Kolkata Court December 1937 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.
British Sugar Manufacturers, Ltd. Vs. Harris (inspector of Taxes).
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1937
Reported in: [1939]7ITR101(Cal)
GREENE, M.R. - [Having stated the facts :] I have come to the conclusion that the view which FINLAY, J., but for the authorities, would clearly himself have taken is the right view. It appears to me that, when the true nature of this provision is appreciated it is nor possible to avoid the conclusion that it is an agreement for remuneration by way of a commission representing a percentage of 'profits' for services to be rendered to the company; in other words, it is nothing more or less than a very common type of agreement under which officers of companies are remunerated by a commission on 'profits', which after all is simply a share of 'profits,' provided that the word 'profits' is construed in the right sense. Some suggestion was made by the Attorney General that the absence of a fixed salary in addition to commission affected the matter. I am unable to see that. I can see no reason at all in principle why a contract providing for remuneration by commission and nothing else should n...
Dinesh Chandra Choudhury and ors. Vs. Rajendra Chandra Kar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal324
Nasim Ali, J.1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 in this rule purchased an occupancy holding from opposite party 16 held by him under the petitioners and opposite parties 3 to 15 and 17 to 34. On 31st December 1935, notice of the transfer under Section 26-C, Ben. Ten. Act, was served on the petitioners and opposite parties 3 to 15 only as they were stated by the purchasers to be the entire body of landlords of the holding. On 27th February 1936, the petitioners applied under Section 26-F of the Act, for preemption in the Court of the Munsiff at Nabinagar impleading therein the purchasers and the remaining co-sharer landlords who were served with notice under Section 26-C of the Act. On 28th March 1936, these co-sharer landlords applied to the Court for being transferred to the category of the petitioners for preemption. On 25th April 1936, the transferees raised the objection that the petition; for preemption was not properly constituted as there are other co-sharer landlords of the holdin...
Nibaran Chandra Banerjee Vs. MominuddIn Howladar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal374
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent from 1337 B. S. to 1340 B. S. at Rs. 10-4.3 par annum with cesses and damages. The tenants defendants pleaded that they held the jama under the Howladar Mominuddin and paid rent to him. Mominuddin was therefore made a party as defendant 14. He claims that the defendants hold the land in Nim Osat Howla under him. It appears that this land is within a taluk which was partitioned under the Estates Partition Act. It was originally held under a howla which falls exclusively under a 5 1/2 gandas 2 kr. share of the taluk. The disputed jama was allotted to the plaintiff in the partition in his 6 annas share. The Butwara papers show that the howla was not held by the plaintiff before the partition. The suit was contested by defendant 14. He produced some dakhilas showing that he realized rent from the tenants. But the trial Court held that these dakhilas were collusive and that this howla had nothing to do with the ...
Nursingdas Tunsookdas Vs. Chogemull and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal402
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This is in form an every day application for execution, but it none the less raises a question of great importance and considerable difficulty as to the construction of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors' Act, 1935. On 20th December 1935, a consent decree was made against the defendants for Rs. 52,000 payable by instalments, and secured on zemindaries in, the District of Jalpaiguri and shares in a limited company. There was default on the defendants' part, and on 30th Augusts 1937, the Official Receiver was appointed receiver of the zemindaries and shares at the instance of the plaintiff. The order of 30th August was varied by a consent order of 7th September, under which two private receivers were appointed with liberty to sell in execution the securities mentioned in the schedule of the decree. Pending the sale of the securities, a notice under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors' Act, has been received by the Registrar of the Original Side. The notice is not s...
Bata Krishna Pramanik Vs. Deba Prosad Garga and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal320
Bartley, J.1. The question for consideration in this rule is whether a claim for arrears of interest only, such interest being due because of non-payment of rent in due time is or is not recoverable in a Small Cause Court suit. The opposite party in this rule claimed arrears of interest upon an annual jama of Rs. 1922.11.6 for a period of three years, the rent itself having been duly paid. The petitioner objected that such a suit was a suit to enforce payment of 'cesses or other dues when cesses and dues were payable to a parson by reason of his interest in immovable property' and that consequently the suit cannot be brought in a Court of Small Causes, because of the provisions of Article 13 of the Schedule of the Small Cause Courts Act. It cannot now be disputed that a claim for arrears of interest is not a claim for rent, and the question before us is whether it can come under the definition of a claim for other dues 'payable to a person by reason of interest in immovable property' w...
Salamat Vs. Agent, East Indian Railway
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal348
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the workman Salamat against the decision of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bengal, given on 5th August 1936 wherein he refused to award compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act to the appellant. The respondent is the Agent of the East Indian Railway Company. The facts are as follows. In 1925 the workman was employed at the railway workshop at Lilooah, then owned by the East Indian Railway administration, but now taken over and run by the East Indian Railway Company. Whilst he was so employed, an accident happened when he was operating a machine saw with the result that his thumb and the first three fingers of the left hand were damaged and had to be amputated. After attending hospital for three or four months, he returned to the same workshop and was employed by the 'same employers on the same or other work on which he earned the same wages as before. As time went on, his wages were increased and he actually received promot...
Anath Nath Banerjee and ors. Vs. Sri Sri Kalimata Thakurani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal865
Nasim Ali, J.1. On 16th January 1937 the Opposite Party No. 1, Sree Sree Goddess Kali Mata of Kalighat through her next friend H. N. Haider, instituted a suit in the First Court of the Subordinate Judge of 24-Parganas against the petitioners and the other opposite parties in this rule: (1) for declaration that certain properties mentioned in the schedule appended to the plaint are debutter properties; (2) for framing a scheme for management of the debutter properties; (3) for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from appropriating the income or any part thereof or withdrawing certain money deposited in Bank; (4) for accounts; (5) for removal of those shebaits of the plaintiff- petitioner from their office who will be found to have misappropriated the money belonging to the plaintiff. The defendants filed written statements alleging inter alia that the suit was insufficiently valued both for the purposes of jurisdiction as well as court-fees. On 12th July 1937 issues were fra...
Keshabji Lalji and anr. Vs. Piramall Gayenka and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1939Cal129
S.K. Ghose, J.1. First Appeal No. 20 of 1935 is directed against the preliminary decree and First Appeal No. 143 of 1936 is directed against the final decree in a suit which was brought for khas possession, mesne profits, damages, royalties, etc., laid at Rs. 28,256-1-0 in respect of a colliery. By an indenture dated 20th March 1934, the appellants who are defendants in the suit obtained sub-lease of the coal underneath the property situated within Mouza Siduly on terms which are stated in: the document. The plaintiffs are in the position of landlords to the appellants by virtue of b purchase from previous lease-holders. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendants did not carry out the provisions of the lease whereupon the plaintiffs cancelled the lease and gave notice to quit on 31st August 1932. On the defendants failing to comply, the present suit has been brought. In the suit various reliefs were originally asked for, but on 30th August 1934, the parties came to an amicable settlem...
Diboprakash Ganguly Vs. Suprokosh Ganguly and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal341
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff asking the Court to set aside an award of two arbitrators made under the Schedule 2, Civil P.C. The facts are extremely simple. The two defendants are the brothers of the plaintiff, and the property with which I am concerned is 127, Lower Circular Road, which was bequeathed to the three brothers by their father in equal shares. In April of this year the plaintiff instituted this partition suit asking for the reliefs which are generally claimed in proceedings of that nature, that is, he asked for a declaration that he is entitled to a one-third share of his father's estate : for possession; for administration, if necessary; for partition by metes and bounds and allotment of his share. A consent order was made on 11th June 1937, whereby the matters in dispute were referred to the arbitration of two members of the Bar. The actual terms of settlement constituted a schedule to the Court's order, and I need only concern myself wit...
Pravu Sri Sri Kishore Banwari Jugma Bigrahadi Paramesh Jews Vs. Ajit K ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal874
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which according to the description in the plaint is a suit of a composite nature, for specific performance of contract, for recovery of possession on declaration of title, for mesne profits, damages and for setting aside an auction sale and is valued at Rs. 26,000. The suit was filed under the following circumstances. Mouzas Nij Gangatikuri and Radhikapore appertaining to putni lot Gangatikuri within the zamindari of defendant 6 the Maharajadhiraj Bahadur of Burdwan comprised a putni estate in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff personally. On 27th September 1924, the plaintiff executed two deeds of trust with regard to his secular properties and debuttar properties respectively in favour of Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nundy of Cossimbazar the father of the present defendant 7. On 4th August 1925 the properties which are the subject matter of the present suit were sold in execution of a money decree and purchased nominally b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »