Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1894)ILR21Cal732
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The question we have to consider is whether the executor appointed by a Hindu testator who made his will in 1889, and died in 1891, can, after he has obtained probate, transfer the estate, effects and interests, vested in him by virtue of such probate, to the Administrator-General under Section 31 of the Administrator-General's Act (II of 1874). Mr. Justice SALE has come to the conclusion that he cannot, as he thinks that the estate of a Hindu is not within any of the provisions of the Act, except Sections 17 and 1.8, which are expressly made applicable to such estates. The argument on both sides has dealt, not only with the Act upon which we have now to put a construction, but with the history of the office of Administrator-General, and with the conditions under which the various Acts by which it has been constituted have been passed, and in what I have to say on the subject I propose to follow the same course.2. The office was first constituted by Act VII of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1925Cal822,(1925)ILR52Cal721
Walmsley, J.1. The question referred is whether the provisions of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code are applicable to an enquiry under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The difficulty arises from the requirement that the deposition of each witness should be read over to him in the presence of the accused, if in attendance, or of his pleader, if he appears by pleader, and the question for our decision becomes nothing more than this, viz., whether persons against whom proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been initiated are accused within the meaning of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The word ' accused ' is one of the words that have not been defined in any statute. Our attention has been drawn to various decisions in which a definition has been attempted. For the purpose for which those decisions were given they may be accepted as correct; but I do not think it necessary to consider whether the definition may be regarded as s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 169Ind.Cas.948
Costello, J.1. This suit raises questions of very great public importance and the decision which I have to give not only affects the rights and the status of the actual parties to these proceedings bat may also have a bearing upon the status of persons who are in no way connected with these proceedings as there may be other persons in India who are in the same position as the petitioner as regards divorce and subsequent marriage. The legitimacy of children may even be affected.2. The points mised in this case are of such general importance that I thought' it right to ask the Advocate-General of Bengal to appear or be represented before me in order that in the public interest all aspects of the matter might be fully discussed: Mr. Westmacott and Mr. Clough have appeared and argued on behalf of the Advocate-General and I am very much indebted to them for the very full and able assistance which they have rendered to the Court.3. The suit is one for a declaration that the marriage which to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 113Ind.Cas.49
George Claus Rankin, C.J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause why a certain memorandum of appeal presented to this Court on the 30th April, 1928, should not be accepted and registered. The question raised is whether or not the applicants have a right of appeal from the decision of a single Judge sitting in second appeal in the absence of a certificate from him that the case is a fit one for appeal. This question arises upon the new Letters Patent which came into effect on the 14th January, 1928.2. The facts are that the suit was instituted on 7th October, 1920, and that after an appeal to the District Court a second appeal was filed in the High Court by the present applicants on 4th October, 1926. Under certain ruled of this Court it was laid before Mr. Justice Mallik for disposal on or about the 4th April, 1928, and on that date the appeal was dismissed, the learned Judge refusing to declare that the case was a fit one for a further appeal.3. In these circumsta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1924Cal826,(1924)ILR51Cal652,84Ind.Cas.82
Greaves, J.1. The first of these Kales was granted at the instance of Baldeo Misser calling upon the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, C.I.D., Bengal, to show cause why an order of the 4th October 1923 of Mr. Moudad Rahman, one of the Judges of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes, granting sanction to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, C.I.D., Bengal, to prosecute Baldeo Misser under the provisions of Section 109 and Sections 209/109 of the Indian Penal Code, should not be set aside on the ground that the order of sanction granted by the learned Judge of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes is not warranted by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is illegal.2. The second Rule was granted on exactly similar grounds at, the instance of Harendra Nath Mitra.3. The material facts are as follows. On the 3rd January 1922 Harendra Nath Mitra instituted a suit in the Calcutta Court of Small Causes against Ramrup Lohar and Baldeo Misser. Ramrup stated that the claim was false...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 84Ind.Cas.705
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is a Reference by the Additional District Magistrate of Mymen-singh recommending that the case may be ordered to be committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.2. The complainant supports the Reference and the accused opposes it.3. The case commenced in February 1923 in the Court of the Deputy Magistrate of Tangail and involved charges against the accused under Sections 408 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code.4. At the time the case commenced the charges under s, 477-A were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Since the amended Cr. P.C., came into force charges under Section 477-A are triable by a Magistrate with First Class powers. One of the grounds for the Reference is that the Additional District Magistrate desires a decision as to whether the amended provision of the Cr. P.C, authorising a Magistrate with First Class powers to try offences under Section 477A, applies to cases commenced before the amending Act came into force. Another ground for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 85Ind.Cas.231
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. There are two appeals before us and a Reference under Section 374, Cr. P.C. The circumstances are as follows. It is said that the accused had a quarrel with the family of one Momrez and that one night they went to his house and set fire to the hut in which Momrez and his two wives and some children were sleeping: the inmates of this hut were not allowed to escape and they were all burned to death. In other huts Intaz and Bibijan were sleeping and they were also killed.2. The Committing Magistrate framed charges under Section 120B read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code and under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and Section 436, Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge made changes in the charge under Section 120B read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The Jury was unanimous in finding all the accused guilty on all the charges. The Judge agreed with the verdict and sentenced two of the men to death, and the others to transportation for life. Hence the two appeals and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1948Bom20; (1947)49BOMLR468
Bhagwati, J.1. At an election held in 1946 for the seat allotted to the Bombay City and Suburban Textile Unions Constituency in the Bombay Legislative Assembly, the petitioner was declared elected a member of the Bombay Legislative Assembly. Respondent No. 4 was one of the contesting candidates and be preferred an election petition on June 12, 1946, to His Excellency the Governor of Bombay praying inter alia that His Excellency the Governor be pleased to appoint Commissioners for the trial of the petition, for a declaration that the election of the petitioner was void and for a declaration that he the respondent No. 4 had been duly elected a member of the Bombay Legislative Assembly for the constituency. On receipt of the election petition a notification was issued from the Legal Department of the Government of Bombay, which after reciting that the election of the petitioner had been called in question by an election petition duly presented under Rule 110 of the Bombay Legislative Asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1944)46BOMLR54
J.C. Shah, J.1. The question that arises in this case is, whether Ordinance XIX of 1943 is a valid Ordinance. It was promulgated on June 5, 1943, to repeal Ordinance II of 1942, which established Special Criminal Courts in India for trial of certain classes of offences. Ordinance II of 1942 was held to be intra vires by the Bombay High Court in Emperor v. Shreekant Pandurang Ketkar : (1943)45BOMLR323 , though the Calcutta High Court arrived at an opposite conclusion in Banoari Lal v. Emperor : AIR1943Cal285 as regards Sections 5, 10, 14 and 16. Eventually the Federal Court of India held in Emperor v. Banoari Lal that Sections 5, 10 and 16 of the Ordinance were ultra vires. This decision was given on June 4, 1943. The Governor General deliberated overnight and promulgated Ordinance XIX of 1943 the next day. The new Ordinance accepted the decision of the Federal Court in so far as it repealed Ordinance II of 1942. It also proceeded to terminate pending proceedings; but it went further to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1946)48BOMLR443
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the Federal Court of India, dated May 8, 1942, by which the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated February 27, 1941, dismissing appeals by the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 respectively from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, IV Class, Sialkot, dated July 22, 1940, 'were set aside and the case sent back to the High Court with a direction for the framing of proper issues and the remittal of the case to the trial Court for further trial and decision.2. The only question in this appeal is whether, and, if so, to what extent, Section 5 of the Punjab Alienation of Land (Second Amendment) Act, 1938, Punjab Act X of 1938, is rendered invalid by Section 298 of the Government of India Act, 1935, as being ultra vires of the Punjab Provincial Legislature. The Punjab Act of 1938, which may be conveniently referred to as the impugned Act, by Section 5 purported to insert a new Se...
Tag this Judgment!