Kolkata Court February 1936 Judgments
In Re: Gopiram Gobindram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1938Cal20,173Ind.Cas.898
Derbyshire, C.J.1. Here the borrower is making payments to the lender under a mortgage deed at the rate of something over Rs. 7,500 per month. The mortgage deed stipulates that the rate of interest on the loan is to be ten annas per cent. per month, that such interest is to be paid monthly, that in the event of simple interest for any consecutive period of twelve months remaining unpaid, the borrower will have to pay compound interest at the rate of ten annas per cent. for each month, that the borrower is to make payments at the rate of Rs. 7,500 per month, that such payments are to be credited in the first instance towards interest and the balance set off against the principal due and that in default of this payment the assessee creditor is to enter into possession of the property and, while in possession, to realize and receive the rents etc., and to apply the net rent etc. remaining after paying and discharging all costs of realization, firstly, in paying himself the monthly instalm...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Babulal Rajgarhia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1938Cal168
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This rule must be discharged with costs. In the letter which the Income-tax Commissioner has sent to this Court under the Rules of this Court showing cause against the rule which we ordered to issue, the first question submitted is:Whether a lease deed stipulating an annual rental of a house property is not conclusive evidence to prove the bona fide annual value as stipulated by Section 9 (1), Income tax Act.2. The Commissioner of Income-tax submits that the question is altogether one of fact and that a lease deed stipulating an annual rental value, though one piece of evidence is not conclusive evidence of the bona fide annual value of the property and that in determining that value of the property all the circumstances of the case must be considered. Mr. Banerji who appears in support of this rule admits that that contention is right. The second question submitted is:Whether or not there was a succession within the meaning of Section 26 (2) of the Act to the jute m...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Kumar De Vs. K.C. Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal289,166Ind.Cas.821
M.C. Ghose, J.1. These 11 appeals are by the defendants in suits for assessment of rent on the ground that the defendants have been holding the lands without payment of rent to the plaintiff landlord. Many suits of the same nature were tried by the trial Court which decreed 3 suits ex parte and dismissed all the other suits on contest. In 16 cases the landlord appealed and the Court of appeal below dismissed one of the appeals and decreed the other 15 appeals. Out of those 15 appeals, second appeals have been filed in this Court in 11 suits. The suits which are in appeal to this Court are suits 86 to 91, 111 to 114 and 184 of the trial Court. The same arguments have been made in all the cases. The first point taken by the learned Advocate for the appellants is that the suits are not maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the receiver appointed by the High Court of the estate in question. It is urged that he did not file the authority of the Court to institute t...
Tag this Judgment!Haripada Roy Vs. Gopinath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal291,166Ind.Cas.832
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title to a certain share in the pala or turn of worship of an idol Sri Iswar Krishna Rai Jiu. The plaintiff's case briefly stated is as follows: One Rajjadhar Ray founded this deity. The shebaitship of the deity devolved upon his six grandsons, Nabani Ghanashyam, Lakshman, Eranballa v. Rasikram and Dukhuram. There had been a partition of these palas between these six persons. Six of these palas out of Lakshman's 60 palas devolved on Ramgopal by gradual succession. After his death, three of these have devolved upon the plaintiffs and the remaining three upon defendants 2 and 3. Defendant 1 who is the direct descendant of Lakshman's brother Nabani in the male line dispossessed the plaintiff from these three palas on the basis of a gift from Ramgopal. The pala of the deity is not transferable to any person other than the next heir. The material defences of defendant 1 are these: (1) that there is a custom of transfer o...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter of Gopiram Gobindram.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1936
Reported in: [1936]4ITR157(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C. J. - Here the borrower is making payments to the lender under a mortgage deed at the rate of something over Rs. 7,500 per month. The mortgage deed stipulates that the rate of interest on the loan is to be ten annas per cent. per month. that such interest is to be paid monthly, that in the event of simple interest for any consecutive period of twelve months remaining unpaid the borrower will have to pay compound interest at the rate of ten annas per cent. for each months remaining unpaid the borrower will have to pay compound interest at the rate of ten annas per cent. for each month, that the borrower is to make payments at the rate of Rs. 7,500 per month, that such payments are to be credited in the first instance towards interest and the balance set off against the principal due and that in default of this payment the assessee creditor is to enter into possession of the property and, while in possession to realise and receive the rents etc., and to apply the net rents ...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter of Babulal Raj GarhiA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1936
Reported in: [1936]4ITR148(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - This Rule must be discharged with costs. In the letter with Income Tax Commissioner has sent to this Court under the rules of this Court showing cause against the Rule which we ordered to issue, the first question submitted is 'Whether a lease deed stipulating an annual rental of a house property is not conclusive evidence to prove the bona fide annual value as stipulated by Section 9(1) of the Income Tax Act'. The Commissioner of Income tax submits that the question is altogether one of fact and that a lease deed stipulating an annual rental value, though one piece of evidence is not conclusive evidence of the bona fide annual value of the property and that in determining that value of the property all the circumstances of the cases must be considered. Mr. Banerji who appears in support of this Rule admits that that contention is right.The second question submitted 'is whether or not there was a succession within the meaning of Section 26(2) of the Act to the Jute M...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaj Bahadur Singh Vs. Nari Mollani and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal279,165Ind.Cas.1
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. The question involved in this rule is whether the learned Munsif, Second Court, Rampurhat, had jurisdiction to entertain a claim preferred by opposite party No. 2, Dolejannessa Bibi under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C., in Rent Execution Case No. 399 of 1935 started in that Court by the petitioner, Maharaja Bahadur Singh, against the opposite party No. 1, Nari Mollani. The learned Munsif entertained the same and allowed it.2. On 17th April 1934 the petitioner instituted a suit for recovery of rent of an occupancy holding from opposite party No. 1 and one Radhika Prosad Mondal. The period for which rent was claimed in that suit ended with Chaitra 1340. Radhika pleaded that he had no interest in the holding at any time and the suit was dismissed against him on that footing. The Court however passed a decree against opposite party No. 1 on 30th January 1935. It is this decree which: was put into execution on 1st March 1935 in the aforesaid execution case under the s...
Tag this Judgment!Amir Chand Vs. Krishna Chandra Bhowmik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal315
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of money due on a promissory note for Rs 1,000. The plaintiff's case is that he lent Rs 1,000 to the defendant in cash on the basis of this handnote. The defendant denied this. The Courts have come to the conclusion that the defendant did not receive Rs. 1,000 as consideration for the handnote in question. The suit has been dismissed by the Courts below. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff.2. In view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the defendant did not receive any consideration for this promissory note, the negotiable instrument did not create any obligation between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is however contended on behalf of the plaintiff that as the defendant's case is that he executed the promissory note in consideration of the advances made by the firm of which the plaintiff is the managing partner, and as no payment was made to the plaintiff who is the holder of the negotiable instrument, the defe...
Tag this Judgment!Hajee Golam HossaIn Ostagar Vs. Sheik Abu Bakkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal351,166Ind.Cas.811
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff, and it arises out of a suit instituted by him to eject the defendant by serving a notice to quit. In the plaint there are two other prayers, viz. for recovery of arrears of rent before the termination of the tenancy, and for mesne profits after the termination of the tenancy by the notice to quit. The plaintiff says that he served the notice on 16th September 1930 requiring the defendant to vacate the land with the expiry of the month of Chaitra 1337.2. The plea of the defendant was that no notice had been served and that he could not be ejected as he was holding the land in permanent right. These defences were overruled by the Court of first instance. The defendant preferred an appeal to the lower appellate Court. Three points were raised in that appeal, viz. (1) whether the notice to quit had been served on the defendant; (2) whether the defendant if he could be ejected was entitled to any compensation'for the improvements ...
Tag this Judgment!Panmull Lodha and ors. Vs. R.B. Gadhmull Lodha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal257
Panckridge, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the next friend of the minor plaintiffs to sanction the expenditure of Rs. 55,000 for the marriage of the plaintiffs' minor sister Kanchan Bai. If the expenditure is sanctioned the sum expended is to be debited to the plaintiffs' share in the joint estate. The application has caused me considerable embarrassment. It is admitted that the marriage which is in contemplation is a child marriage within the meaning of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, which among other things, provides a punishment for any person having charge of a minor, whether as parent or guardian or in any other capacity, who does any act to promote a marriage or permits a marriage to be solemnised, between two parties, one of whom is a child as defined by the Act. 'Child' is defined as a person who, if male, is under 18 years of age, and, if female, is under 14 years of age. Here there is some dispute as to the age of Kanchan Bai, but it is admitted that the pr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »