Kolkata Court March 1940 Judgments
Kumar Purnendu Nath Tagore and ors. Vs. Dhirendra Nath Chatterjee and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal390
McNair, J.1. A number of suits have been brought by the plaintiff, Kumar Purnendu Nath Tagore and his co-executors, against tenants who are in arrears with their rent and who are holding over after the expiration of their tenancy. The plaintiffs claim in each instance possession of the premises and a decree for arrears of rent and mesne profits at a rate approximating to the rental. The question arises whether the plaintiffs should get their costs on the High Court scale or on the Small Cause Court scale. In Suit No. 347 of 1940 the actual arrears of rent and taxes is just under Rs. 30 and it would appear at first sight that this is a suit which ought to have been brought in the Court of Small Causes and that the defendant should have the benefit of the scale of costs which presumably would be less in the Court of Small Causes. Learned Counsel in support of his claim for costs on the High Court scale has referred me to a decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Meherb...
Tag this Judgment!Tridibesh Basu and anr. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Basu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal487
ORDER1. We direct that the opposite party Jitendra Kumar Basu do undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one month. He must execute a personal recognizance bond to the satisfaction of the Registrar, appellate side of this Court to appear and surrender before the lower Court on 1st April 1940....
Tag this Judgment!Bipad Bhanjan Sarkar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal477
Henderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Dacca to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Section 498, I.P.C., should not be set aside. The prosecution case was that the petitioner and three other persons enticed the woman in question from her husband's house and a charge was framed on evidence supporting that case. The Magistrate convicted the petitioner and acquitted the other accused persons. On appeal, the Additional District Magistrate was not satisfied with the evidence about the alleged enticement from the house of the husband. He was however satisfied that the petitioner found the girl in a brothel at Narayangange and took her to live with him in a rented house there. On this evidence, he upheld the conviction. Two points have been taken in support of the rule : (1) that the words 'such woman' in Section 498 apply to a woman who has been taken or enticed away from her husband's house and (2) that there is no evidence to support any de...
Tag this Judgment!Pursattamdas Gujrati and ors. Vs. Lala Baijnath Prosad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal240
ORDERMcNair, J.1. This is an application on the part of Lala Banshilal, one of the judgment-debtors, that an order dated 14th September 1939 in so far as it directs an attachment of the right, title and interest of certain persons in the firm of Kashi Prosad & Co., Managing Agents of the Ratna Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., and the appointment of a receiver of all moneys payable to the defendants in that firm by the Sugar Mills, be declared void. It is conceded that the attachment of the right, title and interest of these persons in the managing agents' firm must be set aside, but it has been argued that the appointment of a receiver in execution was a proper appointment and should continue. The learned Advocate-General on behalf of the applicants has argued that there is no necessity for the appointment of a receiver in execution, and he has referred me to several decisions, notably the decision in Holmes v. Millage (1893) 1 QB 551 where at p. 558 Lindley L. J., refers to the circumstances in ...
Tag this Judgment!Nowranga Lal Marwari Vs. Chairman, Midnapore Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal324
Henderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Midnapore and the Chairman of the Midnapore Municipality to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner should not be set aside. He has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 6(1) read with Section 21, Bengal Food Adulteration Act. P.W. 1 is the Sanitary Inspector of the Midnapore Municipality. He took three samples of ghee from a tin in the petitioner's shop. One sample was sent to the local public analyst, one sample made over to the petitioner and another sample taken from another tin, which was said to be a part of the same consignment, was also sent for analysis. The result was that the Magistrate had three reports before him. The petitioner examined an expert witness who expressed the opinion after reading the reports that the sample taken by the Sanitary Inspector was adulterated and that of the others one was certainly pure and the other probably so. The Magistrate did not consider whether...
Tag this Judgment!Maharajadhiraj Sir Bijay Chand Mahtab Vs. Bahadur of Burdwan, in Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1940
Reported in: [1940]8ITR378(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C. J. - The applicant asks for a Rule to be issued upon the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, ordering him to state a case for the opinion of this Court under Section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act.The applicant is a zemindar who has granted patni leases over a large portion of his land. Those patni leases were granted many years ago when the land was almost entirely used for agricultural purposes and were for fixed rents.Under the Income-tax Act agricultural income is not taxable. The income-tax Officer did not assess the whole of the rents derived from these patni leases to income-tax but only a part amounting to a round sum of Rs. 50,000.On appeal by the assessee to the Assistant Commissioner the Rs. 50,000 was reduced to Rs. 21,000 which sum was based on an assessment of the assessee under Section 33 of the Act for the year 1936-37, when the Commissioner had estimated the portion of the patni rent assessable to income-tax at Rs. 20,430.The assessee appealed to the Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Hrishikesh Dutt Vs. Municipal Commissioner
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal292
ORDEREdgley, J.1. This rule is directed against the order of the Police Magistrate of Howrah, dated 20th December 1939 under which he convicted the petitioner, Hrishikesh Dutt, of an offence under Section 365(1), Calcutta Municipal Act, as extended to Howrah, read with Section 488 of the Act. The case for the prosecution was to the effect that the petitioner had been directed by the municipal authorities on 19th February 1939 to cease work in connexion with the construction of a verandah which he was building to the south of his premises situated at 65, Lakshman Das Lane, Howrah. The petitioner ignored this notice and continued the building operations with the result that he was prosecuted as stated above. The petitioner's main contentions before the learned Magistrate seem to have been that he did not violate any of the building regulations of the Municipality and that, in any event, inasmuch as the Commissioners had passed no orders with reference to his application to erect the buil...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaj Bahadur Singh Vs. Taj Bahadur Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal416
Derbyshire, C.J.1. The plaintiff and the defendant are co-trustees under a certain trust which is for the benefit of certain religious objects and also certain Jains. The plaintiff is the son of the defendant and he alleges that the defendant kept the trust properties under his own control. He also alleges that he is treating the properties as If they were his own, that he keeps no separate accounts, that he is not paying revenue and 6esses, is letting the trust properties get into disrepair, is not spending the money as the trust document directs, and not carrying out the objects of the trust. He also alleges that the defendant declines to let him take any part in the management or to furnish him with any information with regard to the affairs of the trust. He is claiming an account of the dealings of the defendant with the trust on the basis of wilful default and an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's right to take part in the management and, if...
Tag this Judgment!Jairam Valjee Vs. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal466
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, and agents, from purchasing dolomite and limestone from any party or parties other than the plaintiff, and from using dolomite or limestone so purchased in their furnaces. The defendants carry on business as manufacturers of steel, and their works are ay Kulti in the District of Burdwan. In December 1936 they absorbed a company called the Bengal Iron Co. Ltd., and the liquidator of that company informed the public by a circular letter that it was transferring its entire assets to the defendants including all contracts and commitments entered into by it prior to 3rd December 1936. The letter also stated that the defendants had agreed to discharge all liabilities entered into by the Bengal Iron Co. Ltd., before that date. The plaintiff is the lessee of several quarries of limestone and dolomite in the Central Provinces. These minerals are known as 'flu...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath Basu Vs. Radharani Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal317
1. Two ladies, Giribala and Radharani Debi inherited an estate from their father, who was governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law. They sued the appellant for arrears of rent for 1335 to the Augrahyan Kist of 1338 B.S. The suit terminated in a consent decree passed on 26th September 1932 for the amount of Rs. 1508. Rs. 400 was paid by the appellant on the date of the decree and the balance was made payable in three instalments in the following manner: (i) Rs. 369 in Sraban 1340 (July-August 1933)(ii) Rs. 369 in Sraban 1341 (July-August, 1934)(iii) Rs. 370 in Sraban 1342 (July. August, 1935). The first two instalments were paid. The present execution started on 19th August 1938 is by Eadharani alone for the recovery of the third instalment. Giribala was dead at the time, she having died on 2nd July 1938. Binapani the daughter of Giribala is heir to her stridhan properties. She applied to the executing Court on 5th September 1938 to be added as a party to the proceedings, but her a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »