Kolkata Court May 1924 Judgments
Prokash Chandra Das Gupta Vs. Shama Charan Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal467,82Ind.Cas.991
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Jessore, dated the 21st March, 1922, setting aside his previous order of the 7th November, 1921, and rejecting the appellant's application for substitution in place of the plaintiff in the suit. The facts are that, one Giridhari Lal Sarowgi brought the present suit on the allegation that the mortgage executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 was collusive, fraudulent and benami and could not affect the plaintiff's mortgage. He further prayed that it might be declared that the mortgage decree obtained by defendant No. 1 on the said mortgage against defendant No. 2 and him (plaintiff) was fraudulent and collusive and inoperative against him (plaintiff). In the said suit brought by defendant No. 1 he claimed to be the first mortgagee while Giridhari Lal was described as a puisne mortgagee. During the pendency of this suit on the 16th June, 1921, Giridhari Lal sold his interest in the mortgage and in other pro...
Tag this Judgment!King-emperor Vs. Sagarmal Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal960
1. The accused Sagarmal was tried before the Sessions Judge of the Assam Valley Districts on two charges, firstly with having forged an Ekrarnama Ex. 2, a valuable security purporting to have been executed by Kanai Lal on 21st January, 1905, and secondly with having fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine by filing in the Court of the Extra Assistant Commissioner Mr. Section Goswami in Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code proceeding in 1922 the Ekrarnama Ex. 2 purporting to have been executed by Kanai Lal on 21st January, 1905, which he knew or had reason to believe at the time of filing to be a forged document. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty. The learned, Sessions Judge disagreeing with the jury's verdict on the second charge has thought it necessary to refer this case to this Court under the provisions of Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The main facts of the case are as follows : On the 21st November, 1904, Kanai Lal purchased a piece of lan...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sagarmal Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.145
1. The accused Sagarmal was tried before the Sessions Judge of the Assam Valley Districts on two charges, firstly, with having forged an ekrarnama, Exhibit 2, a valuable security purporting to have been executed by Kanai Lal on 21st January, 1905, and secondly, with having fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine by filing in the Court of the Extra-Assistant Commissioner, Mr. S. Goswami, in a Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code; proceeding in 1922 the ekrarnama Exhibit 2 purporting to have been executed by Kanai Lal on 21st January 1905, which he knew or had reason to believe at the time of filing to be a forged document. The Jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty. The learned Sessions Judge disagreeing with the Jury's verdict on the second charge has thought it necessary to refer this case to this Court under the provisions of Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The main facts of the case are as follows: On the 21st November, 1904, Kanai Lal purchased a piec...
Tag this Judgment!Rogers Pratt Shellac Company Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal34
Chatterjea, J.1. This is a case stated by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal, under the provisions of Section 66 of Act XI of 1922, and Section 51 of Act VII of 1918.2. The Rogers Pratt Shellac Company is incorporated in the United States of America, with its headquarters in the city of New York. The Company have a branch office in Calcutta to buy gum, shellac and other Indian products, and a factory at Wyndhamgunj in the United Provinces. No sales are conducted in India by the Company; their transactions are limited to the purchase of shellac and other goods, some of which are purchased on account of a certain Gramophone Company which pay the Company a fixed percentage on the purchase plus expense, while the balance is sold in the open market.3. Income-Tax was assessed for the years 1921-22, as also super-tax, and the tax was paid under protest on the 6th May, 1922.4. They were similarly assessed for the year 1922-23, and the tax was paid on the 29th March, 1923, with a notice tha...
Tag this Judgment!Charan Chandra Ghosh Vs. Rai Behari Lal Mitra Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal157
1. This rule is issued against an order of the District Judge of Barisal revering an order of the Subordinate Judge of that place setting aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. The learned Subordinate Judge bad held that there were suppression of sale processes and other material irregularities and set aside the sale accordingly. The learned District Judge on appeal proceeded upon one single point, namely, the absence of proof of service of notice on the decree-holder. It may be remarked that in this case the decree-holder was the auction-purchaser. The learned District Judge has found that there was no proof of service of notice of the application on the decree-holder which is necessary to entitle a Court to pass an order under Rule 90 and in this view of the matter dismissed the petitioner's application for setting aside the sale. This rule was obtained on the ground that the view taken by the Court below was wrong and that he bad no jurisdiction to dismiss the p...
Tag this Judgment!Eshaque Sheikh and ors. Vs. Motilal Malo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal294
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The defendant No. 1 who is the appellant, gave a permanent lease to the plaintiff and the plaintiff granted a barga lease for one year of the land to the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 held over and the present suit is for rent for the years 1322 to 1325. The defence was that the defendant No. 1 was a raiyat and that the lease granted by him was in contravention of Section 85, Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs, therefore, had no interest in the land and were not entitled to receive any rent. The Munsiff gave effect to these pleas and finding that notice under Section 49, Bengal Tenancy Act, was proved to have been served upon the plaintiff dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge has decreed the plaintiff's suit. The learned Judge first raised two principal points: (1) 'Is the patta granted by the defendant to the plaintiff and pro forma defendant No. 2 void under Section 85, Bengal Tenancy Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Gosta Behari Pramanik and ors. Vs. Hem Chandra Das De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal356
1. This appeal is from the judgment of the District Judge of Murshidabad. The appellant is the plaintiff in a rent suit, the respondent No. 1 being the tenant and No. 2 a co-sharer landlord. The suit related to an occupancy holding governed by the terms of a kabuliyat executed in 1875. In 1911 four bighas odd was acquired for railway purposes under the Land Acquisition Act, and the compensation money, some Rs. 470, was paid over to the tenant. In 1919 this suit was brought for the rent, for the years 1322 to 1325. The defendant claimed abatement and also pleaded certain payments. The first Court gave effect to both pleas and made a decree in part. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal. Before us various points have been taken in argument which were not touched in the Courts below. It is argued first of all that having regard to the terms of the kabuliyat no question of abatement can arise at all, because it is expressly provided against. The terms are as follows according to ...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi Masihul Azam and ors. Vs. Golzar Ahammad Mia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal924,95Ind.Cas.773
Walmsley, J.1. This was Rule obtained at the instance of the Plaintiffs. They brought a suit against the Defendants alleging that the first Defendant Golzar had been their tehsildar and that money was due to them on account and they asked that an account should be taken and a decree passed for the sum of money found due after accounting. After some adjournments it was agreed that there should be a preliminary decree passed to the effect that the Defendant No. 1 was liable to account to the Plaintiffs and that the amount to be paid by the Defendant No. 1 should be left to the decision of five persons named in the petition. These five gentlemen made an award which was submitted to the Court. Thereupon the Plaintiffs filed an objection and the learned Munsif remitted the award on the ground that the arbitrators had failed to decide three important points. One of the strive arbitrators refused so sit any further. The other four ratified their former order. The learned Munsif then held that...
Tag this Judgment!Gosta Behari Pramanick Vs. Hem Chandra Das De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal1022
Pearson, J.1. This appeal is from the judgment of the District Judge of Murshidabad. The appellant is the plaintiff in a rent suit, the respondent No. 1 being the tenant and No. 2 a co-sharer landlord. The suit related to an occupancy holding governed by the terms of a kabuliyat executed in 1875. In 1911 four bighas odd were acquired for railway purposes under the Land Acquisition Act, and the compensation money, some Rs. 470, was paid over to the tenant. In 1919 this suit was brought for the rent for the years 1322 to 1325 B.S. The defendant claimed abatement and also pleaded certain payments. The first Court gave effect to both pleas and made a decree in part. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal. Before us various points have been taken in argument which were not touched in the Courts below. It is argued first of all that having regard to the terms of the kabuliyat no question of abatement can arise at all, because it is expressly provided against. The terms are as follow...
Tag this Judgment!Re Rogers Pyatt Shellac and Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal1
Chatterjea, J.1. What is meant by the words 'business connection' in Section 41?2. The expression is not defined, but it must mean doing business through a broker or agent or some such person.3. The Advocate-General (Mr. S. R. Das) and the Standing Counsel (Mr. B. L. Mitter), for the Secretary of State. English decisions would hardly be of any assistance to the Court, for the simple reason that the scheme of the English Acts was entirely different from that of the Indian Acts. The Madras decision in Board of Revenue v. Madras Export Company (1922) I. L. R. 46 Mad. 360. was based on the supposition that the law is the same in England and in India. The Indian Act, though to some extent modelled on English statute, materially differs from the latter in several matters. The English Act, as was pointed out in Colquhoun v. Brooks (1889) 14 App. Cas. 493., imposes a territorial limit with regard to income chargeable to income-tax---either (2) that from which taxable income is derived must be ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »