Kolkata Court February 1923 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.
Rajendra NaraIn Choudhury Vs. Satish Chandra Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1923
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.795
1. This is an appeal by the third defendant in a suit for partition of joint property, situated in the District of Sylhet and subject to the operation of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. In the Trial Court, an objection was taken that the suit could not be entertained by the Civil Court and an issue was framed accordingly; but no argument was addressed on the question of jurisdiction. The suit was tried on the merits and a preliminary decree was made in favour of the plaintiff. On the present appeal the objection has been urged that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. There is no room for controversy that the point, though abandoned in the Trial Court, can be raised here; Minakshi Naidu v. Subramanya Sastri 14 I.A. 160 : 11 M. 26 : 5 Sar. P.C.J. 54 : 11 Ind. Jur. 393 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 18 (P.C.) and Maha Prasad Singh v. Ratnani Mohan Singh 25 Ind. Cas. 451 : 41 I.A. 197 : 42 C. 116 : 18 C.W....
Ramani Kanta Ray Vs. Bhimnandan Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1923
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.221
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These appeals arise out of three suits for rent. The claim is based upon three kabuliyats alleged to have been executed by two ladies, Sheo Kumari and Kulamanti. The defendants are in possession of the properties included in the kabuliyats claiming to have interest as the reversionary heirs of the last male owner. The question only relates to the rate of interest stipulated in those kabuliyats which is six pies per rupee, per month. The defendants' plea is that as the lauds have come to their hands as the reversionary heirs of the last male owner, they are not bound by the stipulation contained in the kabuliyats as regards the payment of interest and that the ladies did not, as a matter of fact, execute these documents. The documents purport to be more than thirty years old and on the face of them, they are executed or rather signed as 'Sheo Kumari and Kulamanti-ba-kalam--Sadanand am-mukhtar.', The Court of first instance presumed that the documents had been executed b...
Hanif Sheikh and ors. Vs. Jabani Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal540a
1. The form of the order made by the District Magistrate in this case is improper. If he thought that it was necessary, in order to prevent a breach of the peace, to take proceedings under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, against the petitioners he should have himself drawn up such proceedings and he might then have transferred the case to a Subordinate Magistrate for hearing. But he should not, as he has done, direct proceedings to be drawn up by a Subordinate Magistrate, nor should the Subordinate Magistrate draw up proceedings merely because the District Magistrate has ordered him to do so. He has full power under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, to take action under that section when he thinks it is necessary to do so to prevent a breach of the peace. But in deciding as to the necessity for action he must come to a conclusion of his own accord on the materials before him and act accordingly.2. We accordingly set aside the order of the District Magistrate passed on the 3rd...
Mihir Lal Roy Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal534,72Ind.Cas.370
1. In this case the petitioner, who was accused of an offence under the Excise Act, cited certain defence witnesses who were summoned. On the date fixed for hearing, one of these witnesses did not attend, and the accused informed the Court that the witness was ill and asked for a postponement in order to enable him to produce the witness. The application was refused on the ground that the petitioner had not produced a medical certificate to show that the witness was actually ill. We hold that the Magistrate, having once issued process against the defence witness, was bound to enforce his attendance. If he did not believe the story of the accused that the witness was ill he should have issued a warrant to enforce his attendance. The accused having obtained summons from the Court against this witness was entitled to have his attendance enforced. Had he come to Court and said the witness was not present and given no reason for his absence, the Court would have no ground for refusing an ad...
Hanif Sheikh Alias Hanif Mandal and ors. Vs. Jabani Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1923
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.367
1. The form of the order made by the District Magistrate in this case is improper. If he thought that it was necessary, in order to prevent a breach of the peace, to take proceedings under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, against the petitioners he should have himself drawn up such proceedings and he might then have transferred the case to a Subordinate Magistrate for hearing. But he should not, as he has done, direct proceedings to be drawn up by a Subordinate Magistrate, nor should the Subordinate Magistrate draw up proceedings merely because the District Magistrate has ordered him to do so. He has full power under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, to take action under that Section when he thinks it is necessary to do so to prevent a breach of the peace. But in deciding as to the necessity for action he must come to a conclusion of his own accord on the materials before him and act accordingly.2. We accordingly set aside the order of the District Magistrate passed on the 3rd...
Kartikeswar Roy Vs. Bansidhar Byas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal594,76Ind.Cas.654
1. The petitioner has been convicted of theft, punishable Under Section 380, Indian Penal Code. The first ground on which this Rule has been granted is that the facts found are not sufficient in law to constitute the offence of theft.2. The following are the principal facts found:--The petitioner entered into an agreement with the complainant's firm that they should advance him money up to ten thousand rupees on the hypothecation of goods to be deposited by him as security The goods hypothecated were deposited in a godown at 202, Darmahatta Street. Under the agreement the petitioner was entitled to take advances up to 70 per cent of the value of the goods and he actually took advances Up to Rs. 8,500. He also made payments from time to time amounting to Rs. 1,950 and goods of corresponding value were restored to him. On the 15th July the petitioner managed to secure somehow the key of the godown and removed the hypothecated goods which were there: and which were then in the possession ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›