Kolkata Court March 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.
Amrita Bazar Patrika, Vs. Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1937
Reported in: [1937]5ITR648(Cal)
COSTELLO, A.C.J. - This is a reference under Sec. 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922. The question for the consideration of the Court is set forth in paragraph 4 of his Statement of the Case in this form :-'Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case, the sum of Rs. 5,577 spent by the assessee during the year ended December 31, 1935, to meet the litigation expenses can be said to be expenditure the incurred solely for the purpose of earning the profits within the meaning of Sec. 10(2)(ix) of the Indian Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) and consequently allowable as a deduction in computing the profits or gains of the business for the assessment year 1936-37.'The facts of the case were these : The assessee is the Limited Company known as the Amrita Bazar Patrika Ltd., and its business is that of editing, publishing and selling a paper called The Amrita Bazar Patrika. On the March 23, 1935, it published in its daily edition in Calcutta a leader with the captain 'Calcutta High Cou...
Haridasi Debi and ors. Vs. Manufacturers Life Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal510
Lort-Williams, J.1. The plaintiffs sue the defendant company upon a policy of insurance for Rs. 18,000 and interest,, effected upon the life of Kali Prasad Chakrabarty in favour of his wife, plaintiff 1. The plaint was admitted on 8th December 1934. The defendant company resists the claim on the ground of fraud, which was the only issue raised by counsel on behalf of the company, namely 'Were the representations specified in para. 3 of the written statement or any of them fraudulently made knowing the same to be untrue?' The allegation of fraud was added to the written statement by a somewhat belated amendment made by leave on 28th April 1936, when the suit was already in the peremptory list for hearing. The policy was issued on 12th June 1934, and the assured died on 3rd August 1934. The premium was Rupees 194-10-0 payable quarterly, the assured having been accepted as a first-class life, after examination by a doctor appointed by the company. The company's agent reported that he had ...
Sasthi Charan Biswas Banik and ors. Vs. Gopal Chandra Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal390
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decision of the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Faridpur, affirming a decision of the Munsif at Faridpur under the following circumstances. The plaintiffs and defendant 4 are brothers. Defendants 2 and 3 obtained a decree against defendant 4 and in execution thereof they brought certain properties for sale. The sale was fixed for 20th November 1931. On that date the plaintiffs filed a petition claiming that they had title to those properties to the extent of 5/6 share. The sale was postponed to 23rd November 1931 on which date it was held. The plaintiffs' petition was put up for consideration on 30th January 1932. But on that date the plaintiffs did not appear and the petition was dismissed for default. On 26th January 1933 the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in the Court of the same Munsif. On 8th August 1933 the Munsif returned the plaint for presentation to proper Court holding th...
Anil Kumar Bhattacharya Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal603
Costello, J.1. The facts of this case are fully stated in the judgment of Ameer Ali, J., dated 27th January 1936. It is the judgment against which this appeal has been brought. It is not necessary, I think, that I should re-capitulate the facts in any great detail. But in order to understand the case it is necessary that I should briefly refer to the facts. The suit, though in form, it was brought by an individual Anil Kumar Bhattacharya, was really brought by the National Swimming Association of which Anil Kumar Bhattacharya was one of the joint secretaries. Therefore, the contest with which we are concerned is one between the National Swimming Association and the Corporation of Calcutta who are the defendants in the suit. The National Swimming Association was formed in the year 1924 and was registered under Act 31 of 1860 and it is stated in the plaint that the registered office of the Association is at the Pavilion in Cornwallis Square in the city of Calcutta, and this suit is conce...
KedaruddIn Ahmad and ors. Vs. Asrafali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal355
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of some of the defendants who are members of Kalikacha Union Board, and the suit out of which it arises was commenced by the plaintiff for establishment of easement rights of a boat passage and a passage for outlet of water over the disputed strip of land which is described in Sch. 1 of the plaint. There was also a prayer for removal of obstruction which was alleged to be placed on the disputed land by the members of the Kalikachha Union Board in collusion with the other defendants in the suit. The plaintiff is admittedly a fractional owner of a tank which is C.S. Dag No. 3396. There is a jan or outlet for surplus water of this tank at its south west corner which runs southward and meets the khal in C.S. Dag No. 3382. It is said that the plaintiff and his predecessors had been from time immemorial, using this jan as an outlet for the water of the tank as well as a boat passage for coming from the khal to his land and homestead, continuously...
Sita Nath Pati Vs. Sarada Prasanna Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal375,173Ind.Cas.711
Jack, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title by auction-purchase to the lands described in the plaint consisting of a tank and a bamboo garden and for recovery of khas possession thereof and for mesne profits from the defendants. The plaintiff brought a suit in 1929 upon a hand-note against one Khirode Nath Kuila and caused the lands in suit to be attached before judgment in the suit. The suit was decreed on compromise, but as the decretal amount was not paid the decree was executed and the lands were put up to sale and purchased by the plaintiff on 30th April 1932. Delivery of possession was taken on 28th November 1932. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants dispossessed him on 13th February 1933. The defendants' case is that one Ram Krishna Samanta got a decree on a hand-note against Kshirode Nath Kuila and purchased the lands having attached the same before judgment on 5th November 1927. The decree was passed in his favour on 30th November ...
In Re: Keshardeo Chamria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal583
Panckridge, J.1. This reference under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act, arises out of circumstances of some complexity. The assessee Keshardeo Chamria instituted a suit in 1929 on the Original Side of the Court for a declaration that he had been validly adopted by one Amloke Chand, deceased, and was accordingly entitled under Mitakshara law to certain immoveable properties jointly with the defendant Ramprotap, Amloke Chand's brother. There was also a prayer for partition.2. Ramprotap filed a written statement denying the adoption, and also denying that the properties alleged by the assessee to be joint family properties were in fact such with the exception of one No. 23, Cullen Place, Howrah.3. On 23rd May 1930, a decree was made by consent. Unfortunately the decree has been drawn up in somewhat ambiguous language, and still more unfortunately the Commissioner of Income-tax appears to be under a misapprehension as to its effect. It was agreed under the terms of settlement annexed to the d...
In the Matter of Keshardeo ChamriA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1937
Reported in: [1937]5ITR246(Cal)
PANCKRIDGE, J. - This Reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act arises out of circumstances of some complexity.The assessee Keshardeo Chamria instituted a suit in 1929 on the Original Side of the Court, for a declaration that he had been validly adopted by one Amloke Chand deceased and was accordingly entitled under Mitakshara Law to certain immovable properties jointly with the defendant Ramprotap. Amloke Chands brother. There was also a prayer for partition.On May 23, 1930, a decree was made by consent. Unfortunately the decree has been drawn up in some what ambiguous language, and still more unfortunately the Commissioner of Income-tax appears to be under a misapprehension as to its effect.It was agreed under the terms of statement annexed to the decree that the assessee was the validly adopted son of Amloke Chand. The decree further declared that the assessee was entitled tone equal half part of share of the residue of the joint estate mentioned in the terms, after...
In Re: Rajani Kanta Padia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal38
ORDERMcNair, J.1. This is an application by the father of a Guzerati boy for the restoration to him of his child, and that the respondent to the application, Mrs. Thompson, should be committed to prison for contempt) of Court. The notice of motion also asks that the provisions of an order made by the Court of Appeal may be sat aside. The matter has been before this Court on several occasions, and on this occasion has been heard by us on three or four different days. The child in question was born in February 1928, so that he is now 9 years old. His mother died in childbirth, and the respondent to this application oared for the child for some time with the father's concurrence. It is the common case of both sides that the child has only learned English. In 1935, differences between the petitioner and the respondent first came before this Court, the respondent refusing to make over the child to its natural father. The matter was heard by me, and I appointed the father the guardian of the...
Srimati Nagendra Nandini Dassi Vs. Bhola Nath Khamaru
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1937
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.1002
1. This appeal is from the decision and decree passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, 24-Perganas, dismissing a suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of an amount of money due on a promissory note and a deed of agreement.2. The plaintiff by two different registered documents dated October 4, 1929, sold to the defendant a rice mill standing on the lands described in the schedule to the plaint in which the total consideration was stated to be Rs. 26,000, for satisfying a mortgage in favour of the defendant in respect of the properties. Subsequent to that, there was the execution of the promissory note and the agreement in suit by the defendant in the plaintiff's favour on November 20, 1929. The promissory note contained a promise to payeRs. 5,000 while the agreement was to the following effect:That you mortgaged your Emerald Rice Mill along with the lands on which it stands at Shah-pore to me at Rs. 26,000. As you had no other sources to pay the said loa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »