Kolkata Court December 1939 Judgments
indu Bhusan Sen and anr. Vs. Kiron Chandra Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal376
Narsing Rau, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Letters Patent from a decision of Ghose J. It arises out of a suit for accounts by the plaintiffs-respondents, as the present managing committee of the Kalia Re-modelled High English School, against the defendants-appellants, as the former managing committee, for the period from 1914 to 28th December 1931, when the new managing committee came into office. The trial Court decreed the suit as against defendants 1 and 6, the Secretary, and the Joint Secretary, respectively, but only as regards the period from April 1926 to 28th December 1931. The decree was affirmed on appeal by the District Judge, and again affirmed by Ghose J. on appeal to the High Court. This is now an appeal from his decision. We have been taken in some detail through the history of this school and the arrangements made from time to time for the management of its affairs. It appears that from 1900 to 1931 the affairs of the school were in the hands of a manag...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: P.C. Mullick and D.C. Aich
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal520
Derbyshire, C.J.1. One Ramanath Ghosh died in 1904 and left a will by which he appointed certain relatives of his as executors and trustees and directed that after his death certain expenses should be met from the income of the estate. He also directed that certain other expenses should be met, but he did not specify whether they should be met from the corpus of the estate or from the income. His eldest son, Siddheswar Ghosh, took out administration of the estate and was administrator until he died intestate in 1930. Thereafter his brother Akshoy Kumar Ghosh, who was the youngest and sole surviving son of Ramanath Ghosh, took out probate of his father's will and remained executor of the estate until his death in October 1931.2. Akshoy Kumar Ghosh left a will dated August 1931 in which he appointed three persons including the two present petitioners as executors and trustees under the will. In his (Akshoy Kumar Ghosh's) will he directed that certain payments should be made out of the in...
Tag this Judgment!P. C. Mallick and D. C. Aich, in Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1939
Reported in: [1940]8ITR236(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - One Ramanath Ghosh died in 1904 and left a will by which he appointed certain relatives of his as executors and trustees and directed that after his death certain expenses should be met from the income of the estate. He also directed that certain other expenses should be met, but he did not specify whether they should be met from the corpus of the estate or from the income. His eldest son, Siddheswar Ghosh, took out administration of the estate and was administrator until he died intestate in 1930. Thereafter his brother, Akshoy Kumar Ghosh, who was the youngest and sole surviving son of Ramanath Ghosh, took out probate of his fathers will and remained executor of the estate until his death in October 1931.Akshoy Kumar Ghosh left a will dated August, 1931, in which he appointed three person including the two present petitioners as executors and trustees under the will. In his (Akshoy Kumar Ghoshs) will he directed that certain payments should be made out of the incom...
Tag this Judgment!Purna Chandra Sarcar, Trustee to Estate of Abdul Azahar Choudhury and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal222
Narsing Rau, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 15, Letters Patent, from a decision of Jack J. The plaintiff (in which term I include his predecessor-in-interest) brought a suit in the Court of the Second Munsif of Barisal claiming malikana for the years 1336 to 1339 B.S. in respect of resumed estate No. 5229 of the Bakargunj Colleetorate. It appears that the plaintiff, the defendants and certain other persons were cosharer proprietors of the above estate. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants alone took settlement of the above estate from the Collector in 1335 B.S. and were therefore bound presumably under the Bengal Land Revenue Settlement Regulation (Regulation 7 of 1822) or by contract, to pay malikana to the plaintiff. The Munsif dismissed the suit. His decision was affirmed on appeal by the Additional District Judge. On further appeal to the High Court Jack, J. reversed these decisions and decreed the suit. This is now an appeal from Jack J.'s decision. All the Courts ha...
Tag this Judgment!Kaniram Malpani, Managing Member of Magniram Kishenlal Firm Vs. Parman ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal528
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and it is directed against a judgment of Jack J., dated 15th December 1937. The appellant before us is the plaintiff and the suit was one commenced by him against three defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 500 only alleged to be due on certain khata account. The trial Court passed a decree against defendant 2 alone. On appeal by the plaintiff this was altered and the Appellate Court gave the plaintiff a decree against defendants 1 and 2 to the exclusion of the other defendant. Against this decision there was a second appeal taken to this Court by defendant 1 and Jack J. reversed the decision of the Courts below and dismissed the plaintiff's suit in its entirety.2. In our opinion this appeal must succeed upon a short point, viz., that the second appeal to this Court was barred under the provisions of Section 102, Civil P.C. It appears clear from the allegations made in the plaint that the suit was of a natur...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Commissioners Vs. Gangamani Chaudhurani W/O Akshoy Kumar Bas ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal153
Narsing Rau, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15, Letters Patent, from a decision of Jack J., and arises out of a suit for a declaration that the conservancy rates imposed by the Commissioners of the Dacca Municipality upon certain holdings described in Schedules A, B and C to the plaint are ultra vires and illegal and for an injunction restraining the Commissioners from realizing the rates. The suit was instituted before the Munsif of the Third Court of Dacca who dismissed it. There was an appeal to the District Judge of Dacca who also dismissed the suit. Then there was an appeal to the High Court heard by Jack, J. who allowed the appeal and decreed the suit and this is now an appeal from his decision.2. The Dacca Municipality appears to have been originally constituted as a Municipality under the Bengal Municipal Act of 1884, hereinafter referred to as the old Act. This Act was repealed in 1932 by the Bengal Municipal Act of 1932, hereinafter referred to as the new Act, which came...
Tag this Judgment!District Board, Represented by Chairman and anr. Vs. Moulvi Emdadal Ho ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal305
Henderson, J.1. These appeals are by the District Board of Chittagong and defendant 2, who is now the Chairman of a certain Union Board. The plaintiff was elected Chairman of that Board and he has now been removed by the District Board in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 16, Bengal Village Self-Government Act. He instituted a suit for a declaration that these proceedings were ultra vires and for re-instatement in office. The defence raised two preliminary issues: (1) that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to try the suit and (2) that the suit was barred by limitation. Both the Courts below held that there was jurisdiction but differed on the point of limitation. The Munsif dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, but his decision was reversed by the Subordinate Judge and he remanded the suit to be tried on the merits. The present appeals have been pressed on both grounds. I have no hesitation in accepting the view of the Courts below on the first point. Dr. Basa...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Ahammad Vs. Abdul Gani Mia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal441
Edgley, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiffs sued the defendants for ejectment from the land in suit on the ground that the defendants were under-raiyats and, on the expiry of their tenancy, they were liable to ejectment under the provisions of Section 48-C(c), Ben. Ten. Act. The case for the defendants was to the effect that they were protected from eviction under the proviso to Section 48-0, Ben. Ten. Act. The first Court decided that the defendants were entitled to protection and the plaintiffs' prayer for khas possession was therefore rejected and their suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs then appealed and the lower Appellate Court held that the defendants had not been in continuous possession of their holding for a period of 12 years and in these circumstances the plaintiffs were entitled to eject them. Defendant 1, Ali Ahammad, has now appealed to this Court. The first point urged in favour of the appellant is that the lower Appellate Court has placed a ...
Tag this Judgment!Jhirighat Native Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. B. Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal220
1. The respondent was the selling agent of the appellant Company at Calcutta. In that capacity he had from time to time received sums of money on behalf of the company. It is not necessary to recite the terms on which he obtained the-agency. He was also the financier of the company and in that capacity had from time to time advanced monies to the company. Difference as to the state of accounts arose between them. By a written submission signed on 11th September 1937 by the respondent and, by and on behalf of the company, by its secretary, Bidit Chandra Gupta. The matters in dispute were referred to the arbitration of Mr. Surendra Mohan Sen Gupta. Mr. Sen Gupta entered upon the reference and made his award on 15th October 1937. On 19th April 1938, just on the re-opening of the Court after the Easter vacation, the company filed an application, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cachar, under para. 20 of Schedule 2, Civil P.C., for filing the award. A copy of the award was filed with ...
Tag this Judgment!Briton Ferry Steel Co. Vs. Barry (inspector of Taxes).
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1939
Reported in: [1941]9ITR122(Cal)
Appeal from a decision of Maonaghten, J.Briton Steel Forry Co., the appellant company, was incorporated in 1899 and till 1934 its main business was the production of stee, bars, which it supplied to six subsidiary companies and to certion other consumers for conversion into blackplate and tinplate. The company itself convorted steel plates into blackplate at one of its own works. The business of the subsidiary companies was the manufacture of blackplate and tinplate. In 1931 the company formed a subsidiary agency company. From then till April 7, 1934, the course of business conducted by the agency company was that it found its own purchasers of black plate and tinplate; having found a purchaser, the agency at its own discretion selected the subsidiary company best suited to carry out the particular order; all contracts for goods were made by the agency as principal and the agency was entirely responsible for finding outlets for the productions of the subsidiary companies; goods manufac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »