Kolkata Court March 1940 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.
Prafulla Kumar Mitra Vs. Dhirendra Lal Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal284
Narsing Rau, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the Second Subordinate Judge at Alipore adding the petitioner as a party defendant to a partition suit brought by opposite party 1 against his brothers, opposite parties 2 and 3. The facts are briefly these : Opposite party 1 Dhirendra Nath Dutt brought a suit for partition against his brothers Surendralal Dutt and Rabindra Nath Dutt (who are opposite parties 2 ani 3 respectively) claiming a one-third share in their joint paternal properties, which include premises No. 28/1, Wellington Street, Calcutta. Surendra Lal and Rabindra Nath appeared in due course and filed written statements. The defence of Surendra Lal was that Rabindra Nath had been suffering from congenital, complete and absolute idiocy and consequently that he himself, Surendra Lai, was entitled to a half-share in the properties. Rabindra Nath in his written statement raised no objection to the properties being partitioned. One of the issues raised on the aforesa...
Moslem Khalifa Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal350
Henderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Malda to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Section 324, I.P.C., should not be set aside. The prosecution was in connexion with an admitted incident which took place over an attempt to execute a distress warrant. It is not disputed that injuries were caused on both sides. The prosecution case is that the peon was resisted while attempting to seize two bullocks. The Magistrate made convictions under Sections 183, 186 and 324. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the convictions under Section 183 and Section 186, because on his view of the evidence the case was a false one. He found that the peon never went to the place at all but that the execution was being levied by the decree-holder's men. He then proceeded to consider whether the petitioner had the right of private defence. He held that the seizure was done by the direction of the process-server and that in view of the provisions of Section 99,...
Taser Pramanik and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal391
Lort-Williams, J.1. The four appellants were tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Pabna and a jury upon charges under Sections 366 and 498, I.P.C. The jury found them all guilty of an offence under Section 366 but no verdict was given with regard to the charge under Section 498 and the learned Judge agreeing with the verdict of the jury sentenced each of the appellants to rigorous imprisonment for four years and six months. The actual charge under Section 366 was as follows:That you, on or about 20th February 1939 at Dayarampur, Police Station Chatmohar, forcibly abducted Sairan, a woman, with intent that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with you, and thereby committed an offence....2. The evidence of the girl was that she was the wife of Jabbar Pramanik; that she had been first married to another man Jabbar of Rajapur; and that he had divorced her. After this the appellant Taser Pramanik wanted to (nika) marry her but she would not agree to it and subsequently s...
Asia Khatun Vs. Amarendra Nath Basu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal578
Mohamad Akram, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to retain possession of the lands in suit so long as her claim for dower debt remains unsatisfied. Defendant 1 is the husband of the plaintiff and defendant 2 is the official receiver appointed upon the adjudication of defendant 1 as an insolvent. The case of the plaintiff was that she was married to defendant 1 about 26 years ago; that defendant 1 in consideration of the dower debt executed in her favour a kobala on 22nd December 1930, conveying to her the lands in suit and putting her in possession of the same; that defendant 2 was therefore not entitled to disturb her in her possession. Various defences to the suit were taken on behalf of defendant 2 namely : (1) that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter in view of Section 4, Provincial Insolvency Act; (2) that the decision by the Insolvency Court in case No. 10 of 1932 operated as a bar to the present ...
Mir Akhatar HossaIn Vs. Gurupada Haldar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal560
ORDEREdgley, J.1. In the suit with reference to which this rule arises the plaintiff is suing for a permanent injunction which will have She effect of restraining defendant 1, in that suit, Gurupada Haldar, from executing a decree obtained by him in Suit No. 54 of 1938 of the Additional Munsif's Court of Alipore. The plaintiff valued the relief claimed by him at Rs. 100, but the defendants claimed that this relief had been trader-valued with the result that, on 12th June 1939, the learned Munsif directed that an enquiry should be made under Section 8-C, Court-Fees Act, for the purpose of assessing the proper value of the subject-matter of the suit. In this order the learned Munsif pointed out that any decree which might be obtained by the plaintiff in the Title Suit No. 76 of 1939 would involve to all intents and purposes a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit land and that the valuation of the relief would therefore depend upon the value of the land. At a subsequent stage ...
Midnapore Zemindary Co. Ltd. Vs. Raja Bijoy Singh Dudhuria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal1
1. Touzi No. 523 of the Murshidabad Collectorate, which comprised pergunah Goas, was permanently settled in 1793 on the basis of the decennial settlement of 1789. It consisted of twelve huddas, each hudda being sub-divided into several tarafs of collection of villages. We are in this appeal concerned with village Udaynagore in taraf Udaynagore which is in hudda Ikuri. In 1799 Raja Debi Singh purchased the said touzi or zemindary at a sale for recovery of arrears of revenue. The zemindary ultimately devolved by succession on his descendant Raja Gopal Singh, Krishna Chandra Singh and Earn Chandra Singh. At a partition in or about the year 1830, Earn Chandra Singh got in his eight annas odd share six out of the twelve huddas, including hudda Ikuri. On 8th April 1836 he granted patni taluks of two mehals, to one Radhabullav Mukho-padhya (ex. 6 b(1), B 148). The first mehal, which comprised taraf Udaynagore with. some exceptions, was let out at an annual patni rent of Rs. 1852-0-11 (sicca =...
Akshoy Kumar Saha Vs. Naba Kumar Singh Dhuduria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal346
ORDEREdgley, J.1. In this case, the petitioner is the sole proprietor of the firm of Messrs. Chandra Nath Ananda Mohan Akshoy Kumar Saha and the rule is directed against an order made by Mr. H.K. De, Fourth Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, on 29th November 1939, under which the learned Magistrate directed that certain currency notes should be returned to the complainant Naba Kumar Singh Dudhuria. It appears that the complainant represented the firm of Budh Singh Dudhuria with which firm the petitioner had transacted money lending business for some years. Certain employees of the complainant's firm were prosecuted under Section 408, I.P.C., in respect of a sum of Rs. 21,000 which sum had been withdrawn by a person named Kekab Chand Bucha, the manager of the complainant's firm, from the Eastern Bank and had been misappropriated by him. The other two employees of the complainant's firm, who were prosecuted in respect of this transaction, were discharged but Rekab Chand Bucha pleaded guilt...
Tolaram Champalal Vs. Jewanram Gangaram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal39
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This is an application on the part of the defendants for an order staying the suit under the provisions of Section 19, Arbitration Act. The claim is one for damages said to have been occasioned by the failure of the defendants to deliver 19 out of 21 cases of piecegoods, which the defendants had sold to the plaintiff under a contract in writing dated 29th December 1938. Shipment under the contract was expressed to be 'June-July 1939, via Rangoon.' It is common ground that the piecegoods in question were of Japanese manufacture. On 21st September 1939, the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs as follows:We have been informed by our supplier's representative that on account of the very unsettled international situation they are unable to give definite information as regards the shipment of the goods relating to the contract above-mentioned. We draw attention to Clause 6 of the contract and make it clear that we are not in any way liable for late arrival of the goods.2...
Manager, Radhika Mohan Roy Wards Estate, in Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1940
Reported in: [1940]8ITR460(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C. J. - In this assessment the assessee was assessed on a certain sum which was interest derived from securities, house properties and other sources. The assessee also had a considerable agricultural income amounting to Rs. 72,600 which, as it was agricultural income, was not included in the assessment. The Income-tax Officer, however, included in the assessment a sum of Rs. 2,841 as interest on arrear rents collected from agricultural tenants under the provisions of Section 67 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. 1885 which is as follows :'An arrear of rent shall bear simple interest at the rate of six and a quarter per cent. per annum from the expiration of that quarter of the agricultural year in which the instalment falls due to the date of payment or of the institution of the suit whichever date is earlier.'The simple question is - is the sum of Rs. 2,841, which is interest on rents in arrear collected from agricultural tenants, agricultural income, and so not assessable under t...
Mussammat Hashen Banu Bibi and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1940
Reported in: [1940]8ITR482(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C. J. - In this matter Mussammat Hashen Banu Bibi obtained a Rule against the Commissioner of Income-tax Bengal, which is very lengthy in its terms. Its purpose was that he should state a case with regard to certain legal points which are said to arise out of an husband the late Khan Bahadur Hafez Mohammad Hossain, for the year of assessment 1937-38. The return of income made by the deceased showed a net loss of Rs. 45,032.The deceased carried on a general merchants business and apparently also held quantities of stocks and shares which he sold and with the proceeds brought other stocks and shares. Apparently he used the stocks and shares like other commodities in his business.On July 21, 1938, the Income-tax Officer of Dacca made an assessment upon the deceased in respect of the business. The deceased made a return which showed a loss of Rs. 99,071. We are told that this result was arrived at by bringing forward the valuation of the closing stocks for 1342 B. S. as the fig...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »