Kolkata Court March 1935 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.
Narendra Nath Ghose and ors. Vs. Behari Barai (Behari Lal Barai in the ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.873
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is directed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Faridpur by which the plaintiffs' suit has been dismissed. The Munsif of Gopalgunj had decreed it.2. The suit is for imposition of additional rent on account of increase of, area in the defendants' holding and for recovery of arrears of rent for 1332-1335 at the rate of rent to be so imposed by the Court. The lands in suit appertain to Touzi No. 4406 of the Faridpur Collectorate. At one time Kedar Nath Ray and others and Jayanti Kumar Ray and others were proprietors of the said Touzi, having l3 as-4 pies and 2 as-8 pies shares therein, respectively. The two groups of proprietors appear to have been in separate and exclusive possession of some parcels of lands. In 1288-1881 Kedar Nath Ray and others settled with the plaintiffs some specific parcels of lands. The plaintiffs in their turn settled the same to a tenant named Aloke Barui in the year 1292 at a rent of Rs. 32...
Nibaran Chandra Bhattacharjee Vs. Hem Nalini Debi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal167
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why an order of the Munsiff dismissing an application made by the petitioner for pre-emption under the provisions of Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act, should not be set aside. The facts are these: Opposite party No. 2 is the transferor, opposite party No. 1 is the transferee. When the notice was served upon the petitioner he filed an application. The opposite parties then combined together to make out a case that there was no transfer; that opposite party No. 2 was a minor; that no consideration passed and so on. The learned Munsiff went into all these questions and came to the conclusion that there was no transfer, with the result that opposite party No. 2 is still a raiyat holding under the petitioner. The question raised in this rule is whether it was open to the Munsiff to consider this question at all. The section appears to have been enacted in order to provide a procedure by which the money due from t...
Manmatha Nath Sirkar Vs. the Union Board of Dhatrigram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.270
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case a Rule was issued, to show cause why the conviction of and sentence passed on this petitioner should not be set aside on the ground that the learned Judge's order dismissing the appeal summarily was made without hearing the defence Pleader. The petitioner was convicted under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default, rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. Out of the fine RS. 640-0-5 pies were to be paid to the Dhatrigram Union Board. He appealed to the Sessions Judge and his appeal was summarily dismissed.2. The ground urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is untenable. Section 41 provides that on receiving the petition under Section 419 or Section 420 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Appellate Court shall peruse the same, and if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, it may dismiss the appeal summarily, provided that no appeal under Se...
Ananta Kumar Chakravarty Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.285
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case the appellant was convicted by a Special Magistrate exercising powers under Section 24 of Bengal Act XII of 1932 of an offence under Section 6 (3) of the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1930 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 50 or in default, to rigorous imprisonment for 3 months more.2. The case for the prosecution was that the appellant is a very important member of the revolutionary party and that the Local Government made an order in writing (Ex. 1), under Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1930, on June 6, 1934, directing that he should be arrested without warrant and committed to custody. Attempts were made to serve the order personally, but as the accused could not be found, it was served by affixing it to the door at his last known place of residence and at his father's house, according to the provisions of Section 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Of the due diligence ...
Srt. Shushila Bala Basu Vs. Anjuman Trading and Banking Co., Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal398
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why an order of the Subordinate Judge of Dinajpur allowing an objection under Section 47, Civil P C., filed by the opposite party who was the judgment-debtor should not be set aside. The facts are these The petitioner was a depositor of the bank in question. She instituted a suit to recover the money due to her and obtained an instalment decree on 27th September 1932. An attempt on the part of the bank to get that decree set aside by this Court was unsuccessful. On 13th April 1933 a meeting was held by the depositors of the bank in accordance with S 153, Sub-section (1), Companies Act, and then a scheme was approved by this Court on 12th June 1933 and became effective from 13th April 1933. The bank attempted to establish an adjustment in accordance with this scheme and applied without success to have the adjustment recorded under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 2. On 11th January 1934 the present executi...
Jawala Prasad Chobey Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1935
Reported in: [1935]3ITR295(Cal)
Biswas, for the AssesseeDr. Radha Binode Pal for the Commissioner.COSTELLO, J. - On the 5th of December, 1934, a Rule was issued by Mr. Justice LORT-WILLIAMS and Mr. Justice JACK in the matter of an application under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 at the instance of Jawala Prasad Chobey calling upon the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengal, to show cause why he should not draw up a statement of the case mentioned in the petition on which the application was based and refer that statement of the case to this Court under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act for its opinion on the questions of law referred to in the order made by this Court. Those questions of law were stated under three heads after the original questions given in the petition had been redrafted by Counsel on behalf of the petitioner at the suggestion of the Court. In their final shape the questions were as follows : (i) Whether, having regard to the fact that Section 34 of the Act requires 'particul...
Allan E. Ker Vs. Promotha Nath Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.224
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is a petition on behalf of the Firm of Messrs. Clarke, Rawlins, Ker & Co., carrying on business as Solicitors and Notaries in Calcutta. They were instructed to act on behalf of the complainant in respect of a charge which was subsequently preferred under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. Process was issued against the accused and, subsequently, the complainant intimated to the petitioners that their services as Attorneys were no longer required by him.2. There upon letters passed between the complainant and the petitioners in which the petitioners stated that all documents belonging to the complainant which were in their hands would be handed over to him on payment of their bill of costs. Thereafter the petitioners were served with a sub-poena to produce the documents before the Chief Presidency Magistrate. The petitioners then moved the Chief Presidency Magistrate for an order that their costs should be paid before they produced the documents under the ord...
Basanta Kumar Das and ors. Vs. Adarmani Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.241
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 in a suit for injunction. The defendants in the suit are mortgagees. Pro forma defendants Nos. 6 and 7 executed in their favour a mortgage on Jaistha 11, 1328, and these defendants are in possession of the mortgaged premises. The mortgage included amongst other properties the homestead of the mortgagors and three plots, namely, Dags Nos. 402, 403 and 401. Dag No. 402 is a tank and is also Dag No. 401. Those two tanks were in existence from before the date of the mortgage, but they have to a certain extent been silted up. A portion of Dag No. 403 is a piece of firm land in between the two tanks situate on Dags Nos. 402 and 401. It was covered with bamboo clumps. The defendants attempted to dig up that portion of Dag No. 403 which is in between the two tanks and their intention was by such an act to join the two tanks on Dags Nos. 402 and 404, to re-excavate them and to enlarge the sheet of water. For that purp...
(Firm) Tarachand-protapmal Vs. TamijuddIn Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal658
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff whose suit for recovery of Rs. 657 odd has been dismissed by both the Courts below has preferred this appeal to this Court. In the plaint, the plaintiff laid his claim on a promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant on 7th Falgoon 1332 for the sum of Rs. 326. The promissory note is insufficiently stamped. In the plaint however the plaintiff did not base his case on a cause of action independently of the promissory note. At the time of the trial however he wanted to shift the case and without making any attempt to amend his plaint wanted to get a decree on the basis that the defendant having taken Rs. 200 in cash from him on 7th Falgoon 1332 was bound to repay the same. His case as developed in the evidence was that the sum of Rs. 200 was advanced to the defendant in the morning of 7th Falgoon 1332, the transaction was complete then and gave him a distinct cause of action, but later in the evening, a promissory note was taken as money was...
B. N. Elias and Others, in Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1935
Reported in: [1935]3ITR408(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C. J. :- This matter arises of a statement of case under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, Section 66, by the Commissioner of Income Tax of Bengal. For the year of assessment 1933-34, the Income Tax Officers, for District III (1) made an assessment in respect of certain property in Calcutta, called the Norton Buildings. In the assessment the name of assessee was stated to be B. N. Elias for self and for B. S. Benjamin, Sir Victor Season and A. J. Raymond, 19-D, Bowbazaar Street. Status (whether individual, registered or unregistered firm, Hindu undivided family, company or other associations of individuals). Associations of individuals. Sources of income with exact nature of business - House property. It was stated that the members of the association have the following interest. B. N. Elias - One-third, B. S. Benjamin - One-third, Sir Victor Sasson - One-sixth and A. J. Raymond - One-sixth. The income returned was Rs. 68,209. On that the aforesaid individuals were charged to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »