Kolkata Court July 1922 Judgments
Prianath Sardar Vs. Mohendra Nath Paik and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal536
1. This Rule was obtained on behalf of the defendant against the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court Judge of Diamond Harbour. The suit was brought by the two plaintiffs on the allegation that plaintiff No. 2 had been married to the daughter of the defendant, and the plaintiff gave her ornaments worth Rs. 120, and the defendant had misappropriated these ornaments after the death of his daughter, the wife of plaintiff No. 2. The defendant denied the marriage of his daughter with plaintiff No. 2, and the learned Judge decided two questions; whether the daughter of the defendant was married to plaintiff No. 2, and whether the plaintiff No; 2 was the preferential heir to the defendant as regards the property left by her.2. The question in this Rule is whether the Small Cause Court Judge was competent to decide the case having regard to Article 28 of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It seems that it is not a case triable by a Small Cause Court having re...
Tag this Judgment!Privanath Sardar Vs. Mohendra Nath Paik and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.316
1. This Rule was obtained on behalf of the defendant against the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court Judge of Diamond Harbour. The suit was brought by the two plaintiffs on; the allegation that plaintiff No. 2 had been, married to the daughter of the defendant and the plaintiff gave her ornaments worth Rs. 120 and the defendant had misappropriated these ornaments after the death of his daughter, the wife of plaintiff No. 2. The defendant denied the marriage of his daughter with plaintiff No. 2, and the learned Judge decided two questions whether the daughter of the defendant was married to plaintiff No. 2, and whether the plaintiff No. 2 was the preferential heir to the defendant as regards the property left by her.2. The question in this Rule is, whether the Small Cause Court Judge was competent to decide the case, having regard to Article 28 of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It seems that it is not a case triable by a Small Cause Court having r...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Nath Bhattacharjee Vs. Fateh Singh Nahar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal533,72Ind.Cas.320
1. The Court, no doubt, under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of Act V of 1920, has full power to decide a question of title, but the Judge has in the present case followed the course laid down in Sub-section (3).2. It is contended that no sufficient reasons are given for adopting this course and that evidence ought to have been given before doing so. But the Court, where it does not deem it expedient or necessary to decide any question of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1), but has reason to believe that the debtor has a saleable interest in any property, may without further inquiry sell such interest in such manner and subject to such conditions as it may think fit.3. It appears that notice was served upon Jitendra Nath Bhattacharji, who is the appellant before us, on the 8th September 1919, He did not appear in Court until the 25th September 1920. The learned Judge put to him certain questions and the purport of the answers is mentioned in the order. Upon a consideration of the ...
Tag this Judgment!MohiuddIn Chowdhury Vs. AminuddIn Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal441,72Ind.Cas.930
Richardson, J.1. This is a rule obtained by one Mohiuddin Chowdhury upon the opposite party to show cause why the order made by the District Judge of Sylhet, dated the 5th March, 1922, should not be set aside.2. The order relates to a Muhammadan endowment in the village of Phulbari. The then Mutwalli had resigned and the office was vacant. The question before the learned District Judge was the appointment of a new Mutwalli. The question was raised by an application or applications made to the learned Judge to appoint a Receiver and he has dealt with it, as it appears, in accordance with the directions laid down, by the founder in the deed of endowment.3. The deed provides in effect, according to the learned District Judge and according to the petitioner himself, that on a vacancy occurring in the office of Mutwalli, it should be filled by a pious Muhammadan, appointed by a competent Court on the nomination of five respectable and pious Muhammadans of the village.4. On the present occas...
Tag this Judgment!Baishnav Charan Das and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal537,72Ind.Cas.71
1. This Rule was issued upon the Deputy Commissioner of Sylhet calling upon him to show cause why the judgment of the Additional District Magistrate on appeal should not be set aside, and an order passed directing that the appeal be re-heard. The learned Magistrate might have dismissed the appeal summarily. Had he done so, it might have been impossible to criticise his action. He did not, however, dismiss it summarily. He gave a hearing to the Pleaders of the parties and wrote a judgment and all he said was that he was satisfied that the judgment of the Trial Court was substantially right. Such a judgment is not in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 367, Criminal Procedure Code, and on looking at the contents of the first Court's judgment, I think it is most inadequate. The result is, that the Rule is made absolute, the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is set aside and the case is remitted to that Court to be heard afresh and disposed of in accordance with law.Cho...
Tag this Judgment!Mati Biswas Vs. Haripada Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal402,70Ind.Cas.790
Cuming, J.1. The facts of this Rule are these; The plaintiff opposite party sued the petitioner to recover Rs. 374-2-8 due on a hand-note with interest Rs. 56-2-4 pies. The defence was that the defendant did not execute the hand-note. The learned Small Cause Court Judge found that the defendant had executed, the hand-note as alleged by the plaintiff; and he also found that there was no stipulation for interest in the hand-note. But, he allowed the plaintiff to have a contemporaneous oral agreement to pay interest, at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum and gave a decree for Rs. 374-2-8 with interest and costs. The defendant-petitioner has obtained this Rule and he contends, that, in view of the provisions of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was not open to the plaintiff to give evidence of a Contemporaneous oral agreement to pay interest; and in support of his contention he relies upon the case of Lachmi Chand Jhowar v. Hemendra Prasad Ghosh 26 Ind. Cas. 736, 935 : 18 C.W.N. 12...
Tag this Judgment!Benode Behary Nath Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1922
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.61
Walmsley, J.1. This Rule relates to a Reference under the provisions of Section 123, Criminal Procedure Code. The Sessions Judge of the 24-Parganas tran-ferred the hearing of the Reference to the First Additional Sessions Judge and the Rule was obtanfed calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why that order of transfer should not be set aside on the ground that such References can be heard only by the Sessions Judge himself. Mr. Monnier on behalf of the petitioner has examined the Criminal Procedure Code exhaustively dealing with all the sections which he thinks have a bearing on the question. Of these Section 193, Clause (2) seems to me most important and I am not prepared to whittle it down in the manner which Mr. Monnier suggests. I do not see any reason why it should not be interpreted in a liberal sense and I think that the Notification published by the Government of Bengal, Circular Judicial No. 113 J.D. of the 19th of June 1916 purporting to be an order under Clause (...
Tag this Judgment!Binode Behari Nath Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal649,81Ind.Cas.149
Walmsley, J.1. This Rule relates to a reference under the provisions of Section 123 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Sessions Judge of the 24-Pargannas transferred the hearing of the reference to the First Additional Sessions Judge and the Rule was obtained calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why that order of transfer should not be set aside on the ground that such references can be heard only by the Sessions Judge himself. Mr. Monnier, on behalf of the petitioner, has examined the Criminal Procedure Code exhaustively, dealing with all the sections which he thinks have a bearing on the question. Of the sections, No. 193, Clause (2), seems to me most important, and I am not prepared to whittle it down in the manner which Mr. Monnier suggests. I do not see any reason why it should not be interpreted in a liberal sense, and I think that the notification published bv the Government of Bengal, Circular Judicial No. 113 J.D. of the 19th of June 1910, purporting to he an or...
Tag this Judgment!Sarat Chandra Mandal and anr. Vs. Ram Sashi Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal45,69Ind.Cas.153
Ghose, J.1. This Rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate of 24 Pergannas and upon the opposite parties to show cause way the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated the 16th March 1922, confirming the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, should not be set aside and sanction granted to the petitioners under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, to prosecute the opposite parties on various charges of perjury and forgery.2. The faces which have given rise to the application on which the Rule was issued are as fallows:On the 28th October 1919 a suit was instituted being Title Suit No. 233 of 1919, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of 24-Pargannas, First Court, by a Company called the Chitpur Golabari Company, Ltd., of which the Managing Agents are Messrs. Andrew Yule & Co., against three persons, named Srimati Alladi Dasi, Sarat Chandra Mandal and Sasi Bhusan Mandal for specific performance of an agreement for sale of certain lands for Rs. 10,000, a...
Tag this Judgment!Asutosh Das Gupta Vs. Purna Chandra Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal11,71Ind.Cas.670
1. This Rule was issued on the application of one Asutosh Das Gupta calling on the District Magistrate of Dacca and on the opposite parties to show cause why the order of the learned Sessions Judge setting aside the convictions and sentences of the opposite parties and directing a retrial should not be set aside, or why such other and further order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.2. The facts which have given rise to this application are as follows: It appears that on the complaint of the petitioner, the opposite parties, namely, one Purna Chandra Ghose, and Satis Chandra Roy, were put upon their trial before the Deputy Magistrate at Dacca on charges under sections 500 and 501, Indian Penal Code, respectively. The trial took a very long time and at the expiration of nearly seven months, the learned Deputy Magistrate, by his judgment dated the 26th April, 1922, convicted the opposite party No. 1 under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to simpl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »