Kolkata Court January 1931 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.
In Re: Neem Chand Daga
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal686
Rankin, C.J. 1. The assessee is one Neemchand Daga who has a share of 3 annas 7 pies in the firm of Dulichand Thanmal which is a registered firm within Section 2 (14), Income-tax Act.2. For the year of assessment 1927-28 the firm was assessed at a certain figure but in order to obviate the necessity of refunds being made under Section 48 (2) of the Act tax was charged against the individual partners directly upon their shares in the firm's profits. This is a considerate and convenient course and the partners did not object to it. Early in 1929, the income-tax authorities having discovered that certain profits of the firm had escaped assessment for the year 1927-28,'a notice was issued to each partner under Section 34 of the Act within the time limited by that section. For reasons which are explained in the case stated by the Income-tax Commissioner although a similar notice was issued upon the registered firm, the income-tax authorities are not now in a position to rely upon this notic...
In Re: Shaw Wallace and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal676
Rankin, C.J. 1. The assessees Messrs.. Shaw Wallace & Co., are a registered firm carrying on business in Calcutta and elsewhere as merchants and managing, agents. The year of assessment with which we are concerned is the year 1929-1930 and the 'previous year' is the year ending 1st December 1928. In addition to their other business the assessees had for many years acted as distributing agents in India for the Burmah Oil Company and also for some years as sole agents in India and Aden for the marketable products of the Anglo Persian Oil Company. In 1928 these two agencies were determined, and a new company called the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited became agents for the sale and distribution of the products of the Burmah Oil Company and the Anglo Persian Oil Company. The assesses had at no time had any formal agency agreement with either of these oil companies. The negotiations for the 'transfer' of the agencies to the new company were conducted verbal...
ifatulla and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal345
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The appellants in these two appeals were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge of Bogra and a jury of nine persons on charges under Sections 302 and 147, I. P.C. The case for the prosecution is briefly this : I fat Akonda, who is appellant in Appeal No. 595, with other persons went to the paddy land of one Hurmat and forcibly reaped the paddy, and some of them gathered in the khuli or yard of one Amir Mondal, being all armed with lathis and other weapons. Hurmat on his part collected soma people and went to his land. There was a quarrel and Kifat of the accused party said that Hurmat's cattle had damaged their paddy and that they would take his paddy as compensation for the damage and he told Hurmat to go back. Hurmat was retreating, when Baser of his party said:Why should we go back? We would take the bundles of paddy;and he advanced to seize the bundles. Thereupon I fat fired a gun from Amir Mondal's khuli and Baser, being hit, fell down and died immediately. Th...
AnisuddIn Ahmed Vs. Kalipada Roy Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal785
Mitter, J.1. This rule was obtained by the defendant and was issued under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, for the revision of the judgment and decree of the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah decreeing the plaintiff's suit. The plea of the defendant was that the suit was barred by the statute of limitation. This plea was negatived by the Small Cause Court Judge who decreed the plaintiff's suit as has already been stated. In order to consider the soundness of the contention raised in this rule by the petitioner it is necessary to give a few facts. The suit was brought by the plaintiff on a hand-note said to have bean executed by the defendant on 30th Chaitra 1331 B. S. The period of limitation prescribed for the suit is three years of the date when the hand-note was executed. On 1st Baisak 1335 B. S., beyond the period [of throe years, there was an acknowledgment by the defendant of his liability under the hand-note and the contention before ma is that as the acknowledgment...
Mahammad Yusuf and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal341
Lort-Williams, J.1. For the purpose of deciding this appeal the general facts of the case are not material.2. Four persons, the two appellants and two others named respectively Mahammad Siddiq and Pannalal were committed to the Sessions at Alipore, on joint charges. The first three pleaded not guilty; Pannalal pleaded guilty. The learned Judge accepted his plea convicted him thereon and ordered that in-view of his age and antecedents he should be detained in a Borstal institution. Further he ordered that he should be examined medically forthwith and after that had been done he would fix the period of detention. The case then proceeded against the other three and among other witnesses Pannalal was called by the prosecution and gave evidence on oath against them. All this-took place on the same day. The trial proceeded and three days later the medical report on Pannalal was received and; the learned Judge fixed the period of his detention at three years. The trial was resumed and eventua...
Fazoo Khan and ors. Vs. Jatoo Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal643
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case four people were convicted of grievous hurt upon one Jatoo Khan and his wife Khanta Bibi. The injuries upon both of these two people were included in the same charge; but that does not seem to have resulted in any prejudice to anybody. The trying Magistrate found all the four accused guilty and sentenced them to three months' rigorous imprisonment each. The Additional Sessions Judge found them all guilty and sentenced each of them to six weeks rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50.2. Mr. Nausher Ali on behalf of his clients, the petitioners before us, however takes a point that the Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly dealt with the case in the way in which he has applied Section 34, I. P.C. It appears that there was a bamboo clump in the bari of Jatoo and his wife. It is a matter of dispute whether the accused persons had some sort of interest in that bamboo clump but the finding is that Jatoo came out and verbally objected to their cutting the bamboo...
indu Bhusan Mukerji Vs. Nilmani Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal808
Rankin, C.J.1. In my opinion, this rule must be made absolute. It appears that the Municipality wanted the opposite party before us to remove a hut. It has been found by the Magistrate that this hut is an encroachment upon a public road in the sense of the Bengal Municipal Act, that is to say, a road over which the public have a right of way. Under Section 202, Bengal Municipal Act, it is open to the Commissioners to issue a notice requiring any person to remove any obstruction or encroachment which he may have erected in or on any road or open drain, sewer or aqueduct. This is not a question of open drain or a sewer or an aqueduct and I need make no further reference to these matters. The Municipality issued a notice in Bengali, headed Section 202 of this Act. It pointed out quite specifically what the hut was that the opposite party was directed to remove and it described it as being upon roadside land; and the Magistrate has come to the conclusion that, although the hut is in fact a...
Muhammad Yusuf and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1931
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.142
1. For the purpose of deciding this appeal the general facts of the case are not material.2. Four persons, the two appellants and two others named respectively Muhammad Siddique and Pannalal, were committed to the Sessions Judge at Alipore, on joint charges. The first three pleaded not guilty. Pannalal pleaded guilty. The learned Judge accepted his plea, convicted him thereon and ordered that in view of his age and antecedents he should be detained in a Borstal institution. Further, he ordered that he should be examined medically forthwith and after that had been done he would fix the period of detention.3. The case then proceeded against the other three, and among other witnesses Pannalal was called by the prosecution, and gave evidence on oath against them. All this took place on the same day. The trial proceeded and three days later the medical report on Pannalal was received, and the learned Judge fixed the period of his detention at three years. The trial was resumed, and eventual...
Madhodih Coal Syndicate Vs. Jugal Kissore Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal791a
Buckland, J.1. On the second day of the hearing of this case learned Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff said that on further consideration it appeared that want of jurisdiction in this Court was a fatal objection and he therefore asked under Order 23, Civil P.C., for leave to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit. Learned Counsel of course was prepared on behalf of his client to submit to an order that his client should pay the costs, and an order in those terms was made.2. Mr. Khaitan on behalf of the defendant asked that it should be a term of the order that payment of the costs of this suit should be a condition precedent to the filing of a fresh suit on the same cause of action. In support of his contention he referred me to Shital Prosad v. Gaya Prosad [1914] 19 C.L.J. 529, but I was not convinced that there were grounds for making an order in the terms desired and I refused so to do.3. My attention was not then drawn to Rule 26, Chap. 16, of the rules of this C...
Ram Gopal Adhikari Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal285
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this rule arises are these: The petitioner Ram Gopal Adhikari is a dismissed Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. Apparently certain charges were brought against him. What those charges were it is impossible to discover from the record. Neither the learned advocate who appears for the petitioner nor the learned advocate who appears for the Grown has been able to enlighten me on this point. He was however committed to the Sessions Court on these charges and ultimately acquitted. Be that as it may, he was placed under suspension by the District Superintendent of Police on 6th May 1929 and was ordered to live in the police lines until further orders and also directed not to leave the lines without permission. He made several applications to the Police Superintendent on various occasions for permission to absent himself from the lines, and those petitions apparently were all rejected, why, it does not appear. Finally according to his ease, and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »