Kolkata Court November 1936 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.
Amar Krishna Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Surendra Bijoy Dewanji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1936
Reported in: 171Ind.Cas.632
B.K. Mukherji, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in these four analogous appeals, which arise out of as many suits commenced by them for enhancement of rent under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs are co-sharer landlords to the extent of 10 annas 7 gds. share of the lands in dispute aid it is admitted that they have separate collection of their share of the rents. The defence of the defendants is of a threefold character. It is contended in the first place that the tenures having been in existence from the time of the Permanent Settlement, the rents are not enhancible under law, In the second place a presumption of fixity of rent is sought to be raised from uniform payment of rent under Section 50, Bengal Tenancy Act. Lastly, reliance is placed upon certain pottas which were executed in the year 1912, and which, the defendants allege, created mukarrari tenures with rents fixed in perpetuity.2. The Assistant Settlement Officer negatived all the three contentions of th...
Trinidad Petroleum Development Co. Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1936
Reported in: [1938]6ITR667(Cal)
SLESSOR, L.J. - In this case a company, the Trinidad Petroleum Development Co., appeal against an assessment which has been made upon them under rule 21 of the General Rules, All Schedules, Income-tax Act, 1918, as amended by Sec. 26 of the Finance Act, 1927, in the sum of Pounds 46,032 odd in respect of interest paid under deduction of tax to another company, the British Controlled Oil fields, Ltd. The question which has to be decided in this case is whether this payment comes under rule 21 or 19 of the General Rules to which I have referred. It is argued by counsel for the appellants that the proper view is that rule 19 applies to this case, which, so far as material, is as follows : (1) 'Where any yearly interest of money, annuity, or any other annual payment...... is payable wholly out of profits or gains brought into charge to tax, no assessment shall be made upon the person entitled to such interest, annuity, or annual payment, but the whole of those profits or gains shall be ass...
In Re: Munshi Muhammad Abdul Keram Vs. DabiruddIn Muhammad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal59,166Ind.Cas.1004
B.K. Mukerjea, J.1. This reference has been made by the Munsif of Jalpaiguri under 0. 46, Rule 1, Civil P.C. The question referred to turns upon the construction of certain sections of the Village Self-Government Act and arises in the following manner: The plaintiff filed a suit in the Union Court of Chandanbari for recovery of money due on a note of hand. On the date of hearing the plaintiff was absent, and the suit was dismissed for default, in the presence of the defendant on that date under the provisions of Section 79, Village Self-Government Act. There was subsequently an application for restoration which was also rejected. The plaintiff has now instituted another suit on the same cause of action in the Court of the Munsif at Jalpaiguri. The whole question is as to whether the subsequent suit is barred. Now under Section 93, Village Self-Government Act, the operation of the entire Civil Procedure Code is excluded from suits tried by a Union Court. The provisions of 0.9, Rule 9 Ci...
Umesh Ch. De and anr. Vs. Mahim Ch. Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal86
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference made by the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Tippera, under 0. 46, Rule (1), Civil P. C, and involves determination of a short point of law. There was an execution proceeding started by a decree-holder wherein he prayed for attachment of certain movables belonging to the judgment-debtor. In that execution case a sum of Rs. 7-8-0 was paid by the decree-holder as custody fees, and these fees are always realised in advance under the rules framed by this Court under Section 20, Court fees Act. Ultimately the decree-holder did not proceed with the execution case and the amount remained unspent. The decree-holder then prayed for refund of this amount and the controversy centres round the short point as to whether this claim for refund is tenable. As the amount was not spent at all, there is apparently no justification for refusing the claim for refund and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing in support of the reference has fairly stated that the clai...
Charu Chandra Muhury Vs. Ramesh Chandra Sil and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal158
1. This is a decree-holder's appeal in an execution case. The judgment-debtors objected to the execution on the ground that it was barred by limitation. This objection was overruled by the learned Sub-Judge. On appeal by the judgment-debtors to the lower appellate Court the learned District Judge has given effect to this objection and has dismissed the decree-holder's application for execution as barred by limitation. Hence this second appeal. It appears that the last execution case against the judgment-debtors was disposed of on 3rd September 1929. On 10th January 1931 the judgment-debtors were adjudged insolvent by the Insolvency Court at the instance of the appellant. They thereupon appealed to this Court against the order of adjudication. On 5th July 1933, this Court set. aside the order of adjudication so far as it affected two of them. On 24th October 1933, that is, after the expiry of three years from the date of the disposal of the last execution case, the present application f...
Umesh Chandra De and anr. Vs. Mahim Chandra Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1936
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.678
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference made by the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Tippera, under Order XLVI, Rule (1), Civil Procedure Code and involves determination of a short point of law. There was an execution proceeding started by a decree-holder wherein he prayed for attachment of certain movables belonging to the judgment-debtor. In that execution case a sum of Rs. 7-8-0 was paid by the decree-holder as custody fees, and these fees are always realised in advance under the rules framed by this Court under Section 20, Court Fees Act. Ultimately the decree-holder did not proceed with the execution case and the amount remained unspent. The decree-holder then prayed for refund of this amount and the controversy centres round the short point as to whether this claim for refund is tenable. As the amount was not spent at all, there is apparently no justification for refusing the claim for refund and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing in support of the reference has fairly stated...
Ahinath Ganguli Vs. Nepal Chandra Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal55
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The facts of this case lie within a short compass and are for the most part undisputed. The petitioner obtained a decree for a large amount of money against 13 persons who have been made opposite parties Nos. 2 to 14 in this Rule. The decree was executed in Execution case No. 13 of 1935 in the Court of the Third Subordinate Judge at Alipur and on the 28th March 1935 one plot of land at Baranagore and three house properties at Benares were attached. The opposite party No. 1 happens to be a decree-holder against nine of the identical judgment-debtors, namely, opposite parties Nos. 2 to 6 and 11 to 14 and he executed his decree in Execution Case No. 39 of 1935 of the Court of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge at Alipur. In this execution case some properties were attached on the 28th May 1935 and the one common property which was attached by both the creditors is the one plot of land at Baranagore. The sale in execution case No. 39 of 1935 was held on the 16th S...
Nirode Chandra Mallik Vs. Jatindra Mohon Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal670
ORDER1. This is a petition by a decree-holder against an order of the Subordinate Judge, refusing to grant his prayer for ascertainment of mesne profits. The petitioner was the plaintiff in a suit. He claimed the right of a shebait of the property in suit and claimed the mesne profits from the persons in alleged wrongful possession of the same. The suit was decreed in July 1929. The decree was affirmed in appeal in July 1933 and this Court in its judgment gave directions how the mesne profits were to be ascertained. Thereafter, on 19th December 1934, the defendants opposite party obtained special leave from their Lordships of the Judicial Committee to appeal to the Judicial Committee. In the meantime, in September 1933, the petitioner applied to the Court to determine the mesne profits from May 1922 to March 1934 when the delivery of possession was given to him. The opposite party opposed the petition and the learned Subordinate Judge on the authority of the case in Bank of Australasia...
Haripada Sen Gupta Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal49
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The petitioner, Haripada Sen Gupta, has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 35(a), Bengal Suppression of Terrorist Outrages Act (Act 12 of 1932). He was tried by Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kurigram, and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. On appeal the Sessions Judge of Rangpur maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to a term of nine months' rigorous imprisonment. The father of the accused has a book shop at Lalmonirhat. The shop-room abuts on the road and the back room of the house is used for residence. The father does not take any part in the management of the shop which has been left to the petitioner who is, according to the finding, about 26 years of age. He has two brothers, one aged about 15 or 16 years, and the other 12 or 13. They both live in the house in which the shop is located. The eldest of these two brothers helps the petitioner by acting as a salesman but the youngest is a schoolboy.-On 5th May 1936, the shop...
Jatindra Nath Sahu Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-03-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal42
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The appellant before us was charged of offences under Sections 193 and 218,1.P.C. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty of the alleged offence under Section 218 but found the appellant unanimously guilty under Section 193, I.P.C. The Judge accepted the verdict and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. The subject matter of the charge is entry No. 43 in the general diary of the police station of 2nd November 1935. That entry was made on that date at 9-30 p. m. in the night. The case of the prosecution is that one Gouri Chakravarti was found missing on the evening of 1st November 1935. On the next morning his brother Charu went in search of Gouri but could only find his shoes and chadar in Gouri's arat. He waited for sometime for the return of his brother but in vain. Inquiries were made toy Charu from the neighbours but no trace of him could be found. He thereafter went to the thana and reported to the appellant who was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›