Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-29-1910
Reported in : 5Ind.Cas.503
Richards, J.1. The facts of the case referred are very simple. The defendant by usufructuary mortgages mortgaged to the plaintiff his proprietary rights in a holding. Since the date of the mortgage, that is to say, for nine years before the institution of the suit, the defendant has continued in occupation of certain lands comprised in the holding which were prior to the mortgages in his own cultivation. The present suit was instituted to recover possession of inter alia this land. Both the Courts below gave the plaintiff a decree subject to the occupancy rights of the defendant in the land in his own cultivation. Section 41 of Regulation II of 1877 of the Ajmere Code is as follows Any person who may have, whether before or after the passing of this Regulation, lost or parted with his/proprietary rights in any holding, either, temporarily or permanently and has since continued in occupation of any of the lands comprised in such holding which, as proprietor, he retained under his own cu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-01-1910
Reported in : (1910)ILR37Cal340
Stephen, J.1. In this case a Rule has been granted calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why a conviction of the petitioners of an offence of rioting under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code should not be set aside on two of the grounds mentioned in the petition. The first of these is that the frying Magistrate held a local enquiry and was influenced by certain things ho saw there, and imported his knowledge of what he had seen into his judgment in disposing of the case; the second, that the common object stated in the charge was different from that found by both the lower Courts.2. The second objection may be very shortly dealt with. The common object charged was by means of criminal force to obtain possession of the killkhana lands belonging to one Ghisa Mia. The lands so referred to comprised a fifteen-cottah plot and a five-cottah plot; the offence was found to have been committed to obtain possession of the five-cottah plot only. As the five-cottah plot was included i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-14-1910
Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR474
Davar, J.1. Almost all the material facts in this case are either admitted or undisputed. The plaintiffs in this suit, Messrs. Breul & Co., a well-known firm of merchants carrying on business in Bombay, seek to recover from the defendant, who is a dealer in sugar in a very large way of business, the sum of Rs. 3,300, alleging that that sum is due to them either as rent or as compensation for use and occupation of a certain godown in Clive Road for the months of December 1908, and January and February 1909 at the rate of Rs. 1100 per mensem.2. The godown in question is built on land leased out originally by the Trustees of the Port of Bombay to one Mulji Jivraj in the year 1883. This lease with the godown on the land, was about five years ago acquired by Mr. Luckumsey Napoo. Mr. Luckumsey let this godown to the plaintiffs for twelve months certain from the I st of April 1908 up to the 31st of March 1909 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1100. Messrs. Breul and Co. in their turn let the godown fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-07-1910
Reported in : 6Ind.Cas.8
1. A rule has been granted in this case on the District Magistrate of the 24-Perganahs, to show cause why bail, should not be granted on the ground that no order has been made applying the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, to the case; and on the further ground that there does not appear to be any sufficient cause for further enquiry into the guilt of the accused.2. The facts relating to this matter are as follows. A dacoity, commonly referred to as the Nettra dacoity, took place on the 24th April 1909. On the 20th January 1910, the Local Government made an order under Section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, purporting to apply the provision of Part I of that Act to the offence. On the 24th January 1910, the petitioner was arrested on suspicion of being concerned in it and so having committed offences under Section 395 (dacoity) and 397 (dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code. On the 28th January, he applied to the District Magi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-16-1910
Reported in : 6Ind.Cas.101
George Knox, J.1. Rustam Ranghar, Pirthi, Mithani and Hoshnak Rajput have been convicted of the wilful murder of one Anup Singh and sentenced to death. The case has been submitted to us for confirmation of the sentences of death by the Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut. We have also before us a petition from Jail sent in by Rustam. Pirthi, Mithan and Hoshnak have had their cases laid before us by learned Counsel. The case for the prosecution has been very fully and carefully set out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment, and we do not propose going into the facts of the case. We agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that it is beyond doubt that Anup Singh was murdered on the 10th of August, 1909. The Medical evidence shows that death was due to wounds on the neck which had divided the trachea and gullet and severed the vessels on both sides of the throat. Evidence is given by one Bijai Singh to the effect that on the 9th of August, he saw Anup Singh ridi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-13-1910
Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR521
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. This is an application to quash a certain order passed by Mr. Cowan, First Class Magistrate, Belgaum, with reference to the trial of the petitioner pending before the said Magistrate on certain charges under the Indian Penal Code. This Court is also asked by the application either to order the committal of the petitioner for trial to some Court of Session other than that at Belgaum or to transfer the case against the petitioner from the Court of Mr. Cowan to the Court of some other Magistrate outside the district of Belgaum.2. The circumstances under which the application is made are briefly these.3. The petitioner, who is a pleader of the District Court at Belgaum, is being tried, jointly with others, before Mr. Cowan, on certain charges, on the strength of a sanction, granted by the District Magistrate at Belgaum, and confirmed by this Court. When, after the witnesses for the prosecution had been examined, Mr. Cowan was about to frame charges against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-19-1910
Reported in : (1910)20MLJ500
ORDERArnold White, C.J.1. In these proceedings two Second Grade Pleaders have been called upon to show cause why they should not be suspended or dismissed by reason of their conduct in having joined the Board of Directors of the '' Circars Provident Fund Ld., of Bapatla ' and in connection with the affairs of that Company. The Company is now in liquidation. One of the pleaders was the President of the company. I will refer to him as ' the President'. The other was a Director, I will refer to him as 'the Director,' Criminal proceedings were taken against the two pleaders in connection with the affairs of the company and they were convicted of criminal breach of trust by the Sessions Judge of Guntur. On appeal these convictions were set aside. There can, I think, be no question that the convictions could not be upheld. In appropriating to their own use the sums of money which formed the subject-matter of the charge of criminal breach of trust, the President and the Director did not excee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-19-1910
Reported in : 6Ind.Cas.313
Arnold White, C.J.1. In these proceedings two Second Grade Pleaders have been called upon to show cause why they should not be suspended or dismissed by reason of their conduct in having joined the Board of Directors of the 'Circars Provident Fund Limited of Bapatla' and in connection with the affairs of that company. The company is now in liquidation. One of the pleaders was the President of the company. I will refer to him as 'the President.' The other was as director. I will refer to him as 'the Director.' Criminal proceedings were taken against the two pleaders in connection with the affairs of the company and they were convicted of criminal breach of trust by the Sessions Judge of Guntur. On appeal these convictions were set aside See 5 Ind. Cas. 847 : 7 M. L. T. 299 : 20 M.L.J. 220 : (1910) M.W.N. 65 Ed. There can, I think, be no. question that the convictions could not be upheld. In appropriating to their own use the sums of money which formed the subject-matter of the charge of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-19-1910
Reported in : (1911)ILR34Mad29
ORDERArnold White, C.J.1. In these proceedings two second-grade pleaders have been called upon to show cause why they should not be suspended or dismissed by reason of their conduct in having joined the Board of Directors of the ' Cirears Provident Fund Limited of Bapatla' and in connection with the affairs of that company.2. The company is now in liquidation. One of the pleaders was the President of the company (I will refer to him as ' the President'). The other was a Director (I will refer to him as 'the Director')- Criminal proceedings were taken against the two pleaders in connection with the affairs of the company and they were convicted of criminal breach of trust by the Sessions Judge of Guntur. On appeal, these convictions were set aside. There can. I think, be no question that the convictions could not be upheld. In appropriating to their own use the sums of money which formed the subject-matter of the charge of criminal breach of trust, the President and the Director did not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-16-1910
Reported in : 6Ind.Cas.609
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for profits brought by a recorded co-sharer under Section 164 of the Tenancy Act against a lumbardar who is appellant before us.2. On second appeal to this Court, the learned Judge, before whom this case came, held that on the true construction of Clause 3, Section 201, of the Agra Tenancy Act, a Revenue Court had no power to go behind the entry in the record-of-rights. In that view he remanded the case for trial of the remaining issues.3. It is urged before us that the learned Judge is in error for the following reasons: First, because the words shall presume' in the above-mentioned clause must be held to mean 'shall presume until the contrary is proved' and the Revenue Court is, therefore, entitled to go into the point and decide whether or not the plaintiff actually has title and an appeal will lie from its decision to the District Judge under Section 177(e) of the Act; secondly, that the Court ought not to read the word 'conclusively' ...
Tag this Judgment!