Kolkata Court February 1938 Judgments
Ashutosh Mandal and ors. Vs. Gati Krishna Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal446
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The petitioners in this case filed an application for setting aside a sale which was held in execution of a rent decree obtained by opposite party 2 against the petitioners and opposite party 4. The grounds alleged in the petition were that the sale processes had been suppressed, that the properties had been sold at an inadequate price and that one of the judgment-debtors, namely opposite party 4, had really purchased the properties in the name of his uncle, opposite party 1. The Munsif dismissed the application whereupon the petitioners preferred an appeal before the District Judge; The latter by his order dated 24th April 1937 dismissed the appeal holding that it was not competent in view of the provisions of Section 153, Ben. Ten. Act.. Against that order the petitioners have obtained this Rule.2. Mr. Das for the petitioners seeks to rest his case on Sub-section (5) of Section 174, Ben. Ten. Act, contending that there is a right of appeal in all cases against an ord...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Nath Saha Vs. Hari Mohan Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal465
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This civil revision case has arisen under the following circumstances. The petitioner and the opposite party were candidates for election as Commissioner from Ward No. 7 of the Madaripur Municipality. The opposite party was enrolled as a voter in the electoral roll of Ward No. 1. The petitioner states that he secured the highest number of votes and he was duly declared elected but the opposite party filed an application before the District Judge contesting the election. The District Judge by his order dated 8th June 1937 declared the election of the petitioner to be invalid and the opposite party to be duly elected Commissioner of the Madaripur Municipality from Ward No. 7. Against that order the petitioner has obtained this rule.2. It is contended that the District Judge acted without jurisdiction in deciding the application of the opposite party under Section 39, Bengal Municipal Act 1932 and that the opposite party had no locus standi to make the application under S...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Khelwan Kahar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal525
ORDER1. This rule was issued calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Section 414, I.P.C. and the sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment passed on him should not be set aside on the ground that the joint trial of the petitioner along with one Lalifc Mohan Khan was illegal and had caused considerable prejudice to the petitioner. The facts are that the accused was charged with dishonestly receiving and retaining three white metal ingots with certain marks on them, the prosecution ease being that these articles were found in the shop of his co-accused Lalit who stated that they were left in his shop by the petitioner. There is evidence corroborating the statement of the co-accused with reference to the petitioner. There is also evidence which the learned Magistrate accepts as showing that he had guilty knowledge that they were stolen properties. The only point on which this rule was issued was that the joint trial was ill...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mahaliram Ramjeedas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal557
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This reference under Section 66, Income-tax Act 1922, comes before us with an unusual history. The assessees are a registered partnership firm carrying on business as general merchants in Calcutta. In the year of assessment in question from 1st April 1932 to 31st March 1933, the due date for a return to be made by the firm was 25th July 1932. The return was actually made on 21st December 1932, and it was based on the period from October 1930 to October 1931 (Dewali to Dewali). Nothing turns on the actual period. With the return was sent a copy of the profit and loss account of the year which showed a loss of about eight lakhs of rupees. Between 21st December and 23rd December Mr. Kanailal Jatia, a partner in the firm, in response to a notice from the Income-tax Officer apparently under Section 22 of the Act appeared before the Income-tax Officer and produced the firm's roker, hakal and khata and explained such items as the Income-tax Officer asked questions upon. The...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Nath Das Vs. Satish Chandra Kayal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal33
Jack, J.1. This is an application under Section 439, Criminal P.C., On which the District Magistrate, 24-ParganaS, has been asked to show cause why an order passed by the Second Police Magistrate, Mr. T.P. Bhattaoharji, summoning Rai Bahadur Ajit Nath Das under Sections 344 and 323, I.P.C., should not be set aside on the ground that the offences had already been compounded. This order was issued by the learned Magistrate after an enquiry on the complaint of Satish Chandra Koyal that his sister is being tortured by her father-in-law, Rai Bahadur Ajit Nath Das, and her husband's brother Krishna Kishore Das, that she has been confined in an absolutely dark and in sanitary room, beaten with a cane, is not being allowed sufficient food and is being systematically ill-treated. The complaint was dismissed under Section 203, Criminal P.C., by the First Police Magistrate after an examination of the girl on 16th May 1937, but the District Judge on 29th June 1937 directed a further enquiry by som...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: B.K. Paul and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal196
Derbyshire, C.J.1. The assessees, Messrs. B.K. Paul & Co., are an undivided Hindu family. Prior to 14th April 1934 the assessees owned real property, Government securities, shares in private companies and some 17 businesses which either made or sold drugs and the like. During the accounting year ('the previous year') which ended on 13th April 1933, the assessees received income from the real property, Government securities and shares in the companies, but the 17 businesses each suffered losses. The assessees were not assessed during the normal assessment year which ended on 31st March 1934 owing to a delay on the part of the Income-tax Officer. On 11th April 1934, four private limited companies were formed the share-holders being members of the Hindu undivided family. On 14th April 1934, 16 of the 17 losing businesses were transferred to the four new companies. On 28th September 1934 the Income-tax Officer made an assessment on the assessees in respect of their income, profits and gain...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaliram Ramjeedas, in Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1938
Reported in: [1938]6ITR265(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - This Reference under Section 66 of the Indian income tax Act, 1922, comes before us with an unusual history. The assessees are a registered partnership firm carrying on business as general merchants in Calcutta. In the year of assessment in question from April 1, 1932, to March 31, 1933, the due date for a return to be made by the firm was July 25, 1932. The return was actually made on December 21, 1932, and it was based on the period from October 1930 to October 1931 (Dewali to Dewali). Nothing turns on the actual period. With the return was sent a copy of the Profit and loss account of the year which showed a loss of about eight lakhs of rupees. Between December 21 and December 23, Mr. Kanailal Jatia, a partner in the firm, in responses to a notice from the Income-tax officer apparently under section 22 of the Act appeared before the Income-tax officer and produced the firms Rokar, Nakal, and Khata and explained such items as the Income-tax Officer asked questions ...
Tag this Judgment!B. K. Paul and Co., in Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1938
Reported in: [1938]6ITR395(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - The assessees, Messrs, B. K. Paul and Company, are an undivided Hindu family. Prior to April 14, 1934, the assessee owned real property, Government securities, shares in private companies and some 17 businesses which either made or sold drugs and the like.During the accounting year ('the previous year') which ended on April 13, 1933, the assessees received income from the real property, Government securities and shares in the companies, but the 17 business each suffered losses. The assessees were not assessed during the normal assessment year which ended on March 31, 1934, owing to a delay on the part of the income-tax Officer. On April 11, 1934, four private limited companies were formed, the shareholders being members of the Hindu undivided family. On April 14, 1934, 16 of the 17 losing businesses were transferred to the four new companies. On September 28, 1934, the Income-tax Officer made an assessment on the assessees in respect of their income, profits and gain...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Mohammad Kazibulla Mondal and ors. Vs. Humayun Reza Chaudhury and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal454
ORDEREdgley, J.1. The only point for decision which arises in connexion with this rule is whether or not an appeal lies against the order of the learned Munsif of Jangipur, dated 2nd June 1937, by which he dismissed for default an application to set aside a Civil Court sale under Section 174, Ben. Ten. Act. The view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad in his order dated 14th June 1937 is that no appeal lay against the order of the learned Munsif.2. The learned advocate for the opposite parties places some reliance upon a decision of Mukherjee J. in Debrani Debya v. Sarat Kumar Roy : AIR1924Cal791 in which the learned Judge held while sitting singly, that an 'order dismissing for non-prosecution an application for setting aside an execution sale under Section 174, Ben. Ten. Act was not appealable. In that case however, Mukherjee J. gave no reasons for coming to this conclusion and he proceeded to deal with the matter before him under Section 115, Civil P.C.3. In a late...
Tag this Judgment!Sissir Chandra Maitra and ors. Vs. Ajit Kishore Maitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal466
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15, Letters Patent against the judgment of my learned brother Mukherjea J. It arises out of an execution proceeding. Mukta Sundari the widow of one Jogesh Chandra Mitra, and her co-sharers who are appellants before us in this appeal obtained a decree for the sum of Rs. 480 and odd annas in a rent suit on 29th July 1933. She executed this decree and made the co-decree-holders pro forma parties to the execution proceeding. She died during the pendency of the execution proceeding. Respondent 1 in this appeal thereupon presented an application for execution of the said decree on 25th December 1935 claiming, to be the successor-in-interest of Mukta Sundari under the will of her husband Jogesh Chandra Mitra.2. The appellants objected to this application of respondent 1 on the ground that the latter had no right to maintain the application for execution as one of the appellants, namely Jitendra Chandra Maitra . was the only person entitled to the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »