court and also by the Patna High Court. A convenient summary of the decisions of this Court is given in the judgment of a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Haji Abdul Gani v. Raja Ram 35 Ind. Cas. 468 : 20 C.W.N. 829 : 1 P.L.J. 232 : 3 P....
Indian Companies Act and the Company Vs. the Maharaja Bahadur Sir Rame ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.561
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the company against the judgment of Greaves, J., delivered on the 21st December 1917.2. On the 13th December 1917 a winding up petition against the company was presented; on the presentation of the petition a day was fixed for the hearing and directions were given as to the issue of advertisements. On the same day the company made an application to stay the issue of the advertisements in order that an application might be made by the company for the stay of the petition and all proceedings in connection therewith, on the ground that the petition was an abuse of the process of the Court.3. The learned Judge stayed the issue of the advertisements and on the 14th December a notice was served by the company on the petitioning creditor of an application for an order that the petition for the liquidation of the company should be removed from the file, that the applicant should be restrained from issuing advertisement of the petition and that al...
Amolia Vs. in Re: Ibrahim Ishak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal804
Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case learned Counsel has conceded--and I think rightly--that the tenancy was a monthly tenancy and, consequently, it comes within Article 35, Clause (a), Sub-clause (1) of the first Schedule of the Indian Stamp Act: that is to say, 'the lease purports to be for a term of less than one year' Therefore, the proper stamp-duty is the same duty as for a bond which is referred to in Article 15; and, inasmuch as the amount is above Rs. 50 and does not exceed is. 100, the proper stamp-duty is eight annas, as the learned Judge has decided.Woodroffe, J.2. I agree....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »