Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1924Cal115
Greaves, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, for the purpose of determining the amount of the fees to be paid in respect of the grant of Letters of Administration in the above estate. Two questions are raised. The first is whether the Bengal Court Fees Amendment Act of 1922 (Act IV of 1922) is ultra vires. The second question is whether, assuming the Act is not ultra vires, the fee is to be levied at the enhanced rate prescribed by the Bengal Court Fees Amendment Act of 1922 (Act IV of 1922) on the whole estate, or whether the enhanced fee is payable only on that portion thereof which is situate in Bengal, the fee in respect of the assets outside Bengal being leviable at the lower rate prescribed by the Court Fees Act of 1870 as amended by subsequent Acts of the Imperial Legislative Council.2. On behalf of the Administrator-General of Bengal to whom a grant has been issued, and who has paid under protest the fee at the enhanced rate prescribed by Benga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 75Ind.Cas.466
Greaves, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5 of the Courts-Fees Act, 1870, for the purpose of determining the amount of the fees to be paid in respect of the grant of Letters of Administration in the above estate. Two questions are raised. The first is whether the Bengal Court-Fees Amendment Act of 1922 (Act IV of 1922) is ultra vires. The second question is whether, assuming the Act is not ultra vires, the fee is to be levied at the enhanced rate prescribed by the Bengal Court-Fees Amendment Act of 1922 (Act IV of 1922) on the whole estate, or whether the enhanced fee is payable only on that portiol thereof which is situate in Bengal, the fee in respect of the assets outside Bengal being leviable at the lower rate prescribed by the Court-Fees Act of 1870, as amended by subsequent Acts of the Imperial Legislative Council.2. On behalf of the Administrator-General of Bengal to whom a grant has been issued, and who has paid under protest the fee at the enhanced rate prescribed by Ben...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1924Cal940,83Ind.Cas.970
Mookerjee, J.1. The facts material for the determination of the questions raised in these two appeals, which have been heard one after the other, lie in a brief compass and may be shortly narrated.2. On the 11th June, 1914, Pugh and Bowden formed a syndicate to work a deposit of China clay in the district of Bhagalpur upon the terms that Pugh should provide the finance and have a ten annas share, while Bowden should work the property and have a six annas share, all properties acquired by Bowden in the district to be on syndicate account. Subsequent to the date of this agreement, Bowden acquired a two-fifths interest in leases of certain property in the locality mentioned, and a certain amount of China clay was extracted though the progress of the prospecting and developing scheme was by no means satisfactory. The position thus was that though Pugh provided the influence required, and Bowden the expert knowledge necessary a financier was needed as a complement, if the business was to be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1924Cal913,83Ind.Cas.446
Mookerjee, J.1. The subject-matter of this litigation is a tract of alluvial land which has been assessed by the revenue authorities under the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act, 1847. The order of the Board of Revenue under Section 6 of Act IX of 1847 is embodied in a letter dated the 28th November, 1912 and a petition by the plaintiff to review the decision was rejected on the 29bh June, 1914. The present suit was thereupon instituted on the 29th June, 1915, for declaration that the disputed tract was not 'added' land within the meaning of Section 6 of Act IX of 1847 and that the assessment was consequently without jurisdiction. The plaintiffs further prayed for consequential relief by way of refund of the sums paid by them, as revenue under protest. The suit was defended by the Secretary of State for India in Council on the merits as also on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no cause of action and no right of suit, and, further, that the suit was barred by limitation. On these plead...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1924Cal578
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff to enforce a charge upon immovable property for the realisation of a sum of Rs. 78,504-10-2 with interest pendente lite and costs. The transactions which have led up to this litigation are evidenced by four deeds, whose substance must be stated concisely for the elucidation of the points in controversy.2. Lucas, the first defendant, is a dealer in jute. On the 6th April, 1908, he executed an equitable mortgage (which for the sake of brevity may be called A) by deposit of title-deeds in favour of his broker, Thaddeus, who financed him in his business. On the 8th July, 1910, Lucas executed in favour of Vertannes and Bertram, an English mortgage (which for the sake of brevity may be called B) of the properties covered by A. According to the recitals in this document, Lucas was indebted to Thaddeus under A to the extent of Rs. 63,560 approximately. The arrangement was that the mortgagees should be the sole brokers of the mortgagor during t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1924)ILR51Cal185
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff to enforce a charge upon immovable property for the realisation of a sum of Rs. 78,504-10-2 with interest pendente lite and costs. The transactions which have led up to this litigation are evidenced by four deeds, whose substance must be stated concisely for the elucidation of the points in controversy.2. Lucas, the first defendant, is a dealer in jute. On the 6th April 1908, he executed an equitable mortgage (which for the sake of brevity may be called A) by deposit of title deeds in favour of his broker Thaddeus who financed him in his business. On the 8th July 1910 Lucas executed in favour of Vertannes and Bertram, an English mortgage (which for the sake of brevity may be called B) of the properties covered by A. According to the recitals in this document, Lucas was indebted to Thaddeus under A to the extent of Rs. 63,560 approximately. The arrangement was that the mortgagees should be the sole brokers of the mortgagor during the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1924Cal257
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an application for review of a criminal case on the certificate of the Advocate-General under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent. The petitioner Barendra Kumar Ghose was tried on the 16th and 17th August at the fourth Criminal Sessions of this year by Mr. Justice Page and a Special Jury, on a charge of offences punishable under sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the first count and guilty to the second count. The Jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty of murder, with the result that the accused was convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302. On the 22nd August an application was made on his behalf to the Advocate-General for a certificate under clause 26 of the Letters Patent. On the 27th August, the Advocate-General heard Counsel for the prisoner in support of the application. On the 29th August, the Advocate-General granted a certificate in the following terms:Certificate of the Advocate-General of Bengal under cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 81Ind.Cas.353
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an application for review of a criminal case on the certificate of the Advocate-General under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent. The petitioner Barendra Kumar Ghosh was tried on the 16th and 17th August at the Fourth Criminal Sessions of this year, by Mr. Justice Page and a Special Jury, on a charge of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the first count and guilty to the second count. The Jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty of murder, with the result that the accused was convicted and sentenced to deatli under Section 302. On the 22nd August, an application was made on his behalf to the Advocate-General for a certificate under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent. On the 27th August, the Advocate-General heard Counsel for the prisoner in support of the application. On the 29th August, the Advocate-General granted a certificate in the following terms:2. 'Certificate of the Advocate General of Bengal u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1924Cal476
Mookerjee, J.1. This rule, which was granted by Suhrawardy and Chotzner, JJ., on the 29th August, 1923, calls upon the District Magistrate of Alipore to show cause why the petitioner Nagendranath Chakrabarti should not be let out on bail. As the rule has been opposed on behalf of the Grown, the facts material for the determination of the question must be narrated in detail.2. The petitioner, who was arrested on the 5th August, 1.923, by Inspector Hernchandra Lahiri of the Calcutta Police, asserts that ho is a motor mechanic and driver and holds certificates of good character from various gentlemen, Indian and European, who have employed him during the last ten years. He further alleges that at the time of his arrest his house was thoroughly searched but nothing suspicions or incriminating was found. The petitioner, after his arrest on the 5th August, is said to have been produced on the 16th August before a Deputy Commissioner of Police to whom he applied for bail; but the application ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1924)ILR51Cal402
Mookerjee and Chatterjea, JJ.1. This Rule, which was granted by Suhrawardy and Chotzner JJ. on the 29th August, 1923, calls upon the District Magistrate of Alipore to show cause why the petitioner Nagendra Nath Chakravarti should not be let out on bail. As the rule has been opposed on behalf of the Crown, the facts material for the determination of the question must be narrated in detail.2. The petitioner, who was arrested on the 5th August, 1923, by Inspector Hem Chandra Lahiri of the Calcutta Police, asserts that he is a motor mechanic and driver and holds certificates of good character from various gentlemen, Indian and European, who have employed him during the last ten years. He further alleges that at the time of his arrest his house was thoroughly searched, but nothing suspicious or incriminating was found. The petitioner after his arrest on the 5th August, is said to have been produced on the 16th August, before a Deputy Commissioner of Police to whom he applied for bail; but t...
Tag this Judgment!