Kolkata Court March 1941 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.
Kaiser Khan and ors. Vs. Khaja Abdul Ghani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal138
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff and arises out of a suit commenced by him for declaration of his title to the properties in suit on the basis of a purchase at a mortgage sale and for confirmation of possession in respect of the same. The material facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows : The property in suit is premises No. 6 Middle Road, Entally, situated in the suburbs of Calcutta and it belonged admittedly to one Asraf Serang. Asraf Serang mortgaged it to one Girish Das by an indenture of mortgage dated 14th May 1903 to secure an advance of Rs. 1000 only. On 20th September 1906, Asraf sold the property to one Abdul Aziz who in Ms turn mortgaged these premises along with certain other properties known as 'Harinbari' properties to one Abdul Gani, the defendant in this suit, as security for a loan of Rs. 2000. On 17th February 1914 Girish Das, the first mortgagee instituted a suit on the basis of his mortgage bond, and both As...
Deokinandan Dalmia Vs. Basantlal Ghanshyamdas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal527
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff alleges that on or about the 8th September 1939 it was orally agreed between the parties that the plaintiff would enter into contracts by way of gaming and wagering with the defendant firm for the purchase and sale of hessian and gunny bags. In pursuance of that agreement dealings commenced, with the result that the defendant firm has preferred a claim for Rs. 15,100 before the Tribunal of Arbitration, Bengal Chamber of Commerce. The plaintiff alleges that neither party ever intended that there should be any actual transfer of goods, that only differences were to be paid or received, and that all the transactions were wagering transaction, and as such are void, inoperative and unenforcible. He has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Tribunals, and says that they have no jurisdiction but that he has reasonable apprehension that if the con-tracts are left outstanding he may be caused serious injury. He claims a declaration that the tran...
Nirmal Chandra Banerjee and anr. Vs. Jyoti Prosad Bandopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal562
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. These two connected appeals are on behalf of defendants 1 and 2, and both of them arise out of one suit commenced by the plaintiff for a declaration that he was a validly appointed shebait of an idol named Sri Dhar Jew under a niyoga patra executed by a previous shebait. The plaintiff further prayed for the removal of defendants 1 and 2 who were the two existing shebaits of the idol from their office on grounds of misappropriation and neglect of duties, and claimed accounts against them. The facts are rather long, and so far as they are necessary for purposes of the present appeals, may be stated as follows : There is an idol named Sri Dhar Jew which was the ancestral family deity of one Harish Chandra Banerjee, a Hindu inhabitant of Bhadrakali in the district of Hooghly. Harish Chandra died, leaving behind him his three sons, to wit, Bidhu Bhusan, Priyanath and Karunamoy, and a grandson by a predeceased son named Kumud. In the year 1890 there was a deed of partiti...
Harsukdas Balkissendas Vs. Dhirendra Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal498
Derbyshire C.J.1. This is a matter referred to this Bench under Chap. 5, Rule 3 of the Original Side Rules. It is an application by the defendants in Suit No. 1895 of 1936 of the original civil jurisdiction of this Court for relief under the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940. On 1st June 1936, the applicants executed certain documents in the following form. I will take the first document; they are all alike in form and date.Rs. 2500. 83 Cossipore Road, Calcutta,1st June 1936.Sixty days after date without grace we promise to pay to Messrs. Hursookhdas Balkissendass or order at Calcutta the sum of rupees two thousand five hundred only for value received. Sd. Dhirendranath Boy.Sd. Girindranath Roy. Sd. Birendranath Roy.2. Across that document was written 'Accepted. Dhirendranath Roy, Girindranath Roy, Birendranath Roy'. The document was executed on a paper on which is engraved the form of a stamp for Rs. 2-4-0. The upper part of the stamp bears the word 'hundi'. In all seven documents, simil...
Kamala Kanta Chattopadhya Vs. Niharika Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal559
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the auction purchaser and is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge refusing to record a compromise under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P.C. The relevant facts are these : Respondent 2 obtained a decree for rent against respondent 1 and brought the holding to sale in execution. It was purchased by the appellant. Respondent 1 then made the usual application under Section 174, Ben. Ten. Act. While that application was pending, respondent 1 transferred her interest to two ladies who have been added as parties in this Court. The sale was set aside on 13th May 1939. The appellant appealed. While the appeal was pending, he entered into a compromise with respondent 1, by which the sale was to be restored and respondent 1 was to take away the money deposited in Court. The learned Subordinate Judge refused to record this compromise, because he thought that it was a fraud on the two ladies, the transferees of respondent 1. The difficulty has been c...
Bengal Flour Mills Co., Ltd., Vs. Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1941
Reported in: [1941]9ITR568(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - The Reference in the present case is concerned with the right and claim of a successor company to take advantage of the unabsorbed depreciation allowance of its predecessor.The facts are fully set out in the letter of Reference. The question that is asked is -'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income-tax officer was correct in law in refusing to carry forward the sum of Rs. 77,060 as unabsorbed depreciation into the 1938-39 assessment of the Bengal Flour Mills Company, Limited ?'This matter has been fully discussed in the Reference made in respect of the assessment of the Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited in which we have just given our opinion. Following on the opinion that we have given in that case and for the reasons we have given, the answer to the question asked here must be in the affirmative, namely, that the Income-tax Officer was correct in law in refusing to carry forward the sum of Rs. 77,060 as unabsorbed depreciation into the 19...
Sukumari Gupta and ors. Vs. Dhirendra Nath Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal643
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit raised by him on 16th March 1936, for recovery of Rs. 8000 as principal and interest on a bond (ex. 5) executed in his favour on 23rd July 1924 by defendant 20 as common manager appointed under Section 95, Ben. Ten. Act, of Sidhakati estate of which defendants 1 to 14 are proprietors. The bond in suit was executed for Rs. 4000 with the permission of the District Judge of Backergunj. Plaintiff's case is that out of this amount Rs. 2340 was set off against his dues from the Sidhakati estate (hereinafter referred to as the 'estate') on account of a loan taken by Kali Kumar Ganguli, the previous common manager of the estate, and that the balance, namely Rs. 1660, was paid in cash to defendant 20. Plaintiff's case further is that defendant 20 as common manager paid to the plaintiff interest on this bond from time to time and that on account of the payment of interest on this loan the claim on the bond in suit has not been barred b...
Indian Iron and Steel Company, Ltd., in Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1941
Reported in: [1941]9ITR539(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, at the request of the assessees, the Indian Iron and Steel Company, Limited, has stated a case under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922. The facts of the case are fully stated in the Reference to which are appended Annexure 'A', an agreement between the Bengal Iron Company, Limited, and the Indian Iron and Steel Company, Limited, for the transfer of the undertaking and assets of the former to the latter; Schedule I which was a scheme of arrangement agreed to by the shareholders of the Bengal Iron Company, Limited, and confirmed by the English Courts for the purpose of carrying out the transfer and, also, Schedule II which contains special resolutions of the Indian Iron and Steel Company, Limited, passed by that Companys shareholders for the furtherance of the transfer.Both the concerns carried on in a large way the business of iron smelters and founders and steel makers. The Bengal Iron Company was registered in E...
Ramprosad Lohia Vs. M.P. Patel
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal45
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sues the defendant for the recovery of Rs. 5311-14-3 due under a deed of assignment. The facts alleged are as follows; A joint family carrying on business as Goberdhonedas Murlidhar sold oil to the defendant, carrying on business as Manubhai Purshottam & Co., valued at Rs. 4630, in October 1937. Two members of the family carrying on the business of Goberdhonedas Murlidhar were adjudicated insolvent on 16th November 1937, and on 22nd July 1938 the Official Assignee at a public auction sold to the plaintiff the entirety of the outstandings of the business of Goberdhonedas Murlidhar, and by a deed of assignment dated 9th March he assigned and transferred, among other debts, the debt alleged to be due by the defendant to the insolvents.2. The defence is that no debt was owing at the time of the assignment. The defendant admits the delivery of the oil and says that for some time prior to 16th October 1937, the insolvents owed a firm named Hiral...
In Re: Indian Iron and Steel Go. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal268
Derbyshire, C.J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, at the request of the assessees, the Indian Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., has stated a case under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act of 1922. The facts of the case are fully stated in the reference to which are appended Annexure 'A' an agreement between the Bengal Iron Co., Ltd. and the Indian Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., for the transfer of the undertaking and assets of the former to the latter; Schedule I which was a scheme of arrangement agreed to by the share holders of the Bengal Iron Co., Ltd., and confirmed by the English Courts for the purpose of carrying out the transfer and also, Schedule II which contains special resolutions of the Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., passed by that company's share-holders for the furtherance of the transfer. Both the concerns carried on in a large way the business of iron smelters and founders and steel-makers. The Bengal Iron Co., was registered in England under the English Companies Act many years...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »