Kolkata Court November 1922 Judgments
Hridoy Mohini Dasi Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal406,72Ind.Cas.472
1. This Rule arises out of a reference under Section 19 of the Court-Fees Act, 1870.2. It appears that, after letters of Administration had been granted to the petitioner, a question arose as to the valuation of the properties in respect of which they were granted. The Collector made a valuation, which was not accepted by the petitioner. The Collector thereupon moved the District Judge to hold an inquiry into the true value of the properties under Sub-section (4) of Section 19-H of the Court-Fees Act. The District Judge modified the Collector's valuation, and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 191 annas 6 pies 6 as costs of the inquiry into the question of valuation. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Court had no power to award costs in a proceeding under Section 19-H of the Court-Fees Act.3. There does not appear to be any provision in the Act for awarding costs in such a proceeding. Section 19-J provides that any excess fee found to be payable on an inquiry-held un...
Tag this Judgment!Jadab Krishna Kundu Vs. ApsaraddIn Sardar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1925Cal948
ORDER1. Reliance has been placed upon rule 82, Order 21, Civil Procedure Code and it is urged that the sale alone should have been set aside, there should have been no order as to satisfaction of the decree. I see no substances in this argument.2. It appears from the record of the case that the judgment-debtor applied to have the sale set aside and the decree satisfied by deposit of money. The decree-holder contended that interest was not mentioned in the application for execution by mistake; accordingly he prayed that besides the sum of Rs. 410 which was the principal amount of the decree, Rs. 446-11 due as interest should be ordered to be deposited. Certainly this question is maintainable under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code. The Court decided that the decree holder was not entitled to get interest and passed an order of satisfaction of the decree. Whenever an execution case is disposed of, the Court is to note whether the decree is satisfied in full or in part. There is nothing on...
Tag this Judgment!Manjuri Dassi and ors. Vs. Khetramani Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal403,73Ind.Cas.96
1. S.A. Nos. 1710, 1830 of 1920. These two appeals along with four others arise out of suits for declaration that certain properties which had been attached and sought to be sold were not liable to attachment and sale on the ground that the judgment-debtors in each case had no interest and that the plaintiffs in each case had title to the same.2. The properties attached belonged to a family consisting of four brothers Nikunja, Kunja, Hira Lal and Makhan. The first three became involved in debt and transferred their interest in the properties attached separately to the plaintiff in each case.3. It appears that suits were instituted against the three brothers and there was attachment of the properties before judgment on the 16th July, 1907. On the 4th August, 1907, there was a conveyance by Nikunja of his interest in the properties to his father-in-law, Mukunda. Subsequently, on the 24th August, 1907, there was a compromise between the parties and a petition of compromise was filed, Niku...
Tag this Judgment!Fazar Pramanik Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal407,76Ind.Cas.293
1. In this case the petitioner was originally summoned to answer a charge under Section 426, Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of that case the Magistrate acquitted him under Section 247, Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground of the absence of the complainant. The complainant submitted a petition to the District Magistrate who revived the complaint but directed that prosecution should proceed under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, instead of under Section 426. In our opinion, this order was beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Having regard to the provisions of Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code, the acquittal by the Magistrate on the charge under Section 426, Indian Penal Code, was a bar to the petitioner being put on his trial again on the same facts which were relied on to support the charge under Section 379, Indian Penal Code. That being so, we must hold that the proceedings from the date of the revival of the case are vitiated by want of jurisdiction and we according...
Tag this Judgment!Shib Chandra Chakravarty Vs. Rabbani Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal168,73Ind.Cas.322
1. Three persons who are the opposite parties before us were tried by B. Sarendra Nath Banerjee, Magistrate, Second Class, at Bongaon, who framed charges against them for having committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and 342, Indian Penal Code. In the first charge they were alleged to have caused hurt to one Hari Nath Bose and in the second charge they were alleged to have wrongfully confined Hari Nath Boss and Shib Chandra Chakravarty. They were convicted on both these charges and they appealed to the District Magistrate. At the hearingof the appealan application was made by Hari Nath Bose to compound the case under Section 345 Criminal Procedure Code. The District Magistrate allowed the compromise and acquitted all the appellants under that section.2. This Rule has been obtained by Shiba Chandra Chakravarty on the ground that he was no party to the compromise and that, therefore, the acquittal so far as the offence committed against him was concerned, was illegal. We hold t...
Tag this Judgment!The Kushtia Loan Office Limited Vs. Annada Charan Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1922
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.26
B.B. Ghose, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this case. The suit was brought for enforcing a mortgage executed by the s defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff Company, in July 1913. Twenty-four items of property were mortgaged. Out of these, two items were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act in 1915 and the amount of compensation awarded was less than the mortgaged money. The plaintiffs were entitled as mortgagees to take the whole amount of compensation in satisfaction of their mortgage. But the mortgagors were not willing that the entire amount should foe taken by the mortgagees in payment of that debt. The plaintiff Company had two unsecured debts due from the mortgagors. What the mortgagors wanted wag that the compensation money should be appropriated in full payment of the unsecured debts and a portion of it should be taken by the mortgagees towards part satisfaction of the mortgage-debt. The mortgagees agreed to that and the unsecured debts were paid o...
Tag this Judgment!Kanai Lal and ors. Vs. Hyder Ali Khan Pani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal483,73Ind.Cas.271
1. In this case the learned Magistrate has passed an order under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after recording a very short order in which he states that he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of the parties is in possession of the land Several rulings have, been brought to out notice in which it has been held by this Court that the omission to write at length the reasons for coming to such a conclusion may be a ground for remanding a case It is impossible to lay down a hard and fast Rule when this Court should interfere on the ground of the brevity of the order passed in a proceeding of this kind. In the present case it is sufficient for us to say that we see no reason to think that the learned Magistrate did not give full judicial consideration to the evidence before he came to the conclusion at which he arrived. This being so, there is no reason for our interference. The Rule is discharged....
Tag this Judgment!Damania Brothers and Co. Vs. V. Jorton and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal180,73Ind.Cas.47
1. The petitioners before us are lessees of certain premises in Calcutta, No. 40/1, Strand Road, and the opposite parties are sub-tenants under the petitioners occupying, to use a neutral expression, a certain room on the ground floor of the said premises. The petitioners allege that the room in question is a godown and that the opposite parties executed on the 29th August 1919 a letter of attornment in their favour whereby they agreed 'to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 70 a mouth to the petitioners. It is alleged that in the letter of attornment, the room was described by them as a godown on the ground floor of premises No. 40/1, ' Strand Road. It is further alleged by the petitioners that, on or sbout the 29th January 1920, the opposite parties agreed to pay enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 99 per month from January 1920 in respect of the said godown. It appears that on the 31st of May 1920 the opposite parties filed an application before the Controller of Rents in Calcutta for fixing a...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Sadek Reza Vs. Sachindra Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal483(1),73Ind.Cas.265
Newbould, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order passed under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, declaring the first party to be in possession of certain land. The petitioner it this case is a member of the second party. It is strongly contested on his behalf that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to go behind the orders passed in his favour both under the Survey Act and under the Bengal Tenancy Act. We are unable to bold that in deciding as he has done the Magistrate acted either without jurisdiction or with such irregularity as would justify our setting aside his order in the exercise of our powers under the Government of India Act.2. The main contention is that these orders in the petitioner's favour were binding on the Magistrate and he was bound |o hold that after the decision in the proceeding under the Survey Act the second party were in possession. It is said that there was no finding that there has been any change of relationship at that time. But the finding that the...
Tag this Judgment!Jummon Christian Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal668,81Ind.Cas.319
1. This Rule must be made absolute on the ground that the provisions of Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not complied with. Though the accused was examined under that section after the examination-in-chief of the witnesses for the prosecution, that is not sufficient. The examination of the witnesses cannot be held to have been concluded until they have also been cross-examined. This is the view taken by the Patna High Court in the case of Mitarjit Singh v. Emperor 63 Ind. Cas. 825; (1922) A.I.R. (Pat.) 158 : 6 P.L.J. 614 : 2 P.L.T. 520 : 22 Cr. L.J. 697, and that decision has been followed by this Court in the case of Kashi Pramanik v. Damn Pramanik 77 Ind. Cas. 988 : 27 C.W.N. 28 : 25 Cr. L.J. 521.2. We accordingly make this Rule absolute, and set aside the conviction and sentence passed, on the petitioner. We remit the case to the Trial Court in order thai; the provisions of, Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code may be followed, and the matter disposed of in acco...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »