Kolkata Court February 1932 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.
Gopal Ukera Vs. B.N. Ry. Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal165
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for price of work done and for damages, together with interest, has been decreed in a modified form against the defendants, the B.N. Ry. Co. Ltd. The plaint is not quite artistically drawn, but the plaintiff's case, put quite shortly, was as follows: in February 1920 the defendant company gave the plaintiff contract work in connexion with the construction of the Talchar Coal Field Railway for a portion designated as from change 314 to 330; that the plaintiff commenced work under the contract and continued to do so till 11th September 1924; that before the date last mentioned the work from chainage 324 to 330 was suspended pending decision of a proposed change in the plan; that by that date the earthwork in chainage 314 to 315 had been almost completed, while that from chainage 315 to 324 had been partially completed, the total work done in chainages 314 to 324 being two-thirds of what had been proposed; that on the said 11th September 19...
Jogesh Chandra Majumdar Vs. Durga Mohan Chakrabarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal714,140Ind.Cas.76
Pearson, J. 1. This is an appeal arising out of a suit for the declaration that the issue of 200 ordinary shares and two so-called preferential shares to certain of the defendants at a meeting of the Directors of the Arjya Insurance Company Ltd., held on 23rd March 1922 and purporting to give effect to a resolution passed at a meeting of the' share-holders held on 30th March 1913, increasing the share capital, and the acts done by them on the basis of subscription of such shares are illegal, ultra vires and void and that the principal defendants are not competent to act as share-holders of the company. The first Court dismissed the suit and the learned Judge in appeal affirmed that decision. The main point which was taken before us upon the merits was that the resolution passed at the meeting of the share-holders on 30th March 1913, whereby the capital was increased, was ineffective and void for the reason that it was a 'special resolution' of the company and, as such, required to be c...
Hatem Ali Dafadar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal397
Panckridge, J.1. In this case the petitioner presented his petition of appeal to the learned Sessions Judge. It appears that on 2nd October 1931. the pleader for the petitioner was heard and the learned Judge called for the record. There was also an order dated 6th October 1931. which is as follows:Seen record. Summarily dismissed.' Under the provisions of Section 421 (2), Criminal P.C., the Court is prohibited from dismissing an appeal presented under' Section 419 unless the appellant or his pleader had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the same. If this matter was of first impression, I should be inclined to hold that in this case the appellant's pleader had a reasonable opportunity of being heard on 2nd October and it was a matter for the learned Sessions Judge's discretion whether he should hear him again on 6th October. But in two cases which are indistinguishable from the present one it has been held that if the record is sent for, the learned Judge should hea...
Saraswati Debi Vs. Narayan Das Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal698
ORDERMitter, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this Reference are stated with sufficient fullness in the letter of reference by the Additional District Magistrate of the 24-Parganas. The District Magistrate has asked this Court to set aside the order refusing to entertain proceedings under Section 488, Criminal P. C, at the instance of Saraswati Debi. I have heard Mr. Basu against the Reference and Mr. Bhattacharji in support of the Reference. Mr. Basu contends that having regard to the fact that there is an agreement between the husband and the wife, that the amount of maintenance should be Rs. 7 per month, the agreement is enforceable in the civil Court and the jurisdiction of the criminal Courts is ousted, and he has referred to a number of rulings in support of his contention. I have examined those decisions and I do not think that the states of facts in tho3e decisions resemble the facts in the present case. It has been held that where there is a decree declaring the wife en...
Krishna Pada Chatterjee Vs. Sm. Manada Sundari Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal321,137Ind.Cas.359
ORDERSuhrawardy and Graham, JJ.1. This case raises a difficult and controversial question which in the interest of the public should be finally decided. The facts which have given rise to the litigation are shortly these: One Jogneswar, the landlord of a certain holding, brought a suit for rent and obtained a decree against the tenants in 1922. In 1923 ho sold his interest in the ganti to Gopal Chatterjee. Subsequently Gopal obtained a decree for rent in Suit No. 1930 of 1924 against the tenants. The holding was sold in execution of Gopal's decree and after that decree was satisfied, the surplus sale proceeds to the extent of Rupees 710 odd was deposited in Court to the credit of the tenants. The holding was sold in execution of Gopal's decree on 21st April 1927, but before that date on 21st March 1927, the plaintiff purchased the right, title and interest of the tenants in the holding at a certificate sale under the Public Demands Recovery Act for recovery of settlement dues from the ...
Secy. of State and anr. Vs. Sm. Parijat Debi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal331
ORDERRankin, C.J.1. The order appealed from in this case was passed on 17th March 1931, and the question before us is whether the memorandum of appeal, which was presented to the Court on 9th June, was presented within the time allowed and, if not, whether the time ought to be extended under Section 5, Limitation Act, 1908.2. On 18th March the attorneys for the applicant, Srimati Parijat Debi, filed a requisition for the drawing up of the order; on 30th April the appellant's solicitor wrote to the Registrar asking that direction may be given for expediting the settling of the order; on 6th May appellant's attorney received the draft order for approval and returned it approved on the 8th. It was settled by the Registrar in the presence of the parties on the 12th, but it was not signed by the Registrar until the 20th and was not filed until 1st June. Meanwhile, on 18th May, the appellant's Attorney lodged a requisition for a copy of the order; on 2nd June the number of folios was marked ...
In Re: Port Said Salt Association, Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal626,137Ind.Cas.340
Rankin, C.J.1. This Reference has been made by the Commissioner of Income tax upon a question arising out of assessments upon the Port Said Salt Association, Ltd., for the years 1928-29 and 1929-30. The assessees have their headquarters in Egypt where they manufacture salt and export it to various parts of the world including India. They do not contest that they are liable to pay income tax under Section 42 of the Act (11 of 1922), but they have raised before the Commissioner and he has referred to us the following question: Is an assessee assessed under Section 42 in respect of a business in which the manufacture of a commodity takes place in a foreign country and the sale thereof takes place in British India, entitled in computing the profits and gains of such business, to make a deduction representing the proportion of profits earned by manufacture in the country of origin, or is he bound, in computing such profits or gains, to do so on the assumption that the whole of these are ear...
Kshitish Chandra Roy Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal547
Panckridge, J.1. In this case the appellant has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 124-A, I. P. C., and . sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months together with a fine of Rs. 250 or three further months rigorous imprisonment in default of payment respect of an article published on 12th August 1931. in a called ' Desher Banee ' of which he 18 the Editor, Printer and Publisher learned Counsel appearing for the appellant admits that if under the section it is an offence to bring into hatred or content or to excite or attempt to excite Section towards those responsible for the executive government of India generally or of this Province in particular his client is guilty of that offence, but he maintains that those carrying on he executive government of the country ' the Government established by law in British India' within the meaning of the section. The meaning of these of these words which occur in the Indian Press Act (1 of 1910) was considered by a...
Upendra Kishore Sarkar Vs. Shaik Khalil Fakir and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal568
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain land upon establishment of the plaintiffs' title thereto.2. The plaintiffs' ease is that the defendants' predecessor Alam Fakir held the land as an under-raiyat under him. He served a notice of ejectment under Section 49, Ben. Ten. Act, on Alam Fakir who died after the service of the notice. The defendants claimed that Alain Fakir was a settled raiyat and had a heritable right and that they were entitled to hold the land as raiyats by inheritance and not liable to ejectment. The suit was decreed in the Court of first instance but dismissed on appeal on the ground that Section 48 (c), Provs. (1) and (2), Ben. Ten. (Amendment) Act, 1928 would apply, inasmuch as Alam Fakir was in possession for nearly 30 years and that therefore the defendants cannot be ejected. The learned Additional District Judge appears to have failed to notice that the suit was brought long before the Amendment Act came into force a...
RamizaddIn Basar and ors. Vs. Naimaddi Basar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal339
Mitter, J.1. This Rule is directed against the appellate order of the District Judge of Dacca dated 20th March 1931 refusing to sot aside the sale of the petitioners' properties held on 19th April 1927. The petitioners applied under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., for setting aside the sale in question on 19th May 1930. The petitioners rested their application on several grounds: (1) that the sale processes were suppressed and there was irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale and; (2) owing to suppression of the sale processes the properties were sold at an inadequate price. They allege that they came to know of the sale on 5th Baisakh 1337 from Gani Munshi of their village. On the evidence it transpires that they took some time to verify this information obtained from Gani Munshi and they have applied within 30 days of the date of their knowledge which the Munsif found to be 7th Baisakh to set aside the sale. It is a somewhat significant circumstance in this case that the de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »