Kolkata Court March 1934 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.
The Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd., in Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1934
Reported in: [1935]3ITR65(Cal)
COSTELLO, J. :- This matter came before the Court on a reference under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act (Act XI of 1992), the Commissioner of Income Tax having been required by the company known as the Hungerford Investment Trust, Limited, to refer for the decision of this Court certain questions which are set out in Annexure 'A' of the case. The questions originally propounded by the applicant were stated in this form : (1) Is the sum of Rs. 75,536 which has been assessed to tax in the hands of Messers. The Hungerford Investment Trust, Limited, liable to taxation in their hands, or at all? (2) In view of the fact that the said sum is a portion of the dividends received by Messers. Hungerford Investment Trust, Ltd., from companies whose profits and gains had been assessed to income tax, is not the said sum exempt from taxation in the hands of Messers. The Hungerford Investment Trust, Ltd., by reason of the provision of Section 14, Sub-Section 2(a) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 ...
Rohini Kanta Bhattacharjya Vs. Rajani Kanta Bhattacharjya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal643
1. This is an application Under Section 115, Civil P.C, by a plaintiff in a partition suit. His case is that he instituted a partition suit in 1932 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sylhet; defendant 1 alone contested the suit. After certain adjournments the parties on 1st March 1933 obtained time by a joint petition filed on the ground that there was a talk of compromise. The Court thereupon adjourned the case to 26th March when there was no petition of compromise. On the prayer of the parties the case was fixed for 12th April for hearing. On that date the contesting defendant filed a petition stating that the parties had referred the matter to certain arbitrators and that the arbitrators had given an award which he prayed might be accepted by the Court. The plaintiff stated that he had not agreed to the arbitration as stated by the defendant. The trial Court held that as the parties did not agree that they had compromised the matter it was the duty of the Court to hear the suit ...
imperial Chemical Industries (India) Ltd., in Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1934
Reported in: [1935]3ITR21(Cal)
COSTELLO, J. - This matter comes before us by way of a case stated by the commissioner of Income Tax on his own motion under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act (XI of 1922). The Commissioner has referred for the judgment of the Court a question of law arising in the course of proceedings under section 33 of the Act in regard to the 1931-32 assessment of Imperial Chemical Industries (India), Ltd., The commissioner of Income Tax has put the matter in this form : 'Whether payments amounting to Rs. 10,000 described by the assessees as compensation to ex-agents, but found in fact to be : (a) in part, ex gratia gift made in recognition of past services, (b) in part, payments with a view to secure willing co-operation in the course of taking over the agency business; and (c) in part, payments as consideration for an undertakings not to compete with the assessees business after the termination of the agency - are or are not expenditure allowable in charge under section 10(2)(ix) of the Act.'S...
Dhananjoy Vs. Provat Chandra Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal480
ORDER1. The applicant Dhananjoy Dhara was convicted by a Deputy Magistrate, First Class, of Krishnagar under Section 447, I. P. C, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 days. It was also ordered that out of the fine, if paid, the local Municipality through the complainant who was the Chairman of the Santipur Municipality should receive Rs. 50 as compensation. Against his conviction Dhanan Dhara appealed to the Sessions Judge of Nadia. As regards the facts of the case the learned Sessions Judge was in agreement with the Deputy Magistrate but he came to the conclusion that the conviction ought to be under Section 448, I. P. C, and not under Section 447 and he ordered accordingly; that is to say, he dismissed the appeal with the modification that the conviction was to be under Section 448 and he maintained the sentence which he considered was quite fit and proper for the ends of justice. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as...
Parbati Charan Baisya and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal482
Guha, J.1. This Rule was issued on an application arising out of a proceeding binding down the petitioners under Section 110, Criminal P. C., and it was allowed to be argued on the footing that it related to two orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Mymensingh; one on 26th August 1933, and the other on 15th September 1933, the former calling upon the petitioners to furnish security on the ground that they are so desperate and dangerous as to render their being at large without security hazardous to the community, and the latter rejecting the bonds given by the sureties offered, and directing the petitioners Parbati Charan Baisya, Dhirendra Nath Dutta and Birendra Chandra Choudhury (petitioners 1, 2 and 3) to surrender. The Rule granted by this Court on 13th November 1933, was, it may be mentioned, in general terms to show cause why the order binding the petitioners down under Section 110 read with Section 118, Criminal P. C, should not be set aside, or why such other or furthe...
Khirod Behari Dutt Vs. Man Gobinda and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal682,152Ind.Cas.351
Lort-Williams, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent. The facts are not disputed. The plaintiff is the usufructuary mortgagee of the Zamindar (defendant 7). The Dutta defendants (defendants 1 to 6) are the Zamindar's tenants of the jama in suit consisting of seven moujas in pergana Shyamsundarpur. The Panda defendants (defendants 8 to 17) held the land in darmokarari lease under the Dutta defendants by a kabuliyat wherein it was stipulated that the Pandas would pay the Dutta's mokarari rental direct to the Zamindar and would indemnify the Duttas against any claim made by him. Further it was stipulated as security for the due discharge of my liabilities for the said jama and the said Trust (Barat) as described above in the present kabuliyat, I do hereby create a charge (pratibandhak) upon my mokarari interest in the moujas of Jharya and Shyampur, both in my khas possession,2. This is an agreed translation. The kabuliyat was acted upon by all the parties interested, i...
Hanuman Das Mundra Vs. Damodar Laik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal782,152Ind.Cas.540
Nasim Ali, J.1. The appellant in this case is the plaintiff in a suit for enhancement of rent of a tenure under Section 7, Ben. Ten. Act. The defence of the tenants was that their rent was not liable to be enhanced as it was a Mokarari Mourashi tenure, that is, a heritable tenure the rent of which is fixed in perpetuity. In support of this defence, a pattah of 1250 B. Section was produced by the defendants. The Courts below have found that this document is a genuine document and this finding has not been challenged before us. The only point that has been urged in this appeal is that on a proper construction of the pattah, the Courts below should have held that the tenure was only heritable but that its rent was not fixed in perpetuity. We have gone through this pattah, and we are of opinion that the construction put upon it by the Courts below is correct. The words 'Thica Mokra, Mourashi, Putra Pautradikramay' along with a stipulation that there will be no remission of rent on any acco...
Abdul Hamid Vs. Prokash Chandra Nandi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal793,152Ind.Cas.764
M. C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 81 in an execution case arising out of a final decree in a partition suit. The partition suit was instituted in 1928. A preliminary decree-was passed in March 1931 and a final decree in September 1931. The final decree was amended on petition in 1932. The respondents, who were defendants in the partition suit as co-sharers, applied for possession of their share. A Commissioner was directed by the Court to deliver possession to the respondents. He delivered possession on 24th April 1932. At that time it was found that there was within the respondents' share some huts belonging to the appellant. Thereupon on 27th April 1932 the respondents applied to the Court for fresh delivery of possession by removal of the appellant's huts. After hearing the objection filed by the appellant the Court by an order dated 22nd August 1932, overruled the appellant's objection and passed an order for delivery of possession to the respondents by removing the ...
In Re: Anandabazar Patrika
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal74,153Ind.Cas.872
Mukerji, J.1. By two orders, made on 9th November 1933, one under Section 6, Sub-section (1) and the other under Section 10, Sub-section (1), Press (Emergency Powers) Act 23 of 1931, it has been declared that Rs. 1,000 out of the further securities deposited respectively by the keeper of a press, named the 'Ananda Press,' and by the printer and publisher of a vernacular newspaper of the name of 'Anandabazar Patrika' which is printed in the said press, was forfeited. The present application has been made under Section 23 of the said Act, to set aside the said orders of forfeiture.2. The offending passages are contained in two articles, one of which was published in the issue of the newspaper dated 22nd Bhadra 1340(=7th September 1933), and the other in its issue dated 1st Kartik 1340(18th October 1933). Before us the orders have been sought to be supported on the basis of the passages contained in the former of the articles. The passages run in these words:(1) In brief, what underlies t...
Misil Mirdha and ors. Vs. Abdul Rahim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal787,153Ind.Cas.174
1. This Rule relates to certain proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C, and is directed against an order dated 18th April 1933, declaring the opposite party to be in possession of the disputed fisheries. The order complained of was made as a result of proceedings which were started by an order dated 4th February 1933. There had been previous proceedings with regard to the same matter, based on an order dated 7th November 1932. Those proceedings had however been dropped on 4th January 1933 by reason of the death of the principal member of the opposite party. The order of 18th April 1933, against which this Rule is directed, has been attacked on various grounds, but it will be sufficient for the disposal of this Rule to consider only one of these grounds, viz., that the order dropping the previous proceedings was ultra vires, that those proceedings ought to be regarded as still subsisting, and that the subsequent proceedings were therefore without jurisdiction. This contention is, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »