Kolkata Court December 1941 Judgments
Sashi Bhusan Misra and ors. Vs. Madhu Sudan Mondal S/O Lalu Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal522
ORDER1. This rule is directed against an order made by the Munsif, Second Court, Contai, allowing an application of the mortgagor, opposite party, for restoration of possession of the mortgaged property under Section 26 (G)(5), Ben. Ten. Act. Two points have been taken before us by the learned advocate who appears on behalf of the mortgagees, petitioners. It is contended in the first place that Section 26G (5), Ben. Ten. Act, is ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature and consequently cannot create any rights in the mortgagor. The second point taken is that as there was a previous application under Section 26G (5) presented by the mortgagor before a revenue Officer which was dismissed for default, a fresh application to a civil Court is not maintainable.2. So far as the first point is concerned, it is concluded by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Akbar Ali v. Mafizuddi : AIR1942Cal55 . It cannot be disputed that the mortgage in question is a pure usufructuary mortgag...
Tag this Judgment!Noor Jehan Begum Vs. Eugene Tiscenko
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal325
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Edgley J., dated 3rd January 1941 ('41) 28 A.I.R. 1941 Cal. 582 dismissing the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiff asked for a declaration that her marriage with the defendant stands dissolved, alternatively a decree of dissolution of her marriage. The plaintiff-appellant, who sues as Noor Jehan Begum, was born in Poland. She married the defendant-respondent Eugene Tiscenko, a Russian subject (at present said to be residing at Edinburgh in Great Britain) on 20th May 1931, in Berlin according to civil rites. The parties lived together at various places in Europe until June 1938 and had one son Oleg. The plaintiff and the defendant last resided together Jn Rome from which place the plaintiff came to Calcutta while the defendant went to Edinburgh to qualify himself for a British Medical Degree. The plaintiff arrived in Calcutta on or about 1st September 1938 where she has resided ever since; the defendant has not joined her. The plai...
Tag this Judgment!Asrab Ali Sirkar and ors. Vs. Pioneer Bank, Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal228
Sen, J.1. This rule arises out of an application under the Bengal Money-lenders Act. The petitioners were the executants of a promissory note for Rs. 1500. The interest payable on the promissory note was 10 1/2 per cent. per annum with six monthly rests. A decree was passed against the petitioners for the amount of the hand note with interest as stipulated therein. The petitioners have now applied for relief under the Bengal Money-lenders Act on the ground that the interest decreed exceeds the limits prescribed by Section 30, Bengal Money-lenders Act. The Court below finds that the amount of interest is in excess of the limits prescribed by the Act. The learned Judge however said that as the difference was very negligible he refused to grant relief under the Act, This reason, in our opinion, is unsound. When the interest decreed is in excess of the limits prescribed by Section 30 of the Act, the Court is bound to grant relief whether the excess is slight or not. We accordingly set asid...
Tag this Judgment!Hiranmoy Bhaduri Vs. Probal Kumar Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal338
Pal, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is in a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C. The plaintiff instituted Suit No. 561 of 1931 in the Original Side of this Court. The defendant in that suit was described : 'Pramatha Nath Pramanik and Anukul Chandra Pramanik, a firm carrying on business at Ghurni and Goari in the District of Nadia, traders and landholders.' The suit was decreed on 24th July 1931, against the defendant firm as described above.2. The plaintiff's case in the present suit is that Protap Chandra Pramanik, Nilmani Pramanik and Hari Charan Pramanik were three brothers living jointly at Ghurni, that the brothers had a joint business which descended to their heirs; that Pramatha Nath Pramanik was the second son of Nilmani and Anukul is the son of Pratap; that after several successive deaths in the family, the above family business was carried on by Pramatha and Anukul as kartas on behalf of the family and that while thus carrying on the above family business they purchase...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumari Baishnabi D/O Chandra Nath Paramanick Vs. Mirja SamsuddIn a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal330
Pal, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant in a suit for ejectment after service of notice to quit. The case of the plaintiff is as follows. The defendant Raj Kumari Baisnabi holds 4 bighas of land under the plaintiffs as a tenant-at-will at an annual rental of Rs. 4. The land appertains to a touzi belonging to the plaintiffs and is in the Shilliguri town. The plaintiffs served a written notice on the defendant on 11th Aswin, 1341 B.S., asking her to quit the same after removing the structures constructed by her thereon by the end of Kartick 1341 B.S. The plaintiffs' case is that in spite of this notice, she did not quit the land and consequently the present suit was instituted on 9th May 1935. The defence case is that the tenancy is a permanent one and that in any case the defendant has acquired an occupancy right in the tenancy under Act 10 of 1859, which Act is applicable to this particular tenancy. Her further case is that the notice served on her was inadequate for the purpose of d...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendranath Banerjee Vs. Makhan Lal Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal401
Mohammad Akram, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for partition and separate allotment of his eight annas share in the suit lands The plaintiff's case was that the lands belonged to his great grand-father Nemai Churn Banerjee, that on his death it was inherited by his two sons Pitam-bar and Kalikumar in equal shares: that Kalikumar's interest devolved upon his son Becharam and on Becharam's death his two sons, the plaintiff and Tarak came to be the owners: that by amicable partition with the son of Tarak the plaintiff became entitled to the entire eight annas share of the suit lands: that the remaining eight annas share of Pitambar ultimately came to defendants 1 to 11 in the course of succession and by transfers: that in spite of repeated demands the defendants bad failed to partition the property amicably. Defendants 1, 2 and 9 to 11 appeared, and various objections relating to extent of share, misdescription of the property, want of title, limitation etc. were t...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Banerjee Vs. Baidyanath Roy Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal483
1. The Madhabpashwa estate of which the respondents are the proprietors was involved in debts. One of their creditors, a mortgagee, had instituted in 1927 a suit against them to recover his dues which was a heavy one (Suit No. 40 of 1927 of the first Court of the Subordinate Judge, Barisal). Two other creditors had started two execution proceedings (Nos. 4 and 10 of 1927) in that Court. In that suit and in those execution proceedings the appellant, a retired judicial officer, was appointed receiver on 3rd September 1927, on his furnishing security for Rs. 10,000 and on executing a security bond. The Court of Wards assumed charge of the Madhabpashwa estate in the early part of 1929 and the appellant was discharged from his office as receiver on 20th January 1929. He submitted his accounts to the Court which had appointed him, but instead of directing a ministerial officer of the Court to check his accounts the learned Subordinate Judge appointed the manager of the Court of Wards to chec...
Tag this Judgment!Croft Inspector of Taxes Vs. Sywell Aerodrome Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1941
Reported in: [1942]10ITR96(Cal)
NOV 11,12; Dec. 17, 1941LORD GREENE, M. R. [His Lordship stated the facts and after saying that he could not follow the argument of the counsel for the Crown, continued :] If the argument had been that the respondents were carrying on the business of granting leases and licences of an aerodrome which they had constructed I could have understood it. But it would not have assisted me to solve the question which is before us, namely, whether or not profits derived from such transactions are exclusively taxed under Schedules A and B. To assert that the respondents are carrying on a business, and therefore are liable to tax under Schedule D. is to beg the question. But I shall have to consider in the course of this judgment certain services performed by the respondents. They are (1) the services of their groundsman whose function is to keep the surface of the landing-ground in good order; (2) the provision of first-aid appliances and tools under a condition contained in the licence from the...
Tag this Judgment!Latilla Vs. Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1941
Reported in: [1942]10ITR75(Cal)
NOV. 11, 12. DEC. 16, 1941.December 16. - LORD GREENE, M. R. - The judgment which I am about to read is the judgment of the Court.The questions raised by this appeal are short and the answers to them do not, in our judgment, admit of doubt. They arise in the Finance Act, 1936, Section 18 : 'For the purpose of preventing the avoiding by individuals ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom of liability to income-tax by means of transfers of assets by virtue or in consequence whereof, either alone or in conjunction with associated operations, income becomes payable to persons resident or domiciled out of the United Kingdom, it is hereby enacted as follows :- (1) Where such an individual as by means of any such transfer, either alone or in conjunction with the meaning of this section, power to enjoy, whether or with or in the future, any income of a person resident or domiciled out of the United Kingdom which, if it were income of that individual received by him in the United Kingdom, wou...
Tag this Judgment!SamiruddIn Maltey Vs. Naba Kumar Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal224
ORDER1. After hearing the learned advocates on both sides we are of opinion that this rule should be made absolute. We think that the Court below was not right in holding that the suit was not one to which the Act applied and consequently the Court had no jurisdiction to reopen the decree under the provisions of Section 36, Bengal Moneylenders Act. The suit was one to enforce a mortgage by conditional sale and it was instituted sometime in the year 1933. It culminated in a compromise decree passed in the same year and under the terms of the compromise the mortgage money was payable in certain instalments and the further provision was that in default in payment of any one of the instalments the entire sum would become due and the mortgagee would be entitled to recover possession of the mortgaged property by taking out execution. It is admitted that the judgment-debtor paid the first four instalments in proper time. There was default in the year 1938. After certain proceedings before the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »