Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.00 seconds)
Documents citing Amrita Lal Bose And Ors. vs The Corporation Of Calcutta on 15 July, 1917

The King Emperor vs Barendra Kumar Ghose on 26 September, 1923

It appears to me that this solution cannot possibly have come within the intention or contemplation of the legislature and is not compelled by the language of Section 34. The language is compatible with the reasonable solution, namely, that both shots, the shot that took effect, and the shot that missed, are the joint acts of the two men. Bach man in the eye of the law does both acts. The result follows that they are severally but equally liable for the effect produced, in accordance with the principle, I again quote my brother Mookerjee, "that all who participate in the commission of a crime are severally responsible to the State, as though the crime has been committed by any one of them acting alone", Amrita Lal Bose v. Corporation of Calcutta (1917) 44 Cal. 1025. The fact that the attack is made by two men and not by one may well be an aggravation and not a palliation of the erime. The attack is cowardly so far as the criminals look to superiority in numbers for security and courage.
Calcutta High Court Cites 93 - Cited by 45 - Full Document

General Electric Co. Of India Ltd. And ... vs Corporation Of Calcutta And Anr. on 17 June, 1957

and the Corporation has, accordingly, valued the land and the building of the premises separately and then added up the values to arrive at the total value of the premises. The same method has also been followed by the Company's valuer but it has been contended on behalf of the Company that since the land is to be valued "with the building as part of the same premises", as laid, down in this clause, the value of the land should not have been ascertained as if it was an open site, unoccupied by any building, but that its value should have been considered by taking into account the nature of the building occupying it. It is not clear what was really meant by this contention. If it was meant that this land was burdened with the building upon it and that the existence of the building had lowered its value, then it is sufficient to say that the valuer, examined by the Company, did not raise or support any such objection. He did not consider the land of the premises to be land burdened with a building. He explained that a piece of land could be said to be burdened with a building when that building was old or dilapidated, but that such was not the condition of this building. He was of the opinion that the land should be valued as built-up land or land crowned with building, as he expressed it, and he valued the land as such. There is nothing to show that the Corporation authorities valued the land otherwise or that they placed a higher value on the land, taking it to be an open site. This particular area is a built-up locality and, as is well known, lands on both sides of Chittaranjan Avenue are covered by big buildings. There was, therefore, little scope for valuing lands here as open sites. The company's present objection, therefore is without substance.
Calcutta High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Emperor vs Barendra Kumar Ghose on 26 September, 1923

It appears to me that this solution cannot possibly have come within the intention or contemplation of the Legislature and is not contemplated by the language of Section 34. The language is compatible with the reasonable solution, namely, that both shots, the shot that took effect, and the shot "that missed, are the joint acts of the two men. Each man in the eye of the law does both acts. The result follows that they are severally but equally liable for the effect produced, in accordance with the principle, I again quote my brother Mookerjee, "that all who participate in the commission of a crime are severally responsible to the State as though the crime has been committed by any one of them acting alone:" Amrita Lal Bose v. Corporation of Calcutta 42 Ind. Cas. 305 : 44 C. 1025 : 26 C.L.J. 215 : 21 C.W.N.1016 : 18 Cr. L.J. 945. The fact that the attack is made by two men and not by one may well be an aggravation and not a palliation of the crime. The attack is cowardly so far as the criminals look to superiority in numbers for security and courage.
Calcutta High Court Cites 102 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Manasha Charan Chatterjee Of Village ... vs Jalkadar Dewan Of Village Haridia And ... on 21 May, 1942

3. It is to be observed that Section 74A is a new provision which was introduced by the amending Act of 1938, which, if it did not, strictly speaking, create a criminal offence, still created something very nearly akin to it. The civil remedy in respect of an illegal exaction by the landlord is provided for in Section 75, which contemplates a suit by the tenant against the landlord for recovery of the amount realized with an additional sum by way of penalty. But the new Section 74A deals with something wholly different in so far as it provides for the imposition of a fine by the Collector for the illegal act, without prejudice to the right of suit of the aggrieved party. This being so, I think it will be only reasonable to construe the section in a way compatible with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. A long and elaborate discussion of these principles will be found in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Amrita Lal v. Corporation of Calcutta ('17) 4 A.I.R. 1917 Cal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1