Kolkata Court June 1929 Judgments
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Manik Lal De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal306
B.B. Ghose, J.1. The judgment in this case cannot at all be supported. Under the Municipal Act there is an appeal to this Court against the decision of the Small Cause Court Judge revising the valuation by the corporation for assessment of rent and taxes. When there is a right of appeal one expects that the trial Judge should record the evidence in such a way that the appellate Court may come to its own decision as to whether the decision of the trial Judge is right or wrong upon the evidence. In this case the evidence has been recorded in a slip shod way. There is nothing on the record from which the observation of the learned Small Cause Court Judge that the place has been made unhealthy by the workmen of the iron-yard can be supported. Consequently the order of the learned Judge reducing the valuation of the land cannot be supported, because the reason for this reduction cannot be found from the record. It would, however, be unjust to the respondent to decree the appeal on the groun...
Tag this Judgment!Saherjan Bibi Vs. Gopal Chandra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal424
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal against an order granting review of a judgment by the Subordinate Judge which was passed on appeal. The application for review was made on the ground of discovery of fresh evidence. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the application and after allowing the application for review he set aside his previous judgment and then allowed the plaintiff-appellant to withdraw his suit. He, however, did not grant the plaintiff any permission to bring a fresh suit upon the same cause of action, The appeal is by the defendant under Order 47, Rule 7, Civil P.C. The first objection that is taken to the order granting the review is that although the learned Judge has held that there was new evidence discovered, it is contended that the new evidence is not important evidence as mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C. It has been pointed out in a series of cases that the grounds of appeal to which the appellate Court must be confined in an appeal against an order gr...
Tag this Judgment!Binjraj Marwari and ors. Vs. Das Mookerjee and Co. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal659
Rankin, C.J.1. In my opinion, this appeal must be allowed.2. It appears that certain persons were owners of a colliery. One of those persons brought a suit for dissolution of partnership and the usual ancillary reliefs. While the suit was pending, the Court in 1917 made an order, first of all, appointing one Purna Chandra Barman to be the receiver of the partnership assets which had to be administered. On 28th June of that year, defendants 1, 2 and 4 put in an application agreeing to the appointment of Babu Purna Chandra as manager of the disputed colliery on Rs. 50 per month but objecting to his appointment as receiver. Accordingly, the plaintiff's pleader having intimated that his client had no objection to the appointment of Purna Chandra Barman as manager of the disputed colliery on Rs. 50 per month, the order appointing him receiver was cancelled and the Court appointed Purna Chandra Barman manager of the disputed colliery on Rs. 50 a month. That was the order on 28th June 1917. I...
Tag this Judgment!Janakinath Roy and anr. Vs. Mohendra NaraIn Roy Chaudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal94
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The plaintiffs who are the purchasers of a patni taluk in execution of a mortgage decree, allege that the defendants vendors held a tenure under patni and created by a dowl kabuliyat bearing the date 19th Aswin 1249. According to the plaintiff's case the tenure is non-permanent and non-transferable. The defendant having purchased in 1330, the plaintiffs sue to eject him. The defence is that the tenure is permanent and transferable. The learned Additional District Judge on appeal has agreed with the trial Court in holding that the dowl kabuliyat created a non-permanent and non-transferable tenure, but he has found that as the result of a compromise arrived at in a rent suit of 1911 the tenure in suit has become permanent and transferable. He has, therefore, reversed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs now come in a second appeal.2. The first point taken on behalf of the appellants is that the learned Additional District Judge is wrong in...
Tag this Judgment!Ananta Lal Pakrasi Vs. Jnanada Sundari Debya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal255
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Pabna filing two awards dated 9th March 1926 and 3rd July 1926 on the application of the respondents. It appears that seven persons were entitled to properties moveable and immovable, of considerable value. Apparently they were not all on very good terms. On 12th February 1926 an achalnama was executed by all the seven persons appointing five gentlemen as arbitrators for settling their disputes, the subject matter of which was entered in a schedule attached to the said achalnama. It was provided that even if all the arbitrators did not join, the decision which a majority of them would jointly come to would prevail. One of the arbitrators named did not act but four of them made an award dated 7th March 1926. Under that award all the matters in dispute referred to the arbitrators were not decided. But the arbitrators did a good deal of work with reference to the arbitration as appears from th...
Tag this Judgment!Rakhal Das Nepal Pramanik Vs. Khirode Bandhu Nandi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal247
Mitter, J.1. The question raised by this appeal is one of some nicety and is one of special limitation under Article 3 Schedule 3, Ben. Ten. Act.2. The relevant facts are these : Plaintiff who is a minor is the tenant of the non-transferable occupancy holding which is the subject matter of the present suit. His mother, who is an illiterate pardanashin woman sold the lands to defendant 2. The deed of sale was executed by plaintiff's mother in her personal capacity and has been held by both Courts not to be binding on plaintiff. After the sale, the plaintiff with her mother abandoned the holding in Aghrayan 1328, i.e. in November or December 1921 and thereupon two of the cosharer landlords took khas possession. Hence plaintiff has brought this suit. The suit was instituted admittedly beyond two years of the landlord's talcing khas possession. The Court of first instance found in favour of the plaintiff both on the question of title and special limitation. On appeal the lower appellate Co...
Tag this Judgment!Umeshchandra Banerji Vs. Kunjilal Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal685
Lort-Williams, J.1. Section 129, Civil P.C. provides thatnotwithstanding anything in this Code, any-High Court established under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861, or the Government of India Act 1915, may make such rules not inconsistent with the Letters Patent establishing it to regulate its own procedure in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction as it shall think fit, and nothing herein contained shall affect the validity of any such rules in force at the commencement of this Code.2. The object of this section was to provide for elasticity in procedure and to enable defects in the Code to be remedied without the dilatory process of legislation, and the High Court was given power to vary or amend the rules of procedure which appear in the Code; see notes on p. 487, Woodroff on Civil Procedure,' Edn. 2.3. For this reason the sections dealing -with procedure were taken out of the body of the Code and placed in a separate schedule. Therefore, if the matter were res integra I am d...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: MartIn and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal753
Rankin, C.J.1. In order to dispose of the questions referred to us, it is necessary that we should refer the case back to the Commissioner to make certain additions thereto or alterations therein as provided by Clause (4), Section 66, Income Tax Act of 1922. The observations which I propose to make now are entirely directed to making clear, so far as I can, the points upon which further findings are required at the hands of the Commissioner.2. It appears that there is a firm called Messrs. Martin and Company which is governed by certain articles of partnership in writing. There seem to be three such documents. These documents have not been made part of the case stated They ought to be, made part of the case stated. It is not exactly clear to me whether as a result of these three documents that firm is shown to have had 7 partners or only 5, The documents will make that matter clear. In 1927, certain persons bought a business which was being carried on under the name and style of Burn a...
Tag this Judgment!Marine Insurance Policies Vs. Board of Revenue
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal799
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Board of Revenue, Bengal, under Section 57, Stamp Act, 1899. The reference is for the opinion of the Court as to whether a certain type of document represented by a blank form attached to the statement of the case drawn up by the Board of Revenue should be stamped with duty payable under Article 47(A)(1)(ii), Schedule 1, Stamp Act, or with duty under Article 62(c) of the said schedule or with some other and what duty.2. It appears that a certain company or association called the Marine Insurance Association, Calcutta, carry on business in India in the course of which they issue Marine Insurance Policies upon goods. Accordingly, they have upon their policies to pay the stamp duty required by the schedule to the Indian Stamp Act. This Association has observed that, in the course of shipments to India, the policies of insurance or their equivalents sometimes take the form not of policies that have been executed in India but of certificates th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re : Marine Insurance Policies
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.135
George Claus Rankin, C. J.1. This is a Reference made by the Board of Revenue, Bengal, under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Reference is for the opinion of the Court as to whether a certain type of document represented by a blank form attached to the statement of the case drawn up by the Board of Revenue should be stamped with duty payable under Article 47-A (1) (ii) of Schedule I to the Indian Stamp Act or with duty under Article 62 (c) of the said Schedule or with some other and what duty. It appears that a certain Company or Association called the Marine Insurance; Association, Calcutta, carry on business in India in the course of which they issue Marina Insurance Policies upon goods. Accordingly, they have upon their policies to pay the stamp duty required by the Schedule to the Indian Stamp Act. This Association has observed that, in the course if shipments to India, the policies of insurance or their equivalents sometimes take the form not of policies that have bee...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »