Kolkata Court April 1930 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.
Bishnu Mondal and ors. Vs. Charu Chandra Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal823,129Ind.Cas.104
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The plaintiff sues to recover arrears of rent for the years 1332 and 1333 at an annual jama of Rs. 12 in cash, 8 aris of paddy, and 12 seers of molasses on the basis of a registered kabuliyat dated 9th Baisakh 1306. The Courts below have agreed in decreeing the suit, valuing the paddy and molasses at the current market rate. The present second appeal is by the 'defendants. Their defence is that they are only liable for the value as given in the kabuliyat. The material portion of the kabuliyat, which is for a mourasi makarari kaimi lease, is recited in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in appeal. It shows that the stipulation is that the jama is fixed at annual rent of Rs. 12 in cash, 12 seers of molasses and 8 axis of dried paddy. The price of the 12 seers of molasses is stated to be Re. 1 and that of the 8 aris of paddy is stated to be Rs. 12 the total being Rs. 25. It is however quite clear from the terms of the kabuliyat that the tenant contracted to pay...
Protap Chandra Ganguly Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal410
Rankin, C.J.1. The assessee in this case received a notice under Sub-section (2), Section 22, Income-tax Act, requiring him to lodge a return of his income by 2nd June 1927, No return was filed by that date; but, on 4th June, the assessee filed an application through his pleader asking the income-tax officer to give him time till 4th August. The income-tax officer gave him time till 25th July and, on 25th July, the assessee failed to file any return. Two days later, on 27th July, his pleader appeared before the income-tax officer and said that, as he had to leave Calcutta, he could not submit his return. The income-tax officer said that he could not wait and must finish the assessment there and then. Further adjournment was therefore refused. On that date an assessment was made by the income-tax Officer under Clause (4), Section 23, in default of the filing of return. It is quite clear under the Income-tax Act, that, although an assessee is late in filing his return, nevertheless if he...
Brojendra Kumar Pal and anr. Vs. Purna Chandra Pal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal53,129Ind.Cas.428
Graham, J.1. In this case a Rule was issued to show cause why a judgment and decree of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Noakhali based upon an arbitration award should not be set aside, and why the suit should not be remitted to the learned Subordinate Judge to be dealt with according to law.2. The facts of the case may be shortly stated. The opposite parties Puma Chandra Pal and Chandra Kumar Pal brought against the petitioners a suit for accounts (No. 246 of 1927) in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Noakhali alleging that the petitioners had been engaged as gumasthas to manage a business in betel-nuts and had rendered no account. The defence was that the defendants were not servants of the plaintiffs, but were partners in the business; that plaintiffs could not sue for accounts till the business had been wound up and accounts had been rendered by the plaintiffs; and that the papers relating to the business were with the plaintiffs who were therefore not entitled to any...
In Re: Kedarnath Kesriwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal209
Rankin, C.J. 1. In this case, the Commissioner of Income-tax has referred seven questions of law at the request of the assessees. It appears that the original notice under Sub-section (2), Section 22, Income tax Act, was served on the assessees on 16th March 1925. The assessees were required by that notice to give a return of their income for the year 1925-26 October to October, and the income of that year would be the income of the previous year 1924-25. In April 1925, they made a return and upon this there was an order of assessment. Some time later, it appearing that there was a question whether the income of a certain fatka business was or was not income belonging to the assessees, proceedings were started by a notice under Section 34 of the Act and assessment was made under Section 34 of the Act by the Income-tax Officer. This assessment however was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner but the Assistant Commissioner, after he had cancelled it apparently saw reason to think that...
Wright Vs. Wright
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal383
Buckland, J.1. This matter has corns before this Court for confirmation, under Section 17, Divorce Act of 1869, of the decree for the dissolution of the marriage of the parties made by the District Judge at Darjeeling on 19th September 1929.2. There would be no difficulty in the way of confirming the decree were it not for want of proper attention to the question of the domicile of the petitioner.3. In his evidence, the petitioner has stated that his present domicile is in India. He has also stated that he was married at Secundorabad in 1920 and has lived with his wife at various places in India until shortly before he filed his petition, statements which may or may not have a bearing upon the question of his domicile. The District Judge has observed that he is satisfied of the fact that all the parties are at present domiciled in India. Nothing further material to the question of domicile is to be found on the record.4. It is of the highest importance that in cases under the Divorce A...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal419
Rankin, C.J.1. The Corporation of Calcutta sue the Commissioners for the Port, of Calcutta for damages in respect of the flooding, on 22nd July 1926, of the engine-room of the Corporation's pumping station, called the Mallik Ghat Pumping Station, near to the eastern end of the Howrah Bridge. Near to the eastern hank of the river runs the railway belonging to the Port Commissioners, which they are authorized by their Act (Bengal Act 3 of 1890) to maintain. This railway appears to have been first constructed in 1876, when the then Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, acting under Act 5 of 1870, with the sanction of Government, decided to lay down a 'tramway' on the riverside road. Until 1914 the railway across the eastern approach to the Howrah Bridge had a level crossing, but in that year it was decided to abolish the level crossing by carrying the railway lines under the road by means of a sub-way. The making of this sub-way involved considerable interference with the suction pipes ...
Emperor Vs. Chauthmall and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal444
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Assam and it arises out of the following circumstances.2. On 9th March 1929, at about 10 p.m. two constables of Jorhat Town Police in the District of Sibsagar, named Phanidhar Aham and Bibhu Ram Chutia, while on duty were passing along the Trunk Bond. They saw accused 1, Chauthmall making water by the side of the read. The constable thereupon went up to the said accused and told him that he had committed an offence punishable under the Police Act and asked for his name. The accused refused to give his name and thereupon the constable, Phanidhar, gave him a piece of paper and pencil and asked him to write his name thereon. The accused having refused to do that either, the constables arrested the accused by seizing his two hands. The constables thereafter asked the accused to go with them to the thana and he having refused to go to the thana, the constables tried to tak him by force. It is said that thereupon Chauthmall called out t...
KaseruddIn Mahaldar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal446
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case, the only point that has been argued on behalf of the appellants is that the jury did not after the delivery of the Judge's charge to the jury, sit together in their retiring room during the whole of the time taken for their deliberations and that, therefore, the accused have been deprived of the benefit of the joint deliberation of the jury before their verdict was taken. Now, the undisputed facts are as follows : The learned Judge concluded his charge to the jury at about 3-30 p.m. on 16th September 1929. The jury who were nine in number then retired to consider their verdict. At about 4 p.m., five of the jurors came out and sat in Court. The rest of the jury i.e., the remaining four jurors stayed in the retiring room till 4-30 p.m. and then came out and sat in Court. The learned Judge then proceeded to take the verdict of the jury. The case was under Sections 302, 302/149 and 120-B, I.P.C. What happened after the jury had re-assembled together appears f...
Baikunthanath Roy and anr. Vs. Ahmedulla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal113
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal is against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Sylhet arising out of a redemption suit. The relevant facts are that a kot-kabala or mortgage by conditional sale was executed in 1889 by Brojo Nath Dey and others in favour of Moniram Das and others. The plaintiff is the purchaser of a two-thirds interest in the equity of redemption from the heirs of the mortgagors. The due date under the mortgage was the 3rd September 1891. In 1892 the mortgagees brought a suit for foreclosure and obtained a decree in which it was directed that if the mortgage debt was not paid within six months from the date of the decree the mortgagor's right to redeem would be absolutely Foreclosed and the mortgagees would acquire an absolute interest in the property and get khas possession of the same. It appears that this decree was not followed by a final decree but the mortgagees somehow or other obtained possession of the mortgaged property. They sold an absolute interest in that p...
Sardar Prasad Das Vs. Binaykrishna Datta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal393
Buckland, J.1. This is a suit for a declaration that a mortgage, dated 7th August 1919, executed by one Desbarathi Singha in favour of Benaykrishna Datta, the defendant, of premises No. 2, Shashibhushan Sur's Lane, to secure an advance of Rs. 4,500 is void and not binding upon the plaintiff and for other consequential reliefs.2. The circumstances of this case are the following. A man of the name of Premchand Singha, who died on 21st November 1900, had two wives. His first wife, Nrityamayee, predeceased him, leaving a daughter of the name of Kusumkumari. Her name does not recur. By his second wife, Katyayanee, he had a daughter, Subashini and a posthumous son, Dasharathi, who was born on 1st June 1901.3. On 30th August 1901, letters of administration to the estate of her deceased husband were granted by this Court to his widow, limited to the minority of her son.4. On 30th July 1917, Subashini was appointed guardian of the person and property of her brother Dasharathi, by the District C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »