Kolkata Court January 1939 Judgments
Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. Balabux Narasaria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal377
ORDEREdgley, J.1. This rule is directed against the decision of the learned Small Cause Court Judge of Bankura, dated 25th June 1938, in which he decreed in favour of the plaintiffs a suit brought by them for the recovery of damages in respect of certain goods which had been carried by the E.I. Ry. Company and the B.N. Ry. Company from Cawnpur to Bankura. The case for the plaintiffs as set forth in their plaint was to the effect that damage had been caused to their consignment of flour on account of wilful negligence of the railway staff at the despatching station, that is at Cawnpore. They went on to say that the staff at the despatching station did not care to examine the van before loading but wilfully and carelessly loaded the goods in a van, the roof of which was leaky and the doors and windows of which were in a broken and damaged condition. The findings of the learned Small Cause Court Judge of Bankura were to the effect that it had not been proved that the roof of the wagon lea...
Tag this Judgment!Aunar Ali and ors. Vs. Jebar Mulluk Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal338
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by defendants 1 to 4. The question involved is the amount which the plaintiff is liable to pay to them before he can be allowed to redeem a mortgage. The mortgage in question was-executed, by the plaintiff's predecessor in favour of the appellants on 8th October 1898. The mortgagees were put into possession. The arrangement was that out of the annual profits, Rs. 280 was to be retained by the mortgagees on account of interest and the remainder applied to the satisfaction of the mortgage. The plaintiff acquired a four and a half annas share of the equity of redemption in the land mentioned in Schedule 1 on 14th November 1930. He instituted the present suit for redemption on 16th January 1931. It is to be-noticed that in the meantime the appellants have themselves acquired the remainder of the equity of redemption. One of their predecessors-in-interest, namely Sarada Lala, had redeemed two other mortgages.2. The plaintiff obtained a preliminary-decree on 15...
Tag this Judgment!G. Scammell and Nephew, Ltd. Vs. Rowles (H. M. Inspector of Taxes).
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1939
Reported in: [1940]8ITR41(Cal)
Sir Wilfrid Greene, M.R. - This appeal from a decision of Lawrence, J., arises out of a claim by G. Scammell & Nephew, Ltd., to deduct for the purposes of ascertaining their taxable profits for the year 1933-34 three sums which they allege were expenses wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of their trade. The sum in question are firstly, a sum of Pound 7,500 paid by the Company to one of their directors, Mr. Hood Barrs; secondly, a sum of Pounds 62 10s. 0d., being a contribution paid by them to a Mr. Toms towards his costs of certain litigation and thirdly a sum of Pound 53 10sh. 0d. representing costs incurred by them in connection with a compromise agreement.The circumstances giving rise to that claim for deduction are of a rather complicated nature; they are set out in the case but I must give a short summary of them in order to make this judgment intelligible. The Company (to whom I will refer as Scammells) carry on business as motor engineers and at the rel...
Tag this Judgment!Satyapriya Banerjee Vs. Kundanmull Babu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal428
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Rajshahi made on 25th September 1937 whereby he held that the appellant Satyapriya Banerjee, the judgment-debtor who is a member of the Legislative Assembly, Bengal, is a public officer and as such liable to have his pay attached under Order 21, Rule 48, Civil P.C. The learned Judge made an order that the Accountant-General of Bengal, should out of the monthly salary of Rs. 150 payable to the appellant remit a sum of Rs. 50 each month to the Court until the amount under the decree is satisfied. The appellant is a member of the Bengal Legislative Assembly. A decree was passed against him at the instance of the respondent on 24th May 1933 for the sum of Rs. 6398 on a hand-note. On 17th September 1937 the decree-holder stated that a sum of Rs. 4441-4-3 was still payable under the decree and asked for the attachment of half of the appellant's salary as a member of the Legislative Assembly. The learned Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Dharma Nath Sarma Vs. Madhu Chandra Mahata and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal722
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed as barred by limitation and the merits of the case have not been inquired into. The facts which gave rise to this decision are as follows: The suit was filed within time on 1st February 1935. The court-fees were deficient and time was eventually allowed up to 11th May. As the deficit court-fees were not paid by that date, the plaint was rejected. The plaintiff however appeared on 27th with the necessary court-fees and prayed for an extension of time on the ground that he had gone to Bengal on business and there fallen ill. This prayer was allowed and the order rejecting the plaint set aside. Summonses were then issued and defendant 2 admitted the claim. Defendant 1 contested the suit raising; amongst other things this plea of limitation. The plea has been accepted by both the Courts below. The contention made in support of this plea was that when once' the plaint had been rejected, the Munsif had no power to give a...
Tag this Judgment!Nural AmIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal335
Rau, J.1. The appellants in this case, Nural Amin, Gannu Meah and Kabir Ahmad, were convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Chittagong (1) of an offence under Section 436/34, I.P.C. and (2) of an offence under Section 120-B, I.P.C., the trial of the former being by jury and the latter with the aid of the same jurors as assessors. Briefly, the prosecution story is that the appellants and others (1) in furtherance of the common object of all, committed mischief by fire by setting fire to certain timber shop on 7th February 1938 and (2) agreed with one another to do an illegal act, viz. to cheat various Insurance Companies by (a) causing the aforesaid shop to be burnt down, and (b) obtaining money from the Insurance Companies on fraudulent misrepresentations as to the cause of the fire and the amount of the damage done. To deal with the second charge first. The evidence against the appellants consists mainly of the statements of the approver P.W. 14, Furrok Ahmed, and P.Ws. 9, 11, 15...
Tag this Judgment!Jogesh Chandra Banerjee and anr. Vs. Digendra Chandra Banerjee and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal542
Henderson, J.1. The principal question of law raised in this appeal is whether a certain certificate and sale held thereunder were void or voidable. The facts are as follows: One Ishan Chandra Banerjee was proprietor of a certain Taluk bearing Tauzi No. 1745 in the Faridpur Collectorate. It eventually passed to his son Dinesh and his nephew Gobinda, the share of the former being 2/3rds and of the latter 1/3rd. Cess due from Gobinda fell into arrears and a certificate was filed to realize the same. As nothing was paid Gobinda's share was put up to sale in execution of the certificate and purchased by a certain mukhtear who even, tually sold it to the plaintiffs. There was an allegation that this mukhtear was the plaintiffs' benamidar, but the learned Sub, ordinate Judge found and gave cogent reasons in support of his finding that this gentleman had made a speculative purchase on his own behalf. The defendants got their names registered in place of Gobinda in the register maintained in t...
Tag this Judgment!Satyendra Lal Choudhury Vs. Sadarghat Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal352
Derbyshire, C.J.1. The appellant is the son of a man who entered into a contract of suretyship on 11th December 1933. The principal debtor was Jogesh Chandra Dhar and the creditor was the Sadarghat Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Bank is an institution registered under and governed by the Co-operative Societies Act (Act 2 of 1912 I.C). The debtor, the appellant, and his co-surety under the contract were all members of that institution; On 3rd December 1935 the principal debtor Jogesh Chandra Dhar was adjudicated an insolvent in the Calcutta High Court at the instance of certain creditors. On 27th January 1936 the creditor Bank started proceedings pursuant to the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act against the principal debtor who was then an insolvent and also against the sureties for the realisation of their debt. Those proceedings are governed by rules made by the Provincial Government under Section 43 of the Act in question. Section 43(1) provides that rules may be made an...
Tag this Judgment!Sakti Nath Roy Choudhury Vs. Jessore United Bank Ltd. (Registered)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal403
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The respondent instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Jessore a suit againt five persons, Sailaja Nath, Shekaraja Nath, Himadrija Naih Hemaja Nath and Adrija Nath Rai Chowdhury to enforce a mortgage bond. The preliminary decree was passed on 9th January 1933 when all the said five defendants were alive. Hemaja Nath however died on 23rd October 1933 before the final decree, leaving as his sole legal representative his minor son named Aloke Nath. The fact of his death was not brought to the notice of the Court with the result that in the final decree his name appeared. The final decree therefore was not effective against Aloke Nath, who had not been substituted in the suit in his father's place. The final decree directed the sale of four items of immovable property, three situated within the district of Jessore and one in the Khulna District. The final decree was put into execution in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jessore, on 4th March 1936. In the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Nibaran Chandra Khandikar Vs. Sheikh Belatali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal334
ORDEREdgley, J.1. The petitioner in this case is a judgment-debtor, against whom the decree-holder, opposite party, had obtained a mortgage decree which he put into execution in Execution Case No. 25 of 1938. The petitioner during the course of the execution proceedings applied to the Debt Settlement Board at Satkhira for the settlement of his debts and the Debt Settlement Board issued a notice under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. It appears however that the original notice issued by the Board was treated as invalid on account of some mistake therein. Steps were then taken on behalf of the judgment-debtor to obtain a fresh stay order under Section 34 of the Act from the Debt Settlement Board, and this stay order reached the learned Munsif of Satkhira immediately after the judgment-debtor'8 property had been sold in Execution Case No. 25 of 1938, namely on 11th June 1938. The learned Munaif there, upon passed an order which purports to-have been made under Section 151, Civ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »