Kolkata Court March 1935 Judgments

Probodh Chandra Mallik and anr. Vs. Debendra Nath Dutta and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.587

S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 107 of the Government of India Act and it is directed against a judgment dated May 29, 1934, of the learned Subordinate Judge of Hooghly allowing a claim in Rent Execution No. 1 of 1934 in his Court. The relevant facts are these: The petitioners who are executors to an estate obtained a rent decree against opposite party No. 2 and on March 10, 1933, they put their decree into execution in Rent Execution Case No. 8 of 1933. One Monomoy Banerjee who had obtained a money decree against the same judgment-debtor put his decree into execution in Rent Execution Case No. 6 of 1933 by attaching certain properties of the judgment-debtor including a Putni Taluq known as Sankarbati. On August 28, 1933, the petitioners applied for rateable distribution in Rent Execution Case No. 6 aforesaid. Thereupon the following order was made in Rent Execution Case No.6.Order No. 13: August 28, 1933. An applicat...

Firm Tarachand Protapmal Vs. TamijuddIn Sheikh

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.511

R.C. Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff whose suit for recovery of Rs. 057 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 3332 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 re-pay 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...

In the Matter of Keshardeo ChamriA.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1935]3ITR418(Cal)

The case was heard on the July 9, and the following judgment was delivered on July 10, 1935.COSTELLO, J. :- This matter comes before us on a reference by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The Commissioner says in the opening paragraph of the case which has been put before us that 'At the request of the Assessee named above' (that is to say Kesardeo Chamria) 'the question of law formulated in paragraph 8 of the statement of case is submitted to their Lordships the Judges of the Calcutta High Court for favour of their decision'.The question therefore, upon which our opinion is sought is this :-'Whether in the circumstances of this case there were any materials on which the Income Tax Officer could base his finding that the assessee was not prevented by sufficient cause from filing the return called for under Section 22(2) or producing the amount called for under Section 22 (4) ?'In order to make it clear how this matter arises it is ne...

Lalchand Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1935]3ITR330(Cal)

COSTELLO, J. - This matter comes before us under an order of this Court, dated the 3rd July, 1934, made upon the application of a commercial firm carrying on business under the name of S. Lalchand. The Commissioner of Income Tax has submitted a case to the Court under the provisions of Section 66(3) of the Income Tax Act.The questions of law which were formulated at the time when the Rule was made absolute arise out of an assessment made on S. Lalchand for the year 1932-33 on income arising in that tax year in the concern, as an unregistered firm carrying on business as Street in this City and also at Shillong and Cawnpur. The Income Tax Officer has made an assessment for the year 1932-33 on a total income of Rs. 68,648 which income was reduced on appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, by a nominal amount without however, the Assistant Commissioner, conceding the claim put forward by the assessee on the points which finally came before this Court.For some years prior to the tax year 193...

Probodh Chandra Basu Vs. Kunja Lal Ghosal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.761

Henderson, J.1. In order to understand the arguments which have been made at the hearing of this Rule the following facts require to be noted. The Receiver of the petitioner's estate brought a suit against the opposite party No. 4. A decree was passed on compromise. In the meantime the Receiver was discharged and the petitioner started execution proceedings. In the course of those proceedings the property was purchased by the petitioner on July 24, 1933. On August 23, 1933, an application was made by the opposite parties Nos. 1-3 under the provisions of Section 174(3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Their contention was that their interest was affected by the sale inasmuch as they had attached the property in execution of a money decree obtained by them against opposite party No. 4. The learned Judge demanded a deposit in terms of Section 174(3)(b). Opposite parties Nos. 1-3 then applied to this Court and the order was set aside on the ground that it was premature. The application was then ...

Purusottam Singha and ors. Vs. Atul Chandra Chaudhury, President, Bhan ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.807

Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for a declaration that the imposition of the Union rate for the years 1337. B.S. by the Union Board of Bhanderhati under Section 37 of the Bengal Village Self-Government Act of 1919 is illegal and ultra vires and for refund of the amount recovered by the Union Board from the plaintiffs.2. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit. On appeal the learned Judge has reversed the decision of the trial Court and has dismissed the suit. Hence the present appeal by the plaintiffs.3. The first point urged by the learned Advocate for the appellant is that the assessment of the Union rate is illegal, in as much as the Union Board had no authority or power to take into consideration the income of the plaintiffs outside the Union. Under Section 37 of the Act, the Union Board is authorised to impose a Union rate. Under Section 38 the rate to be imposed by the Board under Section 37 shall be assessed according to circumstances and prope...

Santosh Kumar Ghose Vs. Srimati Giri Bala Dassi

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.787

Mukerji, J.1. The genealogy showing the relationship of the parties who figure in this case, will be found at pp. 21-22 of the paper-book.2. One Kali Churan Ghose left two sons Uttam Chandra Ghose and Gobinda Chandra Ghose. Uttam died about the year 1906 or 1907 leaving two sons Akhil Chandra Ghose and Kokil Chandra Ghose. Akhil died in the year 1912 leaving a daughter Giri Bala Dasi who is the plaintiff in this suit. Kokil was alive up to within two or three years before the institution of the suit. He had a son named Chandi by his first wife, but that son died before Kokil leaving a widow. The defendant No. 1 Santosh Kumar Ghose is the son of Kokil by his second wife. The other defendants in this suit belong to the branch of Gobinda's family.3. The suit was laid as one for partition in respect of several kinds of property described in schedules (ka) to (chha) to the plaint and there was also a prayer for accounts. The pleadings were not very artistically drawn; but shortly put, the p...

Bengal Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. Sita Ram Chatterjee

Court: Kolkata

D.N. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 11, Bengal Coal Co. Ltd. from a preliminary decree in a suit to enforce a mortgage security. The suit was commenced by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 16,900 alleged to be due on mortgage bond executed on 24th January 1915, by one Ram Saday Nayek, who is the father of defendant 1, and father-in-law of defendant 2. He executed the mortgage in favour of Pran Krishna Chatterjee who was defendant 14 to the suit. The principal amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 6,700 and the interest was to run at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The properties which were hypothecated by the deed of mortgage consisted of 19 items which are mentioned in the schedules to the plaint. At the time of the execution of the bond Pran Krishna happened to be a member of a joint Hindu family, governed by Dayabhaga School of Hindu law, consisting of himself, his brothers and his nephews. He had accordingly one sixth share, according to the defence case, in th...

Ramjidas Mahaliram, in Re.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1936]4ITR25(Cal)

Decided on March 6, 1935.MCNAIR, J. - This is an application on behalf of the firm of Mahaliram Ramjidas for a writ of certiorari directing the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal, to bring up the records of certain assessment proceedings pending before the Income Tax Officer of District IV-3, Calcutta, relating to an assessment in respect of the financial year 1932-33, wherein the registered partnership firm of Mahaliram Ramjidas are the assessees, to the end that an order of the said Income Tax Officer passed in the said proceedings on the 5th February, 1934, purporting to be under section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, and all proceedings consequent upon such order be quashed, including an order of the Income Tax Commissioner, dated the 3rd of November, 1934, and purporting to dispose of an application by the assessees under section 33 of the Act, dated the 15th September, 1934, or for such further or other orders by writ of prohibition or otherwise as the Court may deem just...

Chandi Charan Mitra Vs. Ashutosh Lahiri and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.837

Nasim Ali, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits for declaration of the plaintiff's title to certain lands and for consequential reliefs. Second Appeal No. 2086 arises out of Suit No. 77 of 1930 and relates to plot ka and portion marked A of Plot kha of the plaint. Second Appeal No. 2087 arises out of Suit No. 59 of 1931 and relates to the remaining portion of plot kha that is, the portions marked B. C. in the Commissioner's map. The plaintiff's case in Suit No. 77 briefly stated is as follows:2. One Uma Chand Majumdar was the owner of this property. He let out plot ka of the plaint by a Potta in 1304 B.S.? to one Rajballav. In 1306 B.S. he let out plot kha to the same tenant by another potta. The plaintiff purchased Uma Charan's interest in the disputed land from one Chandi Charan Roy who purchased the same from Uma Charan. The plaintiff instituted a suit for ejecting the defendants from the land covered by the potta in 1306 and obtained a decree for possession. The plaintiff ...