Kolkata Court January 1938 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.
Kristo Gopal Nath Vs. Baidya Nath Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal87
Biswa, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of one Kristo Gopal Nath who was the defendant in a proceeding for revocation of a will alleged to have been executed by a lady of the name of Bhusanmoyee. The will is said to have been executed on 4th January 1928, and the lady died more than a month after, viz. on 7th February 1928. On 9th April 1929, Kristo Gopal, who had been appointed executor of the will, applied for probate and obtained probate in due course. On 23rd April 1930 Bansi Lal Nath, the husband of Bhusanmoyee, applied for revocation of the grant, alleging that he had not had any notice of the proceedings for grant of probate and that the proceedings were consequently 'defective in substance'. It appears that between the date of the death of the lady and the date of the application for probate, Bansi purported to sell one of the properties which had been disposed of by the will to one Bolai Chand Nath. On 2nd August 1930, Bolai filed an independent application for revocation of t...
Sailabala Das Jaya Vs. Nityananda Sarkar, Muktear
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal375
S.K. Ghose, J. 1. Civil Revision Case No. 1708 of 1937 arises out of a money suit. The other two civil revision cases arise out of two execution cases. In all these cases notices were received by the Court for stay of proceedings under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935. The Court thereupon called upon the party concerned to prove that he was an agricultural debtor within the meaning of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. In the money suit the defendant was absent. In the other two cases the applicant petitioned questioning the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to make an inquiry of that nature. In each case the Court decided that it had jurisdiction and held that the party concerned was not an agriculturist so as to attract the operation of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. In that view it declined to stay the proceedings. The money suit was decreed ex parte. Against these orders these three Rules have been obtained.2. The question which is common to all the three Rul...
Mohamed Yusuf Vs. Abdul Majid
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal671
ORDERWilliams, J.1. This is a petition under the provisions of Section 115, Civil P. C, in respect of a decree of the Presidency Small Cause Courts, the main ground being that the Court has erred in law. I gave oral judgment on 29th April 1937, but subsequently recalled that judgment and heard further arguments on points of law. A preliminary point was raised that Section 115 does not apply to the Presidency Small Cause Courts. Section 8, Civil P.C., provides inter alia that save as provided in certain Sections, and by the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, the provisions in the body of the Code shall not extend to any suit or proceeding in the Court of Small Causes in Calcutta, provided that the High Court, subject to certain conditions, may extend any of such provisions to the Small Cause Court. Section 115 is not included in those Sections, and its provisions have not been so extended. Section 6, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, provides as follows:The Small Cause Court shall be d...
Harish Chandra Pal Vs. Chandra Nath Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal369
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The petitioner in this Rule filed an application as a creditor under Section 8 (2), Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935 before the Chandina Settlement Board in the district of Tipperah. Thereupon the Board sent a notice under Section 34 of the Act to the 3rd Court of the Subordinate Judge at Comilla asking him to stay proceedings in the Money Execution Case No. 261 of 1936 in which the opposite party to this Rule was the decree-holder. The Subordinate Judge accordingly stayed further proceedings. But on 6th September 1937, he received a letter from the Chairman of the Settlement Board to the effect that the application made by the petitioner had been dismissed and the stay notice was withdrawn. The petitioner states that the aforesaid order was made by the Settlement Board on the representation of the decree-holder opposite party and the reason assigned by the Chairman in his letter was that the Board thought that the amount of debt due to the petitioner was more tha...
Jatindra Nath Mallick and ors. Vs. Satya Kinkar SaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal366
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by some of the defendants and arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff for a declaration that the defendants have no right to draw water from a tank known as Manna tank for irrigating the several plots of land described in schedule (Kha) of the plaint. There was a further prayer for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the water of the said tank for purposes of irrigation.2. The plaintiff's allegations in substance are that the tank known as Manna Pukur, which is recorded as Dag No. 1212 in the settlement records was a khas tank of the landlords, and was never let out to a tenant on any previous occasion. In course of time it silted up and became almost dry. In 1333 B. S., the plaintiff took lease of the tank from the landlords in the benami of defendant 27, and in 1337 B. S. he excavated the tank and made it deeper at certain places. In 1340 B. S. the defendants took water from the said tank in the absence...
Hara Dayal Nag Vs. Chandpur Central Co-operative Bank, Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal394
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff, and arises out of a suit commenced by him against the defendant Bank for recovery of a sum of Rs. 46 and annas odd, alleged to be due to him as dividend on certain preference shares held by him, on a declaration that a resolution of the Managing Committee dated 20th September 1934 as well as another resolution passed at an extraordinary general meeting of the share-holders, held on 30th September 1934, under which the payment of the said dividend was refused, were illegal and ultra vires. To appreciate the various points raised in the case, it is necessary to set out the material facts briefly : The defendant Bank is a Co-operative Institution which is governed by the Co-operative Societies Act of 1912. It is a mixed type of society and its members are partly other affiliated societies, registered under the Act, and partly individuals who are called preference share-holders. At an annual general meeting of the share-hol...
In Re: Babu Moolji Sicka
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal562
Derbyshire, C.J.1. The facts are fully stated in the case, but shortly are as follows: Babu Moolji Sicka was a member of a trading partnership. During the accounting year which was October 1930 to October 1931 the assessee's share of the profits of the firm was 11/39. After the accounting year, namely on 17th December 1931, the partners agreed in a deed that the assessee's share of the profits of the firm should henceforward be 11/30. The partners remained the same, but their respective shares in the profits were altered. The assessment year was April 1932 to March 1933, and the deed referred to was in operation during the year of assessment. The assessment was made on 2nd December 1932. The question is whether in the facts and circumstances stated and on the true construction of Section 26(1), Income-tax Act, the assessee should be chargeable to tax on the basis of his share of the profits at the time of making the assessment or on the basis of the share of the profits which he-had du...
Madan Mohan Mullick and Brothers, in Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1938
Reported in: [1938]6ITR315(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - The question itself is not happily framed. But the answer I propose to give, should make the position quite clear. It is this that having regard to the provisions of clauses 3 and 12 of the deed of July 15, 1927, in computing the income of the assessees in this case chargeable to tax, the maintenance allowance paid to the Settlors widow should have been excluded. If any legal authority is needed for that proposition it is to be found in the judgment of Lord Macmillan in the case of Raja Bejoy Singh Dhudhuria v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta (L.R. 60 I.A. 196) at the bottom of page 200 and the top of page 201.In my opinion, if the facts had been clarified in this case, no reference would have been necessary. The fact that such was not the case appears to me to be the blame of both the parties. In my opinion there should be no order as to costs.KHUNDKAR, J. - I agree.MUKHERJEA, J. - I agree....
Moolji Sicka in Re [No. 2].
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1938
Reported in: [1938]6ITR234(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - The facts are fully stated in the case but shortly are as follows :-Babu Moolji Sicka was a member of a trading partnership. During the accounting year which was October 1930 to October 1931 the assessees share of the profits of the firm was 11/39. After the accounting year, namely on December 17th, 1931, the partners agreed in a deed that the assessees share of the profits of the firm should hence forward be 11/30. The partners remained the same, but their respective shares in the profits were altered. The assessment year was April 1932 of March 1933, and the deed referred to was in operation during the year of assessment. The assessment was made on December 2nd, 1932.The question is whether in the facts and circumstances stated and on the true construction of Section 26(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act the assessee should be chargeable to tax on the basis of his share of the profits which he had during the accounting year. If Section 26(1) applies then the assessee ...
Emperor Vs. Sachindra Nath Moulik Mukhtear
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal783
Jack, J.1. This is a reference under Section 14, Legal Practitioners' Act, made by the District Judge of Pabna and Bogra in connection with a proceeding against a Muktear, Babu Sachindra Nath Maulik, under Sections 13 (b) and 14, Legal Practitioners' Act. The charge was that the muktear practising in the Criminal Courts, Pabna, having been engaged by the accused in the case of Emperor v. Hurmaj Sander and Afaz Talukdar and others under Section 395, I.P.C., has been guilty of fraudulent and grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty. The charge was worded as follows:(1) That on or about 3rd December 1935, when the accused Harmuj was produced before the Deputy Magistrate of the Sadar Sub-Division for record of his confession he made gestures to him for inducing him not to make confession as the result of which Harmuj declined to make any-voluntary statement on that date; (2) That in his attempt to prevent the aforesaid accused from making a voluntary statement he ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »