Kolkata Court June 1941 Judgments
British American Tobacco Co Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners F a Clark ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1941
Reported in: [1942]10ITR67(Cal)
SCOTT, L. J. - This in an appeal by the taxpayer from a judgment of Lawrence, J., with regard to the measure of its liability to National Defence Contribution under the Finance Act, 1937. The operative provisions of Part III of that Act are these; Section 19, ' (1) There shall be charged, on the profits arising in each chargeable accounting period falling within the five years beginning on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, from any trade or business to which this section applies a tax (to be called the national defence contribution) of an amount equal to five per cent. of those profits in a case where the trade or business is carried on by a body corporate and four per cent. of those profits in any other case. (2) Subject as hereafter provided, the trades and businesses to which this section applies are all trades or businesses of any description carried on in the United Kingdom, or carried on, whether personally or through an agent, by persons ordinarily resid...
Tag this Judgment!Jnan Chandra Mukherjee Vs. Manoranjan Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal251
1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit commenced by him to recover a sum of Rs. 5000 alleged to be due as principal and interest on two hundis executed by the defendants in his favour. The material facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows: Defendants 1 and 2, who are two brothers took a loan of Rs. 2500 only from the plaintiff and executed two hundis in respect of the same-one on 12th August 1924, and the other on 14th August, following. Defendants 3 and 4 also signed both the hundis as co-debtors along with defendants 1 and 2 though, it is said, that they were only sureties for the latter. On 8th August 1927, a sum of Rs. 5 was paid towards interest due on the hundis. This amount was paid by all the four defendants and the endorsements were signed by them all. There were two other subsequent payments of interest one of Rs. 10 and the other of Rs. 5 on 20th April 1930 and 18th April 1933, respectively, but on both these occasio...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Ashalata Bose Vs. Manindra Nath Bose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal275
1. This appeal is on behalf of the decree-holder auction purchaser and it arises out of a proceeding commenced by the judgment-debtors to set aside an execution sale under Section 47 and Order 21 Rule 90, Civil P.C. The appellant obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 3550 against the respondents in Title Suit No. 19 of 1936 of the Court of the First Subordinate Judge at Howrah, and there was a declaration of charge in respect of the decretal dues upon certain properties specified in the decree. The decree-holder applied for execution of the decree by sale of some of the charged properties, and sale proclamation was issued fixing 10th January 1938, as the date of sale. On 3rd January 1938, a notice was received by the executing Court from the Debt Settlement Board at Sajipur, under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors' Act, requesting the Court to stay all further proceedings in execution. On account of this notice the sale could not be held on 10th January 1938, and on that date the de...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Manmatha Nath Bose and ors. Vs. Sm. Renula Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal681
Edgley, J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs are suing the defendants for relief under the provisions of the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940, in respect of a decree obtained against them on 12th June 1935 for Rs. 4,58,058-1-9. This was a consent decree which had been obtained by the Maharaja of Darbhanga in respect of the balance due to him on account of a loan of Rs. 6,00,000 advanced to the predecessors of the plaintiffs. The main reliefs which the plaintiffs seek are a declaration to the effect that they are not liable to pay to the defendants any amount in excess of the limits specified in the Bengal Money-lenders Act, and, in any event, in excess of Rs. 12,00,000 for principal and interest. They also ask for the re-opening of the abovementioned decree and the transactions connected therewith and for release from all further liabilities in respect thereof. The facts relating to this case are admitted by all the parties concerned and are briefly as follows: The principal parties to the s...
Tag this Judgment!Girija Prasanna Deb Gupta Vs. N.M. Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal257
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and the decree of the District Judge of Comilla, dated 23rd January 1939 reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Comilla, dated 23rd June 1938. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the appellant against the respondents for recovery of Rs. 2100 as damages. The facts about which there is no dispute in this appeal, are these:(1) Defendant 2 was appointed Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Brahmanberia Sub-Division in the district of Tippera, in April 1934. At that time there was a fund known as Momin Fund which was being run by an unregistered society of which the successive Sub-Divisional Officers of Brahmanberia were Presidents. After defendant 2 came to Brahmanberia as Sub-Divisional Officer, this unregistered society was registered under the name and style of Co-operative Muslim Education Society Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Society). Defendant 2 was elected president of this Society. Defendant 3, a Deputy M...
Tag this Judgment!Tatem Steam Navigation Co Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1941
Reported in: [1942]10ITR85(Cal)
CLAUSON, L. J. - I agree with my Lords judgment and also with that of Lawrence, J., who, if I may respectfully say so, dealt with the case with complete accuracy. In those circumstances I do not find it necessary to add observations of my own.GODDARD, L. J. - I agree with the judgments of Scott, L. J., and Lawrence, J., in their entirety....
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Nag Vs. Silchar Co-operative Town Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal290
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the judgment-debtor. A certain property was mortgaged by the appellant in favour of the Cachar Marine Fire and Life Insurance Company. Certain huts, the property of the appellant, standing on the land were not included in the mortgage. The appellant then executed a second mortgage in favour of the respondent. This mortgage included the huts. The first mortgagee instituted a proper mortgage suit and obtained a decree. Neither the appellant nor the respondent exercised their right to redeem and the property was purchased by the first mortgagee in execution of the decree. The result of this was that the huts, instead of being standing structures became worth nothing more than materials. The respondent did not institute any suit but applied to the Registrar of the Co-operative Credit Societies and obtained an award. He then put the award into execution in the Court of the Munsif. He first of all applied for the sale of the huts. This application was dismis...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Nath Sarkar and ors. Vs. Sonaulla Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal232
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the decree-holders. They obtained a decree under Section 66, Ben. Ten. Act. Under that decree the respondent could have saved himself from ejectment by paying the decretal amount into Court. He did not pay but went to a Debt Settlement Board. Notice under Section 34 of the Act was sent to the Court. The Munsif decided that he would stay the execution of the actual decree for rent but proceed with the execution of the decree for ejectment. The respondent appealed and the District Judge directed that the whole execution ease should be stayed. The question for determination is whether the Munsif was entitled to stay a part of the decree only. In support of the appeal, Mr. Sen Gupta attempted to cut the decree into two separate portions. In this connexion it is necessary to point out that the time specified in that decree had not elapsed and that when the respondent applied to the Board, he had still time to save himself from ejectment. Had the period of 3...
Tag this Judgment!Geo Miller and Co. Ltd. Vs. Pabna Motor Service
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal706
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule has been obtained by the decree-holder and it is directed against an order of the Munsif staying proceedings taken by the petitioner to execute a decree obtained by him against the opposite party. The petitioner is a Limited Liability Company carrying on a business in motor accessories in Calcutta. The opposite party, Pabna Motor Service, carries on transport business in the district of Pabna. Tyres and other motor accessories were from time to time supplied to the opposite party by the petitioner. Eventually, the petitioner obtained a decree in the Presidency Small Cause Court for Rs. 539-6-3. Some sums were paid, but eventually the decree was transferred to the Munsif's Court at Pabna to realise the balance due. The opposite party then applied to a Debt Settlement Board. Prima facie, this is the worst abuse of that Act which has hitherto come to my notice. How a company carrying on transport business with lorries and buses can masquerade as an agricultu...
Tag this Judgment!Anath Nath Sarkar Vs. Rajendra Nath Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal120
ORDER1. This rule is directed against an order dated 23rd November 1940 of the Subordinate Judge first Court, Howrah, made in an application under Section 36, Bengal Moneylenders Act. The Subordinate Judge came to the finding that the mortgage decree did allow the decree-holder interest in excess of what is permitted under Section 30, Bengal Moneylenders Act. By the order mentioned aforesaid he reduced the decretal dues by a sum of Rs. 127 which, according to him, was the excess amount allowed in contravention of Section 30, Bengal Money-lenders Act, and he has made proportionate alteration in the order for costs also. He has, however, refused to pass a new decree and has rejected the prayer for the instalments on the ground that such prayer could be made only before the decree was passed.2. In our opinion, the view taken by the Court below is not right. The Court can reopen a decree under Section 36 only if it is necessary to do so for the purpose of exercising any of the powers which...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »