Kolkata Court March 1937 Judgments
Abdur Rauff Vs. Mt. Aymona Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal492
1. This is an appeal in a suit for partition and accounts. The plaintiff in the suit, the respondent in this Court, claimed partition of properties on declaration of her title to the same which she asserted she had inherited from her father, Sheikh Ramjan Ostagar, who died on 7th November 1932, leaving the plaintiff and her step-brother, appellant in this Court, defendant in the suit in which this appeal has arisen. The plaintiff's case was that two deeds of gift and a wakfnama said to have been executed by her father on 4th September 1929 were invalid, void and ineffective in law. One of the two deeds of gift it may be noticed was in favour of the plaintiff herself, while the other was in favour of the defendant; the wakfnama purported to be for religious and charitable purposes and for the maintenance of the settlor and his descendants. The deeds of gift and the wakfnama were according to the plaintiff absolutely fraudulent and fictitious documents, and were not acted upon or intende...
Tag this Judgment!The Phoenix Assurance Co. Vs. Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1937
Reported in: [1937]5ITR397(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - The questions of law submitted in this case are identical with the first three questions submitted in the case of the North British and Mercantile Insurance Company which have been answered by my in the affirmative. The facts, however, in this case are somewhat different.The Phoenix Assurance Company carries on business throughout the world as well as in India. In the return for which assessment was made for the year 1934-35 the Company did not submit a balance-sheet dealing with its separate insurance activities in India, but submitted a statement purporting to be under rule 35 of the Rules under Sec. 59 of the Income Tax Act, showing the total profits of the Company in respect of all its Life Assurance activities throughout the world, based on a quinquenial valuation for the five years ending December 31, 1930 (A). It is also showed the total premiums received by the Company as a whole in respect of that period (C) and also premiums received in India in respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!North British and Mercantile Insurance Co. Vs. Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1937
Reported in: [1937]5ITR349(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - The facts of this case are set out very fully in the case which has been stated by the Commissioner of Income Tax and I do not propose to re-state them here. There are, however, two matters which were admitted by both sides during the argument. The first is that we have been asked by both sides to decide this matter as if the return of income-tax by the North British Mercantile Insurance Company were made strictly under rules 25 and 35 made by the Central Board of Revenue under Sec. 59 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.Rule 25 provides :'In the case of Life Assurance Companies incorporated in British India whose profits are periodically ascertained by actuarial valuation, the income, profits and gains of the life assurance business shall be the average annual net profits disclosed by the last preceding valuation, provided that any deductions made from the gross income in arriving at the actuarial valuation which are not admissible for the purpose of income-tax asses...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarkanath Mitra Biswas Vs. Sm. Hemangini Kar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal430
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of an execution proceeding. The objection of the judgment-debtor is that the decree cannot be executed, inasmuch as the Court which passed the decree had no jurisdiction to pass it. The decree under execution is a decree for about Rs. 3,500 passed by a Munsiff. The suit in which the decree was passed was a suit for accounts and was filed in the Court of a Munsiff as the value of the relief claimed in the suit was stated to be Rs. 510 in the plaint. The learned Munsiff passed a preliminary decree for accounts. An appeal was taken against this preliminary decree but it was dismissed for default. Thereafter a Commissioner was appointed to take accounts and as a result of accounting the defendants were found to be liable to pay about Rs. 3,500 to the plaintiff-decree-holder. The learned Munsiff thereupon passed a decree for that amount against the defendants.2. The contention of Mr. Bose appearing on behalf of the defendant jud...
Tag this Judgment!Tarani Charan Kundu Vs. Sagarkandi Union Board
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal405
Jack, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the Union Board rate of Rs. 20 per annum imposed on the plaintiff is illegal and not enforceable in law. The plaintiff alleged that the rate had been assessed on an estimate of his circumstances and property within the Union Board, which is not correct, and included his pension, which was an income derived outside the ambit of the Union Board, and accordingly not assessable; and that the rate should not be more than Rs. 2. The trial Court decreed the suit but in the lower appellate Court it was dismissed.2. Section 38, Bengal Village Self-Government Act, states that the rate to be imposed shall be assessed according to the circumstances and the property within the union (if any) of the person liable to the same. In this appeal it has been urged that the interpretation put by the Subordinate Judge on the expression 'circumstances within the union' is incorrect inasmuch as he held, that assessment could be made on the pen...
Tag this Judgment!Kanti Chandra Mukherjee Vs. Mukundalal Barman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal304
Costello, J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by McNair J. on 26th August 1936, whereby he dismissed an application on the part of Kanti Chandra Mukerji who was seeking by that application to obtain 'personal execration' of a certain decree against one Mukundalal Barman. The application was in fact made by a summons dated 9th July 1936 addressed to the defendant abovenamed, that is to say, Mukundalal Barman in these terms:Take notice that you are hereby required under Rules 22 (i)and 37 (1)of Order 21, Civil P.C., to appear in person before the Judge in Chambers on 4th August 1936 at eleven o'clock in the forenoon to show cause why the decree passed against you on 10th September 1931 in the above suit should not be execrated against you and why you should not be committed to jail in execution of the said decree.2. There is a tabular statement dated 27th June .1936 in which the usual particulars are given. The date of the decree was stated to be 10th September 1931; the amount ...
Tag this Judgment!Jotis Chandra Biswas and anr. Vs. Jadu Nath Sikdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal377,173Ind.Cas.398
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This Rule arises out of an application for pre-emption under Section 26(F), Bengal Tenancy Act. The petitioners are co-sharer landlords in respect of the tenure. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 purchased the land of a raiyati holding under that tenure and notice of the transfer was served by post on petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 on 8th July 1935. According to the case made in the petition, on 25th July 1935, the petitioners' pleader went to Court with the application for pre-emption to be filed on behalf of the petitioners and chalans and the necessary amount of Rs. 77 to be deposited on account of the price and the landlord's transfer-fee. It is further stated that the said application was filed in Court on 25th July and the chalans were filed before the Sheristadar, but for want of time the chalans were not passed on the same date and were passed on the next date, that is, 26th July, when the necessary amount was deposited. The application itself was re...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Mohan Jeo Thakur and ors. Vs. BepIn Behari Bhakat
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal371,173Ind.Cas.358
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for a declaration that the properties described in the plaint and forming an eight anna share of mouza Baitalpara and shares of other mouzas were valid debuttar properties of Gopinath Jew Thakur the family deity of plaintiff 1, and defendants 2 to 8 added as plaintiffs and for a permanent injunction restraining defendant 1 from bringing the properties to sale in execution of a money decree obtained against plaintiffs 2 and 3. Plaintiffs' case is that the disputed properties were the absolute debuttar properties of their family deity and were in possession of Utshabananda Goswamin plaintiffs' ancestor as the managing shebait when they were resumed by the Government under Regn. 2 of 1819. The property in mouza Baitalpara containing 100 bighas of nishkar land was resumed and subsequently settled with the Maharaja of Mayurbhanj, who granted a sanad to Utsabananda, the plaintiffs' ancestor on recognizing the property as debuttar property of th...
Tag this Judgment!Kumud Behari Basu and anr. Vs. Himanshu Kumar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal373,173Ind.Cas.498
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 18-0-2 for the years 1336 to 1339 on a jama held originally by the father of defendant 1 and alleged by him to have been transferred to defendants 2 to 4 before the year in suit. There is no evidence that the plaintiff landlord consented to the transfer and the question is whether in those circumstances the defendant 1 is liable for the rent. Defendants 2 to 4 were added at their request but the plaintiff does not claim any rent from them. The Courts below have held that the jama originated before 1836 and is therefore governed by the general law and not by the Bengal Tenancy Act, or Transfer of Property Act, and that it is a permanent homestead transferable tenancy. Consequently the original tenant, that is, the father of defendant 1, having transferred the tenancy to defendants 2 to 4, he and his successors are no longer liable for the rent. The suit was therefore dismissed against defendant 1 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Kartic Chandra Mukherjee Vs. Bata Krishna Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal25
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by one Kartic Chandra Mukherji a judgment-debtor in an execution proceeding and it raises a question of limitation. There was a suit for accounts being Title Suit No. 198 of 1911 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Purulia and it was decreed on 16th September 1916 against one Mukund Lal Laik. This decree was modified by the High Court at Patna on 6th December 1920. In 1921 the judgment-debtor died leaving a widow Jugol Kishori. There were two executions at Dhanbad. A third execution case was transferred to Asansole and executed there on 23rd March 1925. Upon, an objection under Section 47, Civil P.C., there-was a Miscellaneous Case No. 49 of 1925 and it was dismissed by the Asansole Court on 7th August 1925. Then there was an appeal to this Court being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 361 of 1925 and it was dismissed by Page and Graham JJ. on 25th July 1927 [see : AIR1927Cal952 . Thereafter an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »