Kolkata Court July 1933 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: News-paper advance and Sudhan Press
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal754
C.C. Ghose, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application by two persons named Brojendra Nath Gupta who is described as the editor, printer and publisher of the Advance newspaper and Anil Chandra Dutt Gupta who is described as the keeper of the Sudhan Press where the newspaper in question is printed, under Section 23 of Act 23 of 1931 (The Indian Press Emergency Powers Act, 1931), praying that certain orders of His Excellency the Governor of Bengal in Council dated 9th June 1933 calling upon these two petitioners to deposit cash or securities to the extent of Rs. 2,000 each may be set aside in the circumstances stated in the petition. Under orders of His Excellency the Governor of Bengal in Council notices under Sub-section (3), Section 7 and Sub-section (3), Section 3 of the said Act were served on these two petitioners directing them to deposit with the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, security to the amount of Rupees 2,000 each in money or the equivalent thereof in securities of the Gover...
Jiban Krista Kundu Vs. Rai Hari Nath Ghose Bahadur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal826,147Ind.Cas.459
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of defendant 1 and arises in a suit brought by the plaintiff for recovery of a certain sum of money on the basis of a promissory note said to have been executed by defendant 1 Jiban and his brother Mohit Krishna Kundu on 4th December 1919 for a sum of Rs. 10,000. The handnote carried interest at the rate of Rs. 1-8-0 per month. The defence of defendant 1, which it is now material to mention, to the suit is that it is barred by the statute of limitation so far as he is concerned. This defence which led to the framing of issue 1 in the Court below has been rejected by the Subordinate Judge who has granted a decree against both the defendants. Defendant 1 has alone appealed.2. On his behalf the only contention that has been raised is that the suit is barred by limitation. It appears that in the plaint the plaintiff alleged that the defendants on paying the interest on several debts up to 3rd October 1927 due to the plaintiff on account of the handn...
In Re: Brojendra Nath Gupta, Editor, Printer and Publisher of the adva ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1933
Reported in: 145Ind.Cas.881
C.C. Ghose, Actg. C.J.1. This is an application by two persons named' Brojendra Nath Gupta who is described as the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the 'Advance' newspaper and Anil Chandra Dutt Gupta who is described as the keeper of the Sudhan Press where the newspaper in question is printed, under Section 23 of Act XXIII, of 1931 [The Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931] praying that certain orders of His Excellency the Governor of Bengal in Council dated June 9, 1933, calling upon these two petitioners to deposit cash or security to the extent of Rs. 2,000 each may be set aside in the circumstances stated in the petition.2. Under orders of His Excellency the Governor of Bengal in Council notices under Sub-section 3 of Section 7 and Sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the said Act were served on these two petitioners directing them to deposit with the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, security to the amount of Rs. 2,000 each in money or the equivalent thereof in security of the ...
Latifannessa Bibi and ors. Vs. Abdul Rahaman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal202
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants from a final decree in a suit for partition passed by the Officiating Subordinate Judge of Dacca on 9th September 1929. It appears that after the preliminary decree an application was made by one of the defendants for sale of the property in suit in accordance with the provisions of Section 4, Partition Act (Act 4 of 1893). The application of the defendants for invoking the principles laid down in the Partition Act, and directing the sale of the property in accordance therewith, was rejected by two orders of the Court dated respectively 12th March 1928 and 26th June 1929-orders Nos. 109 and 144 of the order sheet at pp. 4 and 11 of the paper book. After the rejection of the application under Section 4 the Court appointed a Commissioner to effect the partition and the Commissioner submitted his report and the final decree was passed on the date already mentioned. Against that decree the present appeal has been brought. It should be observ...
Manmatha Nath Mitter Vs. Promatha Nath Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal288,150Ind.Cas.238
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration in regard to the lands in suit, comprised in a tenancy held by defendant 1; that the defendants have no right to cut down trees, to make excavations, to build pucca structures, to establish mills, or to use the lands in suit in any other way than as a garden on the footing that defendant 1 was an ordinary occupancy raiyat. The plaintiff prayed for a permanent injunction and for damages for trees cut and appropriated by the defendants. Defendant 1, the contesting defendant in the suit, set up a permanent mourashi mokarari title to the lands in suit, and resisted the claim of the plaintiff on that basis. An issue was raised on the point whether the defendant had a permanent mokarari mourashi and transferable right in the land in suit,' The question thus raised has been decided by the Courts below in favour of the defendants, and the plaintiff has appealed to this Court.2. On the findings arrived at by the Court of appeal bel...
NolIn Behari Bosu Vs. Hari Pada Bhuia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal452
1. We have listened to a very interesting and in some portions very illuminating argument in this group of cases from Dr. Bijan Kumar Mukherji; but, after giving to his submissions our very best attention, we are of opinion that these appeals must be dismissed. A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. Bankim Chunder Roy, learned Advocate for the respondents in 58 out of these 89 appeals. His case is that, leaving aside six appeals which are above Rs. 100 in value, in the remaining 52 appeals the value of the suits was under Rs. 100 and that having regard to the language of Section 153, Ben. Ten. Act, these second appeals are incompetent. Dr. Mukherji has pointed out that; in all these oases questions relating to enhancement of rent and of the amount of rent were in issue and those questions were determined by the trial Court. We are satisfied that those questions did come within the ambit of the matters in controversy between the parties in these 52 cases and that there is no subs...
Jarman Gomez Vs. Ram Kumar Kaibarta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal127
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of khas possession, as also for arrears of rent and mesne profits. The claim for possession, as made in the suit, was resisted by the contesting defendants. The case for the defendants was that no notice had been served upon them. The trial Court on the materials before it passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff, and directed that khas possession be delivered to the plaintiff. On appeal the decision of the trial Court was reversed. The learned Subordinate Judge observed that though the notice was served at the instance of all the landlords only one of them had evinced a desire to eject the tenants and that ejectment could not be allowed, unless the whole body of landlords joined in bringing the suit, and further that service of notice was one thing, and the determination to follow it up by a regular suit was another thing. In the above view of the case the prayer for ejectment of the defendants was disallowed by the Court ...
Digambar Paul Ghosh and ors. Vs. Tufazuddi Ijaradar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal80a
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for rent. The claim in suit was for recovery of arrears of rent for the period from 1332 to1335 B.S., at the annual rate of Rs. 400, with damages. The defence of the tenant defendant was that the rent annually payable was Rs. 40. The case for the defendant before the Court was negatived by the trial Court, and a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs, with the exception of the claim for rent for the year 1332 B.S., the plaintiffs having realized the same; and as the case now stands, we are not concerned with the rent for the year 1332 B.S. On appeal by the defendant, the learned District Judge of Khulna reversed the de-wee of the trial Court, on a ground raised by the defendant in the suit for the first time in the Court of appeal below.2. The learned Judge gave effect to the defendant's contention before him that the plaintiffs being occupancy raiyats, and the defendant an under-raiyat under the plaintiffs, who held at a rental o...
Deb Nath Moral Vs. Sashi Bhusan Moral and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal82
1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen prayed for declaration of his title to the lands in suit as a person who had obtained settlement of the same as a tenant from the landlords, on the allegation that he was dispossessed by defendant 1 who had, as the purchaser of the lands in suit in execution of his mortgage decree against the tenant who had only non-transferable occupancy right in the lands-obtained possession of the same. The case of the plaintiff was that the lands in suit appertained to the non-transferable occupancy holding of one Bhagaban Moral. After Bhagaban's death the holding was abandoned by his widow Sita Sundari, and the lands comprised in the holding were settled with the plaintiff by the landlords on 12th Magh 1321 B.S.: the settlement so made by the landlords was evidenced by a kabuliyat executed on the date aforesaid, which contained a statement to the effect that the tenant having abandoned the holding, the landlords had the right to sett...
Assam Railways and Trading Co. Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1933
Reported in: [1934]2ITR9(Cal)
The following facts are taken from the judgment of Lord Hanworth, M.R. :'This is an appeal from a decision of Finlay, J., which was given on February 14, 1933. The case raises an important point - I may say a very important point - to the appellants, the Assam Railways and Trading Co. They are seeking to have relief under Section 27 of the Finance Act, 1920, in respect of certain income-tax charged in the United Kingdom by reason of the fact that they have paid what is called Dominion Income-tax.'The facts upon which the point arises may be stated quite shortly. The business of the company is a composite one. It runs a railway, and, as the part of its name Trading Company indicates, it has other activities; for instance, it works coal mines, timber concessions, saw-mills and brick-works, and carries on a plantation business in Assam. The company is an English company; it is controlled by a board in England. It is taxed under Case I of Schedule D on the whole of the profits which arise ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »