Kolkata Court May 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.
Sm. Tulsi Moni Dasi, Widow of Satya Charan Sreemani Vs. Subhas Chandra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal575
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the decree-holder and is directed against an order passed in appeal by the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, 24-Parganas reversing that of the Munsiff, first Court of that place passed in a proceeding in execution of a decree. The facts lie within a short compass and are for the most part undisputed. The appellant got a decree against the respondent as heir of his deceased father Nabin Chandra Pramanik for a sum of Rs. 497 odd in the Court of Small Causes at Calcutta on 16th March 1934. The amount decreed represented the arrears of rent due in respect of certain homestead land situate in the suburbs of Calcutta, which the deceased Nabin held as a tenant under the plaintiff. The decree was passed by consent and the decretal amount was payable in instalments of Rs. 15 a month and it was further directed that the decretal dues were to be realized out of the assets of Nabin in the hands of the defendant. In 1936 the decree was transferred for...
Mathuramohan Chakravarti Vs. Lalmohan Chakravarti and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal597
Nasim Ali, J.1. These two appeals are against the decision of the Subordinate Judge, Fifth Court, Dacca, dated 31st August 1936. Three brothers Lalit Mohan Chakravarti, Mathura Mohan Chakravarti and Lal Mohan Chakravarti were members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Dayabhaga School. Lalit was the eldest, Mathura the second and Lal Mohan the youngest. In 1308 B. S. corresponding to 1901 A. D. they started a business called Shakti Oushadhalay a for preparation of some Ayurbedic medicines with a small capital derived from the income of the properties left by their father and other properties acquired by them as members of a joint Hindu family after the death of their father. Within a very short time the business became prosperous and began to yield large income. Many moveable and immovable properties were acquired out of the income of the joint properties and business. Lalit died in 1324 B. S. corresponding to 1917 A. D. leaving a minor son Fanindra Mohan as his only heir. Mathura...
inland Revenue Commissioners Vs. British Salmson Aero Engines, Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1938
Reported in: [1939]7ITR245(Cal)
Appeal from two decisions of Finaly, J.The facts were stated by Greene, M. R., as follows : -'These two appeals arise out of five assessments to income-tax made on British Salmson Aero Engines, Ltd, under rule 21 of the General Rules. The assessments were in respect of certain payments made by the taxpayer, the company - I will call it the English company - under an agreement of October 25, 1929. It appears that the English company was incorporated shortly before that agreement was executed for the purpose of entering into it, the object of the agreement and of the incorporation being to acquire the sole licence to manufacture and sell in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and its Dominions, Colonics and Dependencies the aeroplane engines made by a French Company, the other party to the agreement, called Society des Moteurs Salmson, of France. The agreement provides for certain payment to be made by the English company to the French company, and it is in respect of those p...
In Re: New Ring Mills Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal126
ORDERLort-Williams, J.1. This is a petition by the liquidator for directions whether in distributing the assets of the company the preference share-holders are to be paid any, and if so, what sums other than an amount equivalent to the amounts credited as paid up capital on preference shares. By a special resolution of the company passed at a meeting held on the 7th day of March 1938, it was resolved that the company should be wound up voluntarily. The company was incorporated on the 14th day of August 1896 with an authorized share capital of Rs. 6,00,000 divided into 3000 preference shares and 3000 ordinary shares of Rs. 100 each. All the authorized capital is fully paid up. In the half yearly report dated 31st December 1937 the balance-sheet shows a debit of Rs. 6418-9-0 on the profit and loss account. The reserve account is shown as amounting to Rs. 2989-12-8. Para. 5 of the memorandum of association is as follows:The capital of the company is Rupees 9,00,000 divided into 3000 prefe...
Purnananda Das Gupta and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal65
1. These appeals are from the judgment of a Special Tribunal constituted under Government Order No. 13011-P dated 31st October 1935, which was made under the powers conferred by Sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 4, Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1925. The tribunal was constituted with the following Commissioners : Mr. H.G.S. Bivar, I.C.S., District and Sessions Judge, Mr. K. C. Das Gupta, I.C.S., District and Sessions Judge, and Rai N.C. Bose, Bahadur, Deputy Magistrate and Deputy Collector, Bankura. The tribunal was set up for the trial of 31 persons whose names are set forth in the order itself and who were accused of offences specified in Schedule 1 of the Act we have mentioned. Mr. Bivar was appointed to be the President, of the Commissioners. The trial began on 16th November 1935 on a complaint which. was filed before the tribunal by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rai Saheb Kant Chandra Mookerjea. The complaint was marked as Ex. 1203 in the proceedings. The other necessary...
Jatindra Mohan Banik and anr. Vs. Surendra Mohan Roy Choudhury and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal549
ORDER1. This rule raises once more a question regarding the application of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act in the matter of stay of proceedings in an execution case in a Civil Court. The petitioners in this rule are the judgment-debtors. There were three decrees upon which three execution cases were started. In Money Execution Case No. 87 of 1936 for a decretal amount of Rs. 4100 the sale took place on 10th March 1937, the auction-purchaser being a third party for a sum of Rs. 3085. Before that date, on 4th March 1937, an order for rateable distribution was passed in another Money Execution Case No. 86 of 1936. The actual amount to be distributed among the three decree-holders was not settled until 19th January 1938. Before that on 18th December 1937, notices under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act were received. The learned Judge below by his order dated 15th January 1938 refused to stay proceedings relying on the case in Ramendra Nath Mandal v. Dhananjoy Mandal (1938) 2...
Sm. Radharani Debi W/O Raman Chandra Chatterjee Vs. Sri Bijoy Chand Ma ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal257
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The appellant before me one Radharani Debi was one of the defendants in a rent suit commenced by the Maharaja of Burdwan as plaintiff and the appeal is directed against an order passed in a proceeding in execution of the decree obtained in that rent suit. The facts so far as they are material for our present purposes may be shortly stated as follows:One Dwarika Prasanna Mukhopadhyay, who was defendant 1 in the rent suit, was a putnidar under the Maharaja of Burdwan and he sold his interest to defendant 2, Radharani, some time in 1925. Radharani did not comply with the provisions of Section 5 of the Putni Regulation and she was not recognized as a transferee by the Maharaja. In 1936 the Maharaja started a rent suit against the recorded tenant, Dwarika, claiming rent for the years 1339 to 1342 B.S. Dwarika in his written statement set up a plea that he had transferred the putni to Radharani prior to the period for which rent was claimed; consequently he was not answe...
Hari Sadhan Roy and ors. Vs. Probhakar Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal259
Bartly, J.1. These three rules, in Revision Cases 1205 of 1937, 284 of 1938, and in Miscellaneous Case 6 of 1938, involve consideration of the same question of law. In Revision Case No. 1205, the petitioner was convicted of theft by a Union Bench, and an application to set aside the conviction, made under Section 71, Village Self-Government Act, was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer. In Revision Case No. 284, the petitioners were convicted under Section 504, I.P.C. On application made under Section 71, Village Self-Government Act, the sentence was reduced by the Sub-Divisional Officer. In Miscellaneous Case No.6 an application was made by the petitioners to the Sub-Divisional Officer to transfer a criminal case pending against them before a Union Bench. This application was refused after enquiry by the Sub-Divisional Officer. In all these instances, rules have been issued by this Court, and the point of law involved is whether the Court has jurisdiction to interfere.2. It is mater...
Nirmal Kumar Bhowmik and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal551
Panckridge, J.1. The appellants before us are three persons named respectively Nirmal Kumar Bhowmik, Nihar Kumar Khan who is popularly known as Bolai, and Surja Kanta Haldar alias Saheb. Nirmal Kumar Bhowmik was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 366, I.P.C., and all the three appellants were charged with conspiring to commit that offence and with thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 366 read with Section 120.B, I.P.C. They were tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Hooghly. The trial was not altogether satisfactory. Under orders issued from time to time by the Local Government where an accused person is on his trial for an offence punishable under Section 366, he is tried by a Court of Session with the aid of a jury. On the other hand, it appears that trials of persons accused of offences punishable under Section 366 read with Section 120-B are held with the aid of assessors. With the laudable purpose of saving time the learn...
Ram Krishna Sukul and anr. Vs. Ali Newaj and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal688
Edgley, J.1. This rule was issued against an order of a special appellate officer appointed under Section 40, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act of 1936. The only point which arises for consideration in connexion with this rule is whether this Court has jurisdiction to interfere with this order under Section 115, Civil P.C. It has been held by a decision of this Court, to which I was a party, namely the case in Abdulla Shah Choudhury v. Giridhari Lal : AIR1938Cal448 , that the High Court has no power to revise an order of this nature under Section 115, Civil P.C., as such an appellate officer is not a Civil Court within the meaning of Clause 16 of the Letters Patent which does not cover Courts set up by a special statute for a special purpose. The learned advocate for the petitioners argues that the case now before us may be distinguished on account of the fact that the special officer, against whose decision this rule is directed happened to be a Munsif. I am of opinion however that this...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »