Kolkata Court June 1925 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
ismail Sha Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal692,91Ind.Cas.542
1. This Rule is issued oil, the ground that the Trial Magistrate erred in not recording the statement of the accused under Sections 342 and 370, Cr.P.C. The Magistrate in his explanation submits that he examined the accused under Section 342. There is no record of the result of the examination but it is noted below the record of the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, 'examined under Section 342.' There were three accused persons placed on trial of whom accused No. 3 was acquitted, and Nos. 1 and 2 were sentenced to on month's regorous imprisonment each. The order of the Magistrate is recorded in a form which is used in the Calcutta Police, Court which bears numbered heads. Column No. 7 mentions 'the plea of the accused and his examination (if any)'. There is no entry against this column and in the whole of the record we have not been able to trace what the plea of the accused really was. The judgment of the Magistrate is exceedingly short. He says: 'Heard parties: Accused N...
Hemanta Kumar Roy and ors. Vs. Meser Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.984
1. This appeal arises out of an application for increase of rent for increase of area presented before the Assistant Settlement Officer of Jessore. Both the Courts below rejected the application on the ground that the kabuliyats showed that the rents were fixed for the lands as described within the boundaries. The learned Special Judge observes that the area shown of each plot is a mere description and the rent was not fixed with reference to the area nor is it shown that the tenants have made any encroachment on the khas land of the landlord. The question depends upon the construction of the kabuliyats. It is true that the lands were let out as being bounded as described in the 'schedule and the area was described as 68 bighas and 15 1/2 cottas. Ordinarily it must be held that the area was merely given by guess and the lands as described Within the boundaries were let out at the rent arranged and if the landlord failed to prove that the tenant was occupying more lands than he was payi...
isabella Coal Company Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.789
N.R. Chatterjea and C.C. Ghose, JJ.1. This is a Reference under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act, XI of 1922.2. The assessee, the Isabella Coal Company, paid road and public works cess in respect of their coal mine, and claimed a deduction of the amount paid by them as cesses, in computation of the income-tax under Clauses (viii) and (ix) of Section 10(2) of the Income Tax Act, XI of 1922, and the question referred to us is whether the sums paid by them as cesses should be deducted under Clauses (viii) and (ix) of Section 10(2) of the Act.3. (sic) lays down that the 'tax shall be payable by an assess under the head 'business' in respect of the profits or gains of any business carried on by him.' (2) Such profits or gains shall be computed after making the following allowances, namely: (Omitting the other clauses).(viii) Any sum paid on account of land revenue, local rates or municipal taxes in respect of such part of the premises as ia used for the purposes of the business;(ix) any ...
Adam Sardar and ors. Vs. Bisweswar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal684,92Ind.Cas.601
1. These two appeals are by the defendants against the decisions of the Special Judge of Jessore modifying the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer. The proceedings out of which these appeals arise were proceedings under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act by the landlord for enhancement of rent under the provisions of Section 52 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and also for the assessment of additional rent for additional area. The plaintiffs' case under Section 52 failed but in the lower, Appellate Court, the learned Judge has allowed additional rent for additional area and he has arrived at his conclusion by admitting in evidence a certain document) a memorandum which is referred to in his judgment as showing the standard of measurement in Mahmudshahi Parganna. One ground of appeal by the defendants in these two appeals is that this memorandum should not have been admitted in evidence in the Appellate Court and the document is further attacked on the ground that there is nothing ...
isabella Goal Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal396
Chatterjea and C.C. Ghose, JJ.1. This is a Reference under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act 11 of 1922.2. The assessee, the Isabella Coal Company, paid road and public works cess in respect of their coal mine, and claimed a deduction of the amount paid by them as cesses in computation of the income-tax under Clauses (viii) and (ix) of Section 10(2) of the Income-tax Act 11 of 1922, and the question referred to us is whether the sums paid by them as cesses should be deducted under Clauses (viii) and (ix) of Section 10(2) of the Act.3. Section 10(1) lays down that the 'tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head Business 'in respect of the profits or gains of any business carried on by him.' (2) Such profits or gains shall be computed after making the following allowances, namely (omitting the other clauses):(viii) Any sum paid on account of land revenue, local rates or municipal taxes in respect of such part of the purposes of the business;(ix) any expenditure (not being in th...
Bidhumukhi and ors. Vs. Gobinda Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.104
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants and it arises out of a suit for khas possession of certain lands by the plaintiff after service of notice under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff stated that the defendants took an under-raiyati lease from them in 1293 of 1 kani of land for a term of 9 years and that the plaintiff on the expiration of the term of the lease served a notice upon the defendants under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and that the defendants having refused to vacate the lands this suit is brought for khas possession of the land covered by the under-rayati lease of the defendants.2. The defence of the defendants was that they were the owners of kaimi mourashi tenancy of the homestead of one Jagamohun Bhuiya measuring about 2 kanis of lands and that in 1293 the defendants sold the same to the plaintiff and on that very day they took a sub-lease by a registered patta from the plaintiff of a portion of the land sold by them to the plain...
Purna Chandra Mukerji and anr. Vs. Gopendra Krishna Kundu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal744,91Ind.Cas.517
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal which arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of 8-annas share of certain properties entered into by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs. In the agreement for sale the defendant No. 1 purported to have agreed to execute a kabala for 8-an-nas of the property, one-half of which, that is to say, 4-annas share, belonged to the defendant No. 1 and the other half belonged to his infant nephew defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs, brought the suit against the defendant No. 1 as well as his nephew. Prior to the suit, the disputed property had been purchased by the Kundus who were added as defendants under an order of the Court but the plaint was not amended and it was not stated on what ground they were sued, or the grounds on which relief was claimed against them.2. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit with regard to the share of defendant No. 2 but decreed it with regard to the 4-annas share of defendant No. 1 o...
Satish Chandra Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Syed Abdul Hasir Alias Ranjana ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.608
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decision of the Second Additional District Judge of Mymensingh which reverses a decision of the Second Munsif of Kishoreganj. The plaintiffs are tenure-holders under the defendants and this suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of what they alleged formed part of their tenure under the defendants and of which they say they had been dispossessed by the defendants. The defence was a denial that the lands in suit formed part of any permanent tenure of the plaintiffs held under the defendants. The first Court found in favour of the plaintiffs' contention and decreed the suit. The second Court reversed that decision. Now, three points have been urged before ii n second appeal. First, it is said that aligh the Record of Rights which was publied some time after May 1916 shows one Amiruddi as the tenant of the lands in suit under the defendants the presumption of the record has been rebutted by reason of the fact that the plai...
Mahammed Wasel Ali and anr. Vs. NainuddIn Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.614
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits for possession of certain shares of a tenancy. The original-owner of the lands was one Jamal lie left three sons, Torap, Kolom and Ajim. The appellants in Second Appeal No. 1212 are the heirs of Torap and the heirs of Kolom are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 1213. They were the plaintiffs in the Trial Court and the defendants were, the heirs of Ajim who are the respondents in both the appeals. Both the Courts have found the question of title in favour of the plaintiffs. The Trial Court made a decree in their favour and ordered joint possession according to their share of the lands with the defendants. On appeal by the defendants, the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed both the suits on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to show possession of a permissive character of the defendants or their own possession within 12 years of, the date of the suit. He applied Article 142 of the Limitation Act and dismissed the suit on...
Chattu Lal Misser and ors. Vs. Marwari Commercial Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.839
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Chattu Lal Misser against two orders of the 8th and the 27th of August, 1924. The order of the 27th of August, 1924 is the material order. It runs as follows:It is ordered in supersession of the order made in this suit and dated the eighth day of August instant that the defendants do pursuant to the said order on or before the twelfth, day of September next furnish security to the extent of eight lacs to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court in unencumbered immoveable property in Calcutta or in the town of Howrah; And it is further ordered that on such security being given within the time aforesaid the defendants shall have leave: to defend this suit; And it is further ordered that the said Registrar be at liberty to extend the time for furnishing such security as aforesaid on good cause being shown therefor: And it is further ordered that in default of the defendants furnishing security as aforesaid within the time aforesaid or...