Kolkata Court December 1940 Judgments
Mt. Garibia Bibi W/O Lal Mahommed Khalifa Vs. Mathura Prosad Rajgharia ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal298
1. The appellant Garibia Bibi purchased certain properties from one Hanif Mian, who had in turn purchased them from one Oli Mahammad, who was adjudicated insolvent after the date of Hanif's purchase and before that of Garibia Bibi. On an application by a creditor, one Mathura Prosad Rajgharia, under Section 53 read with Section 54A. and also under Section 4, Provincial Insolvency Act, the learned District Judge of 24-Parganas has found that both the alleged transfers were fictitious and has ordered that Oli Mahammad had right, title and interest in the disputed property which on his adjudication vested in the Official Receiver. The appellant contests this decision. The creditor Mathura Prosad Rajgharia has appeared in the appeal through his advocate who states that he does not contest it. The appeal has been contested by the Official Receiver. For the appellant, it is contended first, that the findings 6f fact of the learned Judge are wrong; secondly, that in so far as the application ...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhasini Dutta Vs. Nripendra Nath Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal363
ORDERHenderson, J.1. The question raised in this rule is whether the suit should be tried at Howrah or Khulna. Opposite party 1 brought a money suit against opposite party 2 and attached before judgment certain property situated within the district of Khulna. The petitioner made objection to the attachment claiming that the property was hers. This objection was allowed and the present suit has been instituted by opposite party 1 in order to obtain a declaration that the property belongs to opposite party 2. The suit was instituted in Howrah. The learned Munsiff held that the cause of action arose within Howrah because a claim case was filed there. Section 16, Civil P.C., however lays down that suits for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. The rule is, accordingly, made absolute and I direct that the plaint be returned to opposite party 1 for pres...
Tag this Judgment!NabiruddIn Sarkar and anr. Vs. Osman Gani Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal481
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule is in connexion with an application under Section 26-F of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It is not disputed that the new section applies to the case. The share of petitioner 1 is seven annas, the share of petitioner 2 is three annas and the share of opposite party No. 1 is three annas. The remaining three annas was sold and was the subject-matter of the application. After the sale the petitioners applied under Section 26-F for pre-emption. Opposite party No. 1 then joined in the application and made a prayer that he might be treated as one of the applicants for pre-emption. The learned Munsif allotted the whole of the three annas to opposite party No. 1. An appeal to the District Court was unsuccessful. Sub-section (5) of the section requires that the Court shall make an order allowing the application of those cosharers who have made the deposits required by the section. Sub-section (6) states that in making an order in favour of more than one cosharer, the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!East Indian Railway and ors. Vs. Gopilal Sharma
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal304
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule has been obtained by three Railway Companies, over whose systems the goods which were the subject matter of the suit were carried. The learned Munsif has given the plaintiff a decree for the first and third items in the plaint. The first item is for a sum of Rupees 35-11-6 the value of a bundle which was lost; this part of the claim is not disputed; the remainder is for a sum of Rs. 143-12-0 for damage caused to four other bundles in the course of transit. The rule has been pressed on three grounds : (1) that the suit was premature in view of the provisions of Section 80, Civil P.C., (2) that the suit is barred by Limitation. Paradoxical, though it may seem, it would appear that both these contentions are well founded, (3) that the learned Judge has not dealt properly with the question of misconduct. It is conceded by Mr. Das on behalf of the opposite party that the first ground is good in the case of petitioners 1 and 2. He, however, pointed out that it ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagad Bhusan Sircar and anr. Vs. Panna Lal Chandra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal287
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs. The property originally belonged to one Ashutosh Sarkar. It was sold by his widow Jashoda to the father of defendants 10 to 15. The subordinate Judge, differing from the Munsiff, has found that the sale was justified by legal necessity. The document however was not registered. The subordinate Judge, again, differing from the Munsiff, held that defendants 10 to 15 are protected by Section 53-A, T. P. Act. The plaintiffs rely on a later sale by Ashutosh Sarkar's daughter Sudhamoni, pro forma defendant 16 to plaintiff 2. Damages were claimed against defendants 1 to 9 for the removal of certain goods from the property. This claim was dismissed by the Munsif and has now been abandoned, The case however is pressed against defendants 10 to 15 for a declaration of the plaintiff's title and recovery of possession. Two points have been pressed in support of the appeal: (1) that defendants 10 to 15 are not protected by Section 53-A, T. P. Act and ...
Tag this Judgment!Kurseong Hydro-electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi Narayan Sukhani an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal364
R.C. Mitter, J. 1. The Kurseong Hydro-Bleofcrio Supply Co. Ltd., (hereafter called the company) was incorporated in August 1930. A firm carrying on business under the name and style of Sundar and Rai, of which P. M. Sundar and N. B. Rai were partners in equal shares, became the managing agents-of that company. It is said by the company that the said firm Sundar and Rai, was also appointed its engineers to look after the construction of its works at a monthly remuneration of Rs. 700, with yearly increments of Rs. 25 a month, for a period of three years commencing from October 1930. The respondents maintain that P. M. Sundar and N. B. Rai were appointed engineers on those terms in their individual capacities. In our judgment, the controversy on this point is a material one. The learned subordinate Judge, however, did not record his finding on the same, but, on the other hand, proceeded upon the assumption that the firm, Sundar and Rai, had been appointed as engineers. In reciting the fac...
Tag this Judgment!Marfatali Mirja Vs. Jabedannessa Bibi W/O Marfatali Mirja and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal657
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The plaintiff's case in substance was that defendant 1 was married to him about 7 or 8 years before when both of them were minors and their respective fathers acted as guardians for the marriage. It is said that the parties lived happily together for several years. Later on, defendant 1 fell ill, and being unable to perform her household and marital duties, herself requested the plaintiff to marry again. The plaintiff took another wife and defendant 1 although she regained her health went on staying in her father's place, and refused, at the instigation of her father, who was inimically disposed towards the plaintiff, to come over to her husband's place and live with him. The defence was that the marriage was never consummated and under the terms of the kabinnama which was executed at the time of the marriage, she was given the authority to divorce herself f...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi Serajul Huq Mia and ors. Vs. Abjal Mia and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal351
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs and it arises out of an action in ejectment. The material facts lie within a brief compass and may be stated as follows : The plaintiffs admittedly hold as raiyats certain lands which are recorded in C. S. Khatian No. 96 of mouza Betua. Under them there was an under-raiyati held by two persons, Tajamaddin and Roushan Ali which was recorded in Khatian No. 96. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for ejectment against Tajamaddin and Roushan Ali in the year 1928, and, having obtained a decree, executed the same and took delivery of possession of the property through Court on 11th November 1931. They succeeded in obtaining actual possession of the lands comprised in the under-raiyati holding with the exception of two plots, namely plots Nos. 594 and 594/748 in respect of which the present suit has been instituted. The defendants who are in occupation of these plots resisted the attempt of the plaintiffs to take possession of th...
Tag this Judgment!Kamala Prosad Bhattacharjee and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal315
Bartley, J.1. The appellants in this case Kamala Prosad Bhattacharji alias Pagla Thakur and Dinesh Chandra Do alias Kaloo were placed on their trial along with two other persons on charges framed under Sections 366, 366A, 368 and 376, Penal Code. The jury by a unanimous verdict acquitted the other two men but convicted the appellant, Pagla under Section 366, Penal Code, on the finding that he had kidnapped a woman in order that she might be forced or seduced to illicit; intercourse. They also convicted the appellant, Kaloo under Section 368, Penal Code, on the charge that he wrongfully concealed the woman knowing that she had been kidnapped. On all the other charges the verdict against these appellants was one of not; guilty. The case for the prosecution was that a girl called Malina Bala Dassya of Mouja Mondail P. S. Koranigunj in the district of Dacca was sleeping on the night of Tuesday the 19th of Agrahayan in her house during the absence of her father who had gone to Dacca. The ot...
Tag this Judgment!Sothern-smith Vs. Clancy.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1940
Reported in: [1941]9ITR73(Cal)
Nov. 26, 27. Dec. 13, 1940.GREENE, M R, stated the facts and continued : The case has throughout been conducted upon the footing that the respondent, although she was not a party to the contract, is entitled in law to claim from the society the sums which it is agreed to pay to her. It may be that this is in accordance with the law of the State of New York by which the contract would seem to be governed. The assessments were made under Case III of Schedule D, and the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1918, are as follows : 'Schedule D. 1. Tax under this Schedule shall be charged in respect of..... (b) All interest of money, annuities and other annual profits or gains not charged under Schedule A, B, C, or E and not specially exempted from tax.... for every twenty shillings of the annual amount of the profits or gains. 2. Tax under this Schedule shall be charged under the following cases respectively; that is to say..... Case III. Tax in respect of profits of an uncertain value...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »