Kolkata Court May 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.
Agent, East Indian Railway Vs. Maurice Cecil Ryan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal526,173Ind.Cas.655
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the East Indian Railway Company against an award of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Bengal, made on 18th February 1936, wherein he held that the applicant workman, who is the respondent in this appeal, was entitled to receive compensation at 100 per cent. from the Agent of the East Indian Railway less a certain portion already paid, namely, Rs. 1,750. The facts of the case are shortly these: The respondent workman was employed by the Railway Company from 1927 as, what is called, a gunner guard. A gunner guard, it has been explained to us, is a man who is put in charge of sorting operations in a shunting yard. On 15th July 1933, whilst the workman was following his employment, he received serious injuries to his spine and as a result he was in hospital for over a year being discharged from hospital on 28th August 1934. A few days previous to his discharge, Mr. Banerjee, an eminent surgeon, gave a certificate which purported to assess the...
Lachmi Narayan Ram Kumar Vs. Muralidhar Agarwalla and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal535
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application by the defendant under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The facts are that the plaintiffs and their predecessors had a certain rice mill and the defendant was their agent. Between 28th April 1928 and 15th January 1930 a large quantity of rice was sent from the mill to the defendant who sold the same and after deducting his commission and other expenses used to send the money to the plaintiffs. The transactions ceased from 15th January 1930, when the mill closed. Thereafter the defendant sent an account to the plaintiffs on 4th September 1930, stating that he owed a sum of Rs. 443 odd which the plaintiffs might have from him on demand. The defendant's case is that the plaintiffs did not make the demand till some date in 1936 and as such the suit is barred by limitation. The Court below held that Article 89, Sch. 1, Lim. Act, applied and that the period of limitation is three years from the date when the agency terminated. But th...
In Re: Bissendoyal Doyaram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal636
Costello, J.1. This matter relates to an assessment of the year 1935-36 on income from interest on securities, house property, business of dealing and brokerage in shares and other sources. In computing the income from business, the Income-tax Officer did not allow a debit of Rs. 1,13,535-3-0 which was written off by the assessee as a bad debt of one, M. G. Marcar which has been standing in the accounts of the assessee for the relative accounting period for the year which was 1990-91 Dewali, correspond-ing to the year ending October 1934. The assessee claimed that the deduction of the sum mentioned ought to have been allowed as a bad debt, because in fact it was a bad debt. The facts out of which the matter arises are very short. Originally there was a stock and share brokerage business carried on by a Hindu undivided family which was subject to the Mitakshara School of Hindu law, and that business was carried on under the style of Bissendoyal Gajanand. The family consisted of one Gaja...
Bissendoyal Doyaram, in Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1937
Reported in: [1938]6ITR165(Cal)
COSTELLO, J. - This matter relates to an assessment of the year 1935 on income from interest on securities, house property, business of dealing and brokerage in shares, and other sources. In computing the income from business, the Income-tax Officer did not allow a debit of Rs. 1,13,535-3-0 which was written off by the assessee as a bad debt of one M. G. Marcar which has been standing in the accounts of the assessee for the relative accounting period for the year which was 1990-91 Dewali, corresponding to the year ending October, 1934. The assessee claimed that the deduction of the sum mentioned ought to have been allowed as a bad debt, because in fact it was a bad debt.The facts out of which the matter arises are very short. Originally there was a stock and share brokerage business carried on by a Hindu undivided family which was subject to the Mitakshara school of Hindu Law, and that business was carried on under the style of Bissendoyal Gajanand. The family consisted of one Gajanand...
Hossaini Methor Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal460
Biswas, J.1. In our opinion the conviction in this case cannot be supported without unduly straining the language of Section 498, I.P.C. The charge is that the accused had enticed or taken away the complainant's wife from him with intent that she might have illicit intercourse with him. The complaint lodged was that the accused had 'enticed' away the woman. There is not a word in the evidence about enticement. The only question therefore is whether there was any 'taking' within the meaning of this section. We have gone through the whole of the evidence and find that it amounts to no more than this: that the complainant was informed by two of the witnesses, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5, that they had seen the wife of the complainant going away with the accused, his mother and his sister. The sister of the woman was also examined and her evidence is that two days after the occurrence, she went to a house at Ghusuri where she saw her sister and the accused in the same room. Although she speaks of se...
Raja Jogendra Narayan Deb Vs. Debendra NaraIn Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal485,173Ind.Cas.707
ORDER1. Raja Kumud Narain Bhup was the owner of the zamindary known as Bijni Raj. He died on 9th March 1883 leaving two widows Rani Siddeswari and Rani Abheyeswari. Rani Siddeswari died in 1891. The petitioner in Rules 174 and 175, Raja Jogendra Narain Bhup who was born on 23rd July 1884 was nominated Raja of Bijni Raj by Rani Abheyeswari on 28th September 1895. Raja Jogendra Narain attained majority on 23rd July 1902. Rani Abheyeswari made a will on 30th August 1918 whereby she dealt with Bijni Raj as her own property and appointed opposite party No. 1 in the above Rules as the executor of her will. On 22nd September 1919 Bhairabendra Narain Deb, the petitioner in Rule 209, instituted a suit for recovery of possession of the Bijni Raj against Raja Jogendra Narain on the allegation that the latter became insane when he was 15 or 16 years old. On 17th June 1920 Raja Jogendra filed a written statement in that suit alleging inter alia that he was not insane till 1904. The opposite party i...
Pasupati Dutt Vs. KelvIn Jute Mills
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal495
Derbyshire, C.J.1. The appellant appeals from a decision by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Bengal, whereby the Commissioner declined to award the appellant any sum of compensation in respect of the death of a work-man killed by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The facts are as follows: On 5th October 1934, one Hari Charan Day, the head engine driver in the Kelvin Jute Mills, was injured at his work. He died on 13th October 1934. The only person who could claim to be dependant upon the deceased within the meaning of the Act was one Kalo Moni Dutt. She was the daughter of the deceased but a widow. She had one son, the appellant, now aged seven years, then aged five years, who lived with her in the house of her father, the deceased workman. On 24th November 1934, the employers, pursuant to Section 8(1) of the Act, deposited with the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, the sum of Rs. 3,500 in respect of their obligations under the Act. On 29th No...
Rashbehari Das and ors. Vs. Mahindi Pal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal565,173Ind.Cas.634
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The facts necessary for deciding the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents as well as for deciding the appeal on the merits may be stated as follows. One Netai Roy executed a mortgage in favour of the respondents, the Pals, in 1922. The property mortgaged was about 15 bighas of land in mouza Bhedua. In the bond the said properties were described as being within Thana and Sub-Registry Vishnu-pore in the district of Bankura. In 1926 the Pals sued on their mortgage. The suit was filed in the first Court of the Munsif at Vishnupore (Mortgage Suit No. 152 of 1926). It is admitted that thana Vishnu-pore was, and is within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court. It is also admitted that the plaint filed contained the statement that the mortgaged properties were situate within the local limits of the first Court of the Munsif of Vishnu, pore. The defendant, Nitai Roy, appeared in the suit and raised no question about the place of suing. The suit te...
Beni Madhab Sikdar and anr. Vs. Sarat Chandra Jana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal643
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. This is a petition by the defendants from a preliminary decision in a suit instituted at Alipore Munsif's Court. Defendant 1 is the liquidator of a Co-operative Society at Birulia in Tamluk sub-division of Midnapore. That society was liquidated by an order of 12th September 1931 and defendant 1, an officer of Co-operative Credit Societies, was appointed liquidator. In the course of his duties as such liquidator, defendant 1 assessed the plaintiff-opposite party at Rs. 1,875 as debt due by him and called upon him to pay the amount. A registered letter demanding the money and threatening a certificate in the alternative was sent to the plaintiff who resides within the jurisdiction of Alipore. Thereafter the plaintiff instituted a suit at Alipore Munsif's Court claiming that he had indeed once been a member of the Birulia Society but he had long ago ceased to be a member and he was not liable for any debt to the Society. He further made a claim of Rs. 300 as due to h...
Mohammad Shariff Khan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal458
Henderson, J.1. The appellants have all been convicted of conspiracy to commit an offence punishable under Section 326, Penal Code. This was only one of many charges which were made against them: they were put on their trial in connexion with the alleged murder of a man named Rama. It is not really disputed that this man was set upon in a narrow lane in the town of Howrah and there murdered by somebody. In view of the course which the case took in the Sessions Court, it is not necessary to discuss the details of the actual murder. Now, the learned Judge unfortunately made some errors of procedure in dealing with the case. A charge of conspiracy is triable not by jury but by assessors. Thus instead of taking a verdict, he should have taken the individual opinions of the jurors and then proceeded to pronounce his own judgment. The appellants would then have had an appeal to this Court on the facts. Then again he did not ascertain the opinion of the jury sufficiently for him to determine ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »