Kolkata Court May 1939 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.
Navadwipchandra Nagendra Das, in Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1939
Reported in: [1939]7ITR488(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - The petitioners obtained a Rule nisi upon the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Assam, to show cause why he should not state a case on the question of law involved arising out of the order of the Assistant Commissioner in this matter or state such other questions of law as in the opinion of the Commissioner or this Court arose out of the order of the Assistant Commissioner.The petitioners are the proprietors of a firm carrying on business as general dealers at Karimganj in Assam and Chandpur in Bengal. In the year 1937-38 the petitioners made a return, for income-tax purposes, of the profits of their business at Rs. 1,538. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the said return and issued a notice under Section 22(2) of the Act of 1922. Pursuant to that notice the petitioners appeared before him and produced certain books. The Income-Tax Officer after hearing the petitioners assessed them on a sum of Rs. 21,669. The petitioners appealed to the Assistant Commissioner who redu...
Pattu Kumari Bibi W/O Rai Dhanpat Singh Nawlakha Vs. Nirmal Kumar Sing ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal569
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant, Pattu Kumari Bibi, against her adopted son, Nirmal Kumar Singh Nawlakha, in the Court of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Murshidabad, for a declaration that a certain adjustment made on compromise on 24th February 1934, in respect of a decree of 21st January 1924 in Suit No. 17 of 1924 between the same parties was fraudulent, illegal, ultra vires, inoperative and invalid and therefore not binding on the plaintiff-appellant. Nine issues were framed in the suit, of which the first four were decided in her favour. The other five were decided against her, with ihe reaulfc that the suit was dismissed with costs. Hence this appeal. Before dealing with the points raised in the appeal, it will be necessary to set out in some detail the nature of the decree of 21st January 1924 and of the adjustment of 24th February 1934. The plaintiff-appellant is the widow of a rich merchant and zamindar, Rai Dhanpat Bingh Nawlakha of Azimganj. O...
Mohsena Khatun and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal610
Henderson, J.1. The appellants have been convicted of murder. There is no reason to doubt that the husband of the female appellant was actually murdered. She was his fourth wife and many years younger than he. There are indications in the medical evidence to suggest that the motive of the murder was a love affair and there is also some evidence which will support the case that the male accused washer lover. Be that as it may, the case presented before the Court was a curious one and a story of robbery was introduced and both the appellants have been convicted of it. It is a curious story because a large bulk of the property which is supposed to have been stolen in the course of the robbery was the property of the female appellant herself. The jury were unanimous. The learned Judge stated that death would bathe proper punishment. We entirely agree. The murder was brutal, deliberate and cold-blooded and there were no extenuating circumstances. The learned Judge refrained from passing thi...
Mohanlal Baheti and ors. Vs. Moulvi TabizuddIn Ahmed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal625
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffs and the suit was one for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2364 annas odd alleged to be due by the defendant on the basis of an adjustment of accounts made on Bhadra 1339 B. Section The present suit was instituted on 27th January 1936 and on the face of it, it is beyond three years from the date of the alleged adjustment. To get round the plea of limitation the plaintiffs invoked the provisions of Section 14, Limitation Act. It was stated by them in the plaint that they had instituted a suit against this defendant on the identical cause of action in the original side of this Court on 19th July 1933. This was prosecuted in good faith and with due diligence, and on 21st January 1936 this Court allowed the plaintiffs to withdraw from the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action inasmuch as it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiffs claim that under Section 14, Limitation Act, they are entitle...
Firm Tolaram-nathmull Vs. Firm Mahomed Valli Patel
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal28
Panckridge, J.1. This is an application under Order 21, Rule 50(2). There is a firm of the name of Mahomed Valli Patel, to which I shall refer as the buyers. There is another firm of the name of Tolaram Nathmull, to which I shall refer as the sellers. These two firms entered into a contract for the sale and purchase of jute on 15th July 1935. Eventually there were disputes, and the sellers referred the matter to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the contract. The Chamber made their award by which they directed that the buyers should pay the sellers Rs. 2625 as compensation, and. Rs. 270 as the costs of the arbitration. The award has been filed in Court, and is therefore liable to be executed as if it were a decree, The sellers have now taken out this summons against three persons, Mahomed Valli Patel, Amiji Valli Patel and Abdul Rahman Habib, Patel, asking for leave to execute, the award, against them as partners in the buyer's firm.2. Mahom...
Dalu Ghose and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal487
Henderson, J.1. This rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate of Khulna to show cause why the conviction of and sentences passed on the petitioners should not be set aside on grounds Nos. 1 and 2 attached to the petition. These grounds relate to certain procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate at the trial. It was not disputed that there was an occurrence of some sort between the parties. According to the prosecution the occurrence took place in a court-yard on the plot No. 861. The alleged common object was to seize the court-yard. According to the defence the occurrence took place on plot No. 860; while the accused persons were preparing a fence they were attacked by the complainant's party who were hoping to be able to encroach on the plot No. 860.2. Now after the prosecution witnesses had been examined and before the defence witnesses had been examined the learned Magistrate held a local inspection. According to the judgment he did so in order to follow the evidence....
Satish Chandra Lahiri Vs. Raja Protiva Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal612
Edgley, J.1. The judgment-debtor Satish Chandra Lahiri is the appellant in this case. It appears that on 7th November 1932 his landlord, Raja Protiva Nath Roy, obtained a decree against him. In execution of this decree the decree-holder sold the appellant's holding on 21st June 1933. On 29th June 1936, the decree-holder auction-purchaser obtained symbolical delivery of possession of the holding. Thereafter on 13th July 1936, the judgment-debtor applied under Section 174(3), Ben. Ten. Act, to have the sale set aside. On 10th October 1936 the matter regarding the judgment-debtor's application under Section 174(3), Ben. Ten. Act, was compromised between the parties and it was arranged that the sale should be set aside on payment by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder of the sum of Rs. 92 in two instalments. These instalments were admittedly duly paid. On 17th November 1937 the judgment-debtor filed an application in the first Court under the provisions of Section 144 read with Sectio...
Kitab Ali and ors. Vs. Anil Behary Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal723
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit for partition. The plaintiffs' case is that the properties in suit with the exception of plots 13 and 14 in village Warup belonged to one Kadir Sarkar who was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4. The two plots 13 and 14 were acquired with the profits of those properties after the death of Kadir. Kadir died in the year 1892 leaving a wife. Pearjan, three sons and three daughters born of her and another son named Jaha Bux, born of a predeceased wife. Plaintiffs 1 to 10 claimed their title through these three daughters of Kadir and plaintiffs 11 to 15 are the descendants and heirs of one of the son of Kadir, named Aserabali, whereas plaintiffs 16 to 18 are the heirs of Jaha Bux, the son of Kadir by his first wife. Defendant 1 is Elim Ali, the only son of Kadir who is still living, and defendants 2 to 4 are the heirs and successor of Abbas. Ail, the remaining son. Defendan...
Ambica Prosad Sanyal Vs. Soorajmull Nagarmull Firm and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal620
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff and the suit was one for enforcement of a mortgage bond alleged to have been executed by defendant 1 by which certain lands and machinery were hypothecated to secure an advance of Rs. 1000. The mortgage bond is dated 9th December 1926. Defendants 2 and 3 were impleaded as parties to the mortgage suit on the allegation that they had purchased portions of the mortgaged property subsequent to the execution of the mortgage' bond. Defendent 1 did not appear and contest the suit and the case was compromised with defendant 2. Defendant 3 who were the transferees of the machinery comprised in the mortgage were the only contesting defendant and they contended inter alia that the mortgage deed was without consideration and that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 11, Limitation Act, it being brought more than a year after an adverse decision was passed in a claim petition made by the plaintiff in respect of the machine...
Probodh Chandra Chakravarty Vs. Jatindra Mohan Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal177
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of defendant 1 and it arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiffs for recovery of money due on a promissory note. The first two plaintiffs are the present proprietors of a timber company which was also joined as the third plaintiff in the suit. They had supplied timber and wood products to defendant 2, the Labour House Ltd. of which defendant 1 was the President. That company went into voluntary liquidation and defendant 1 was appointed the liquidator. The assets of this firm were taken over subsequently by another firm known as the Steel Construction Co., who are made defendant 3 in the suit and defendant 1 was a director of that firm too. The plaintiffs' case is that they did not get the price of the timber, which they supplied to defendant 2 on requisition of defendant 1 and threatened him with a suit. Eventually a promissory note was executed on 5th December 1932 by defendant 1 both in his personal capacity as well as a director of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »