Kolkata Court December 1927 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.
Secretary of State for India Vs. Breakwell and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal761
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the President of the Tribunal under the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911. The facts are these : The Collector under the Land Acquisition Act made a declaration dated 27th May 1921 published in the Calcutta Gazette of 1st June 1921 for the acquisition of certain lands. The owner of the premises with regard to which the declaration was made was one Banamali Mullick. The respondent company were the lessees under him. It appears that the respondents were in occupation as lessees under a lease which expired in 1911, and there was a renewal for another tea years and the renewed lease expired on 31st December 1920. Before the expiry of that lease the landlord gave notice to the respondent company that he was not prepared to grant any fresh lease to the respondents. Some offer was made on behalf of the respondents for granting a fresh lease to them, but the landlord was unwilling. The respondents, however, remained on the land and did not vac...
Gangasagar Ananda Mohan Saha Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal836
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case certain assessees applied to the Court under Sub-section (3), Section 66, Income-tax Act 1922, for an order directing the Commissioner of Income-tax to state a case for the opinion of the Court. The application made to the Commissioner of Income-tax appears to have raised in a somewhat complicated and contentious form various questions which apparently include allegations of fact which the Commissioner of Income-tax disputes and which overlap to some extent; but the real question for determination is whether the assesses are entitled to be treated for income-tax purposes as a Hindu undivided family. The Commissioner of Income-tax is of opinion that they are not so entitled and that they must be treated as an unregistered firm. We direct that the present Rule be made absolute on that question, namely, whether or not the assessees are entitled to be treated for income-tax purposes as a Hindu undivided family. That is the sole question which we require the Comm...
In Re: Howrah-amta Light Ry. Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1927
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.33
George Claus Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the Commissioner of Income-tax has been ordered to state and has stated three points for the opinion of the Court. The first question is--whether the assessment is in order. I do not understand that there is any meaning in particular in that passage, but the assessment is plainly in order. The second and the only point is this:Whether the whole or any part of the amount paid to the District Board is or is not an allowable item of expenditure under Section 10 of the Act.2. The third question which apparently he was ordered by a Rule issued by this Court to state is not a question at all. It is as follows:The legal relation subsisting between your petitioners and the District Board and the character of the payment by your petitioners to the District Board.3. The Commissioner of Income-tax has in the end said that it appears to him that it is not his place to define the legal relationship subsisting between the petitioner Company and the District B...
Nisi Kanta Das and ors. Vs. Brojendra Nath Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal298
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which WAS instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration of title to and for confirmation of possession in or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession in respect of, an eight annas share in a tank and its bank. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, that Court holding that the plaintiffs had failed to make out their title and that they had not been in possession, at any time, of the property in suit before the suit was instituted. The lower appellate Court, on an appeal being preferred by the plaintiffs from the aforesaid decision, reversed the said decision and decreed the suit in plaintiffs' favour holding that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving their title and also that the suit was not barred by limitation. The plaintiffs' ease, shortly stated, was that the tank in question belonged originally to two brothers Nilmani Ray and Madhuradhan Say in equal shares. The plaintiffs claimed to have acquired the eight annas share of ...
Ananda Bandhu Das and ors. Vs. Ambica Charan Bhattacharjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal412
B.B. Ghosh, J.1. This is an appeal by some of the defendants, that is, defendants 7, 10, 16 and the representatives of the original defendant 14, against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Chittagong, dated 15th September 1925. The suit was originally brought by plaintiff 1. only by making plaintiff 2 a pro forma defendant who was subsequently transferred on his own application to the category of plaintiffs. These two plaintiffs claimed the property in suit as the reversionary heirs of one Bhabani Das Bhattacharya who died in October or November 1874 leaving a widow Bama Sundari surviving him. Bhabani had previously executed a will dated 28th July 1874, by which he had appointed several executors. The executors renounced their executorships and the widow applied for letters of administration with the copy of the will annexed which was granted to her on 8th February 1875. It appears that on 6th May 1879 the widow Bama Sundari executed two permanent leases in fa...
Suresh Chandra Banerjee and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal309,110Ind.Cas.449
Chotzner, J.1. The 20 appellants were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Dacca with a jury upon a charge under Section 400, I.P.C., and upon the unanimous verdict of the jury were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The trial presents some unusual features. It began on 15th April 1925 and ended on 9th June. 1926. Over 300 witnesses were examined and the amount of judicial time actually devoted to the hearing was 154 days. The learned Judge's charge to the jury which occupied 8 days dealt very exhaustively with the law and with the facts in their relation to each particular accused and reflects great credit on the patience, industry and carefulness of the learned Judge.2. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellants Suresh Chandra Banerji alias Fatik, Bhim Dhupi, Gunga Charan Dutt alias Haridas. Abala Ranjan Majumdar, Nalini Ranjan Majumdar and Bama Charan Chaudhuri alias Tuina were represented by Mr. Taluqdar, Nripendra Nath Ghose alias Natu by Mr. Bhattach...
Mahendra Nath Biswas Vs. Charu Chandra Bose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal396
1. This appeal may be disposed of on the short, ground that the plaintiff's suit as framed is not maintainable under Section 42, Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff claims the land in the suit as a cosharer with the defendants. The defendants deny that they were ever the plaintiff's cosharers and say that the properties belonged to them by transfer from the rightful owner. The plaintiff brought the present suit for declaration of his title to the properties in suit and for confirmation of possession. The trial Court found all the issues relating to title and possession against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The learned Additional District Judge has not gone into the question of title, but, on his finding on the question of limitation, he is of opinion that the suit is not maintainable. He has found that the plaintiff was never in possession, either actual or constructive, of the properties in suit and, therefore, the present suit, which is brought under Section 42, Specific Relie...
Kuarmony Singh Mandhata Vs. Dashrathi Pati and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal570
Mukerji, J.1. (S.A. No. 136) - In this case, since the filing of the appeal, one of the respondents joint tenants died. The suit was one for enhancement of rent. No substitution has been made and the appeal has been dismissed as against him by an order dated 17th February 1926. This appeal must also fail as against respondent 1 and will be dismissed with costs as it cannot proceed when all the tenants are not on the record.2. S.A. Nos. 121-134 and 137.--These appeals arise out of suits instituted by the landlord for recovery of rent and for enhancement thereof under Section 30, Clause (b), Ben. Ten. Act. The trial Court enhanced the rent at the rate of 4 annas per rupee. On appeal preferred by the defendants, the learned District Judge has modified the decrees of the trial Court on the question of enhancement by allowing the plaintiff enhancement at the rate of one anna per rupee instead of at the rata of 4 annas per rupee.3. Two grounds have been urged in sup-port of this appeal by th...
Kedar Nath Mahto and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal83
Page, J.1. I have had an opportunity of reading the judgment which is going to be delivered by Mr. Justice Buckland with which I agree.Buckland, J.2. Under Ch. 7, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, the three appeals, Nos. 377, 468 and 302 of 1927, have been referred to a Full Bench for the purposes of a final determination of the con' struction to be put upon Prov. 2, Section 276, Criminal P.C. So far as the facts of these cases relate to the manner in which the juries were empanelled, they are set out in the order of reference as follows:In appeal No. 377, the accused were charged under Section 147 and under Section 3i5 read with Section 149, I.P.C. Ten persons were summoned to serve on the jury. Of these ten, six persons attended. Of these six, it was ascertained that one was serving in the office of a society of which the Public Prosecutor was the President. An objection being taken to this individual, the objection 'was: sustained, and he was discharged. This left five persons who h...
Mohan Lal Golchha and ors. Vs. KasimuddIn Shaikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal302
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case, the only question involved is a question of limitation. The appellants are the decree-holders and they applied for execution of the decree which they had obtained, the application for execution being filed on 31st October 1924. It appears that the Durga Puja holidays of that year did not terminate till that date and, therefore, if it be held that the decree-holders were within time, that is to say, that the application was filed within a period of three years from 28th September 1921, the date when the decree-holders filed process fee in the previous execution case, then it must follow as a necessary corollary that their present application for execution was within time. The dispute between the parties is with reference to what has happened on 28th September 1921. The appellants contend that what happened on 28th September should be regarded by the Court as a step-in-aid of execution within the meaning of Article 182, Clause (5), Schedule 1, Lim. Act. Whe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »