Kolkata Court December 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.
Sarat Chandra Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal463
Cunliffe, J.1. These three appeals are preferred from convictions and sentences passed on the three appellants by a Court consisting of the Sessions Judge of Bakarganj and a jury. All three appellants were convicted of abduction under Section 366, I.P.C., and appellant 1, in addition to being convicted of abduction, was also convicted of rape. The sentence passed upon appellant 1, who is a Sub-Inspector of Police, was rigorous imprisonment for seven years, that being passed on the conviction under Section 376, and the learned Judge in his case passed no separate sentence under his 366 abduction conviction. The two other appellants were sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment apiece under the abduction conviction. It may be noted that the convictions were brought in on majority verdicts, the majority being 3 to 2 in favour of all the convictions I have mentioned. Appellant 1 whose name is Sarat Chandra Chakravarty is a Brahmin Sub-Inspector of Police known locally as the Chhota D...
In Re: Jalpaiguri Banking and Trading Corporation Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal401
ORDERLort-Williams, J.1. The applicant in this case is the holder of a decree against the Jalpaiguri Banking and Trading Corporation Ltd. He had a current account with the company and instituted a suit upon failure of the company to honour his cheque for Rs. 16,421. A consent decree was passed on 20th July 1933 and it was agreed that this amount was to be paid by instalments. Subsequently on 17th December 1934 the company proposed a scheme of arrangement under Section 153, Companies Act, and an order of this Court was obtained to convene a meeting of the unsecured creditors of the company to sanction the scheme. The notice of the meeting stated that Cunliffe, J. had directed a meeting of the unsecured creditors of the company to be held on 24th February 1935, for the purpose of considering and forthwith approving a scheme of arrangement proposed to be made between the company and its unsecured creditors and the unsecured creditors were requested to attend. They were asked to produce th...
Upendra Mohan Pal Choudhury Vs. Nalini Mohan Roy Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal199
1. The appellant in these two appeals obtained two decrees for money from the Original Side of this Court on 24th August 1933. He got these two decrees transferred for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Rangpur, and applied for execution by attachment and sale of the share of respondent 1, who is one of the judgment-debtors in the mortgage money due to him under a registered mortgage bond for Rs. 2,31,500 executed by Raja Gopal Lal Roy Bahadur of Tajhat in favour of the said judgment-debtor and his brothers on 14th July 1931. On 18th April 1935 the learned Judge issued writ of attachment under Order 21, Rule 46, Civil P.C. Thereupon respondent 1 raised objection to the attachment on the ground that the share of the debt was not liable to be attached and sold under law. The learned Subordinate Judge gave effect to this objection and ordered the attachment to be withdrawn and subsequently struck off the execution cases. Hence these two appeals by the decree-holder.2. The on...
Habiba Bibi and ors. Vs. Ram Ranjan Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal207
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The question involved in this appeal raises an important question of first impression, namely, about the scope of Section 10-C, Court of Wards Act, introduced into the Bengal Court of Wards Act of 1879 by the Amending Act 6 of 1936. The relevant facts are not in controversy and may be stated as follows. The appellants obtained on 23rd April 1932 a decree for Rs. 5,445-14-3 against the respondents, Ram Ranjan Mullick and others, who would hereafter be called the Mullicks. At that time the Mullicks were not wards of Court, but later on, on a date not material for the present proceedings, they were declared disqualified proprietors and the Court of Wards assumed management of their properties. On 2nd November 1935 the appellants put their decree into execution in the Court of the SubordinaTe Judge of Burdwan. At that time the Mullicks were wards of Court and so the execution was against them, represented by the manager of the Court of Wards. In the month of December 1935...
Haragouri Batabyal and anr. Vs. Ashutosh Batabyal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal418
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for partition. The case of the plaintiffs as stated in the plaint filed in the suit was that Gobinda Chandra Batabyal, Umacharan Batabyal and Sripati Charan Batabyal, the three sons of late Dataram Batabyal, were members of a joint family governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law, who owned and possessed joint properties descended to them from their father and that the three brothers living in commensality were joint in mess, worship and property, had joint funds out of which properties were acquired which were the joint properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs were the sons of Sripati; defendants 3, 4 and 5 were the sons of Brojogopal, son of Gobinda; defendant 6 was the son of Uma Charan; and defendant 7 was the son of Mahim, a son of Uma Charan. The three brothers mentioned above, Gobinda, Uma Charan and Sripati, combined their earnings and out; of the joint funds acquired properties jointly owned by them...
Jafar Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Nasimannessa Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal500
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit brought by the plaintiff respondent in this Court, for a declaration that the Hebanama alleged to have been executed by her in favour of Jafar Ali Khan, defendant 1 in the suit, on 27th January 1929, was fraudulent, invalid and inoperative, and as such was void, and that it might be cancelled. There was a further prayer in the plaint for confirmation of the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the properties described in the schedules to the plaint and covered by the Hebanama dated 27th January 1929. The case stated by the plaintiff in her plaint was that on the morning of the date of her husband's death, defendants 3 and 4 came to the house of her husband and represented that it was necessary for the plaintiff to put her thumb impressions on some blank papers; that the plaintiff was at the time aggrieved at the imminent death of her husband, and she having implicit confidence in defendants 3 and 4, the thumb impressions required to be given...
Mahiganj Loan Office Ltd. Vs. Behari Lal Chaki
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal211
1. The respondent was a depositor in the appellant banking company. He gave notice for the withdrawal of his deposit and the deposit became repayable in August 1932. The appellant did not repay the money. On 21st May 1933 a resolution was passed by the company for embarking upon a scheme. The respondent filed a suit for the recovery of his deposit the next day. On 30th May 1933 the appellant filed an application in 'the original side of this Court under S 153, Companies Act for calling a meeting of the depositors including those who have filed suits and obtained decrees against the company. This application was granted. The respondent's suit for the recovery of his deposit was decreed on compromise on 5th June 1933. On 2nd July 1933 the meeting of the depositors was held and their majority in number representing three-fourths in value agreed to a scheme which was inconsistent with the terms of compromise on the basis of which the company allowed a consent decree to be passed against it...
Hughes (inspector of Taxes) Vs. Bank of New Zealand.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1936
Reported in: [1938]6ITR541(Cal)
LORD WRIGHT, M.R. - In this appeal the Court are all agreed what their decision ought to be. It is a case of importance and of complexity, but, as we are all agreed, I think it desirable to give judgment at once. The taxpayer here, the Bank of New Zealand - the respondent on this appeal - is a bank registered and resident in New Zealand. It carries on and at all material times did carry on its banking business in London, but not so as to be resident or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, It carries on its banking business at a branch office in London, and there is no question but that, in respect of profits arising from the trade exercised at the London branch office, it is assessable to income-tax under Case I of Schedule D.The two main questions which have to be decided are : first, what limitations are to be imposed upon those profits. That involves an investigation of certain exemptions which it is claims, have to be applied in considering what are the assessable profits und...
Sudhanya Kumar Rahut Vs. Faridpur Loan Office Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal169
1. The appellant kept a sum of Rs. 2,880 in fixed deposit with the respondent Bank. By a notice of withdrawal served on the Bank, the deposit became repayable on 20th June 1932. The Bank having failed to pay the money he instituted a suit for the recovery of his deposit against the bank on 16th March 1933. An arrangement having been proposed between the Bank and its depositors, this Court, on its Original Side on the application of the Bank under Section 153, Companies Act, ordered a meeting of the depositors to be called on 9th May 1933. On 28th May 1933, the majority, in number representing three-fourths in value of the depositors, agreed to a scheme the terms of which, so far as they are relevant for the purposes of the present appeal, are as follows:(1) That the depositors shall not be entitled to demand payment of their deposit money or interest at once and shall be paid only in terms of the scheme. (2) That notwithstanding any contract previously made with the depositors the Comp...
Surput Singh and ors. Vs. Maharaj Bahadur Sing
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal222,166Ind.Cas.827
Amber Ali, J.1. This is an application by the defendant in this suit to set aside an order for execution and the consequent attachment of 6th August 1936. The papers on that application I desire to see. They will be shown to me in due course.2. The application raises somewhat curious point and one which as regards this matter is of considerable importance. The facts are shortly these: In this suit a consent decree was passed in May 1936. The decretal amount was Rs. 3,14,944 and the main scheme of the consent decree was as follows: For Rs. 90,000 the decree was to be satisfied by the transfer of certain immovable properties within two months. With regard to this there is a default clause by which, I remember right, the whole amount of the decree would become liable for execution if the immovable properties were not made over within three months. Secondly, certain pledged jewellery, of which the exact whereabouts I am not clear, was to be sold within a month by the Receiver and the amoun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »