Kolkata Court August 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.
Girish Chandra Mali and anr. Vs. Girish Chandra Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal450,137Ind.Cas.791
1. It appears that the plaintiff in this case brought a suit for ejectment on a plaint on which he paid the necessary court-fees under Section 7, Clause 11 (cc), Court-fees Act. He obtained a decree and the defendants appealed. The appellate Court relying upon a certain decision of this Court which has since been dissented from and is no longer good law held that the memorandum of appeal presented by the defendants as well as the plaint should be stamped with ad valorem court-fees. The result of the order was that the defendants had to pay in court-fees, Rupees 193-8-0 in excess of what was necessary under Section 7, Clause 11 (cc). The appeal was allowed and the plaintiff preferred a second appeal to this Court on the court-fee which he had paid originally on the plaint. That appeal was dismissed. But at the time of the dismissal, the question was raised as to which party would be liable for Rs. 193-8-0 paid by the defendants in excess under the erroneous view of the lower appellate C...
Mohini Debi Vs. Purna Sashi Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal451
Suhrawardy, J.1. In this appeal the respondent is unrepresented before us. We have given our best consideration to this case, especially in view of the fact that we have received no help from the respondent.2. The facts giving rise to the suit are that one Keshab Chandra Roy was the owner of a share in Touzi No. 33, Pabna Collectorate, and he died leaving the plaintiff as his widow, and two sons, one by the plaintiff and the other by a predeceased wife, who is defendant 1, Dinesh Chandra Roy. While the property left by Keshab was in possession of his two sons, the plaintiff's son died leaving her as his heir, with the result that the plaintiff and Dinesh became entitled each to an eight anna share of the property and were in such possession. In 1300 B.S. the plaintiff executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of Dinesh, by which she gave up her possession of the property left by Keshab to Dinesh on the ground that she was old and infirm and was unable to manage it. In that document t...
Brajendra Kumar Sil Vs. Naba Kumar Sil and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal349
1. This matter arises in the following way. The plaintiff opposite party brought a suit for partition valuing it at Rs. 5,100. A preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court and a commissioner was appointed who valued the property at below Rs. 5,000. Against the final decree the petitioner, who was a defendant in the suit, preferred an appeal to the District Judge valuing the appeal at the valuation given by the commissioner. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the plaintiff and the other defendants in the suit that the appeal was not maintainable in the Court of the District Judge and the learned District Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and returned the memorandum of appeal to the appellant for presentation to the High Court. As regards costs of the hearing before the learned Judge, he ordered: ' The appellants will pay the costs of this appeal.' This order was construed to mean that the appellants had to pay the full costs of the appeal a...
Sashi Kantha Acharjee and ors. Vs. Promode Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal600
1. The properties concern-ad in the suit out of which these appeals have arisen are seven in all, the first six of which are described in Schedule 1 to the plaint being certain taluks or shares therein, and the seventh one which is described in Schedule 2 being a quantity of khamar lands lying within item 6 of property of Schedule 1. They belonged at one time to one Lala Ram Chandra. Lala Ram Chandra died on 19th Pous 127(5 (2nd January 1870) having executed a will on 15th Pous 1276 (29th December 1869), and leaving him surviving his widow Hara Kumari Dasya, a daughter Shyam Kumari Dasya, and the husband of the latter, one Sital Chandra Lala. After his death his widow Hara Kumari on 16th Sravan 1283 (30th July 1876) on the strength of the authority conferred on her by the will, adopted the plaintiff Lala Ram Shankar as her son.2. By the will (Ex. 27) spoken of above, Lala Ram Chandra Roy gave authority to Hara Kumari to adopt five sons in succession unless a son so adopted would be liv...
Pabna Dhana Bhandar Co. Ltd. Vs. Promoda Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal382,137Ind.Cas.380
C.C. Ghose, Ag. C.J.1. In these Letters Patent Appeals, an attempt was made by the learned advocate on behalf of the appellants to suggest that some point or points of law required consideration; but on examination of the facts, it appears that no point of law arises and that the matter involved is dependent on a question of fact.2. The position was as follows: There-was a company called the City Brick Co., Ltd. That company issued notices for payment of certain calls. These calls were not paid by the share-holders concerned. Thereafter, the City Brick Co., Ltd., mortgaged these unpaid calls to the Pabna Dhana Bhandar Co., Ltd. The mortgage was not redeemed and the result was that the mortgagees, the Pabna Dhana Bhandar Co Ltd., had to institute a suit to enforce the mortgage. They obtained a decree and in execution of the decree, they ha to buy in the security mortgaged to them namely, the unpaid calls. It appears that some time after the date of the mortgage the mortgagor company wen...
Secy. of State Vs. Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society, Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal171
C.C. Ghose, Ag. C.J.1. This is a rule obtained by the Secretary of State for India in Council calling upon the opposite party, the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Limited, to show cause why an application filed in Court on 12th June 1931, praying for a review of the judgment and decree in First Appeal No. 30 of 1925 disposed of by B. B. Ghose and Panton, JJ., on 25th January 1929, should not be entertained, though filed out of time, and why the said judgment and decree should not be reviewed upon certain grounds stated in the said application or why such other or further order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.2. The facts involved in the said appeal and in the application on which this rule was issued, shortly stated, are as follows: It appears that the Calcutta Improvement Trust formulated a schema, namely, Scheme No. 15 for the improvement of certain areas in Ballygunge. Thereafter a declaration was made and published under Section 6, Land Acquisi...
Lakhi Sahu (Kanu) Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal487
Mallik, J.1. This is a reference under Section 432, Criminal P.C. It has been made by Mr. B. K. Mukherji, who was appointed a Presidency Magistrate to preside over the Central Children Court Calcutta, established under Notification No. 9524-J, dated 18th November 1929, for the town of Calcutta, the suburbs of Calcutta and some other areas near about Calcutta including the Municipality of Howrah.2. One Lakhi Sahu alias Kahu, a boy of 13 or 14, was produced before Mr. Mukherji on a charge of culpable homicide under Section 304, I.P.C., (an offence which is exclusively triable by a Court of Session) alleged to have been committed in Howrah.3. The two points which have been referred to us for opinion are: (1) Is the Court over which Mr. Mukherji was appointed to preside competent to try cases exclusively triable by the Court of Session; and (ii) If that Court is not competent to try the charge then to which Court of Sessions should it commit the case, i.e., whether to the Court of Session ...
In Re: Sumermull Surana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal680
1. This is an application by the sellers to obtain possession from the trustee of a deed of composition of certain goods sold to the insolvents before their insolvency. The goods in question were found in the actual possession of the insolvents on adjudication, were taken by the Official Assignee and made over by him to the trustees of the deed of composition. The goods were delivered to the! buyers under terms, which purported to make the buyers trustees of the goods and of the proceeds until payment to the sellers. The question at issue is whether, on the bankruptcy of the buyers, the goods vested in the Official Assignee. The short facts are as follows; The goods, 12 cases, were sold by the applicants to the insolvents by a contract, dated 17th August 1929. On 21st April 1930, the goods were delivered to the insolvents by means of a delivery order a copy of which is annexed to the petition and against a bazar chit or promissory note of that date, which is also annexed. Five of the c...
Verajlal Muljee Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal732
C.C. Ghose, Ag. C.J. 1. This is a reference by the Board of Revenue under the Stamp Act. The facts are as follows: A document in Guzarati was executed on 28th August 1928 in favour of one Verajlal Muljee by his partner Golabchand Anandjee. The document after stating that the accounts between the parties had been examined by an arbitrator went on to state that a sum of Rs. 1,12,500 had been found to be due to Verajlal Muljee. This amount the executant Golabchand Anandjee promised to pay as soon as his moveable and immovable properties situated in Calcutta and its suburbs could be sold, In the paragraph which follows the executant says:I have lands and estates in Kankurgachi, Belur, Maniktola, Manharpuker and Puri, etc. Suits are pending in respect of some of them as there are disputes in connexion with documents relating thereto. Some of the disputes arc settled and the rest will ho settled in a short time. And for selling these lands and estates, I have in my possession their title-dee...
In Re: Baldeodas Rameswar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal761
1. On 13th May 1930, a petition was presented to this Court praying for an order that the Commissioner of Income tax who is the opposite party in these proceedings might be directed to state a ease under Section 66 (3), Income-tax Act (11 of 1922) for the opinion of this Court on the two questions sat out in the petition, namely:(1) Whether the learned Assistant Commissioner was justified in upholding the decisions of the Income-tax Officer in disallowing the bad debts of Bhajaulal Mahadeo amounting to Rs. 4,80,373-15-0 in the circumstances as stated in sub-paras. (iii) and (iv), para. 6 of the petition under Section 66 (2) to the Commissioner, or, in other words, is the Income-tax Officer legally entitled to disallow the bad debt of Rs. 4,80,373 on the ground that the same had proved bad in the previous year although the asseesee 1, wrote off the same as bad debt in the assessment year in question and although in the previous year the assessee had reasonable expectation to receive som...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »