Kolkata Court February 1943 Judgments
Upendranath Vs. Durlav Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal334
ORDERGentle, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the plaintiffs that some terms of settlement which were made between the parties should be recorded and a decree passed in accordance with them. The defendants, who are the respondents, originally relied upon two grounds against the prayers in the application being granted (i)that the terms were not finally agreed between the parties, and (ii) that even in the event of the terms being agreed, the agreement was made in mistaken belief of the legal rights of the defendants under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. Reference to some facts is now required. This is a mortgage suit in which a final decree has been passed. On 17th July 1941 the plaintiffs made an application to this Court that the Registrar be directed to sell some of the premises, the subject-matter of the mortgage, and that prices at which he should sell should be fixed. At that time it was alleged, and it is not disputed, that under the terms of the decree sums approximate to...
Tag this Judgment!Golam MahiuddIn Vs. Hrishikesh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal319
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the judgment-debtor and arises in connexion with an application for review filed by the appellant under the provisions of Section 36 (6), Bengal Money-Lenders Act. As there was some doubt as to the competency of the appeal there is an alternative application in revision. My own view is that the appeal is competent and that has not been challenged on behalf of the decree-holder. The position is this: It is now well-settled that, if the application of the petitioner had been rejected by the Munsif, the remedy would have been by way of revision. The application was, however, successful. The decree was reopened and a new decree was passed. It is also well-settled that the respondent was entitled to appeal against the new decree. He did so with the result that the new decree was set aside and the original decree has been restored. Certainly the practical effect of that is that the original application has been rejected. The lower appellate Court, however, h...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Krishna Vs. Amrita Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal322
1. These appeals arise out of a mort gage suit brought by the appellants on 16th July 1937, against the respondent. The mortgage loan was Rs. 15,500; the date of the loan was 13th August 1934; the rate of interest in the bond was nine per cent, per annum. There was an ex parte preliminary decree on 28th February 1938; this was set aside, on the applica tion of the respondent, and another ex parte preliminary decree was made on 7th September 1938; this also was subsequently set aside, and a third ex parte preliminary decree was made on 1st March 1939. This was followed by a final decree on 24th April 1939, in execution of which the mortgaged property was sold to the decree-holders on 15th May 1940. Before the date fixed for confirmation of the sale, the respondent took various other proceedings which need not be recapitulated here. Ultimately, on 4th June 1941, the Subordinate judge reopened the decree under Section 36, Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940 and passed a new decree 'for the pri...
Tag this Judgment!Muzafar Ahmed Vs. Indra Kumar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal40
1. The plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal arises prayed for a declaration of their raiyati right in certain lands and for khas possession of the same after demolishing certain huts, which were situated thereon. The suit was contested by defendant 5 only. This defendant asserted that some of the lands formed part of a wakf property which had been dedicated by his ancestor, Md. Sami, by a deed dated Agrahayan 17, 1272 B.S., and the substantial question in issue between the parties in the suit was whether the lands in question were wakf property or not. In the Court of first instance notice was served upon the Commissioner of Wakfs after written statement of defendant 5 has been filed. After a number of adjournments the Commissioner of Wakfs appeared on 26th November 1938, by a vakalatnamah and applied for time for filing a written statement. Time was allowed for this purpose and the learned Munsif reserved his decision on the question whether the Commissioner of Wakfs was a ...
Tag this Judgment!Murshidabad Loan Office Ltd. Vs. Satish Chandra Chakravarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal440
1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff, the Murshidabad Loan Office Ltd., which is a registered company having its head office at Nashipur in the district of Murshidabad and the suit out of which it arises was commenced by the appellant for recovery, from both the defendants, of a sum of Rs. 60 odd only alleged to be payable as unpaid call money in respect of certain shares. Defendant 2, Sarat Kumari Debi, is the registered holder of the shares in the books of the company while defendant 1, Satish Chandra Chakravarti is her husband. The plaintiff's case was that the wife was a mere benamidar for the husband in respect to these shares and there was a prayer in the plaint for a decree against both the husband and the wife. There was another question raised in the suit regarding the legality of a certain resolution which was passed at a general meeting of the share-holders held on 28th October 1934. It appears that the company had entered into a scheme of composition with its credit...
Tag this Judgment!Shek Basaraddi and ors. Vs. Kroshali Taluqdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal67
Pal, J.1. This appeal is by the defendants in a suit for the recovery of possession of a plot of land on declaration of the plaintiff's title thereto, and also for the recovery of rs. 60 as the price of the plaintiff's share of the produce for three years. The land in suit measures about three kanis. Admittedly, it belonged to one Govinda. Govinda died leaving a widow and a will. The widow as executrix of this will sold the land to the plaintiff on 29th Falgun 1326 B.S. The plaintiff's title to this land by this purchase is no longer in dispute. Admittedly, the land has been in possession of the defendants from the time of their predecessor, Sk. Ahadi. The plaintiff's case is that Sk. Ahadi came on the land on a labour contract under a registered kabuliyat, dated 29th Magh 1299 B.S. (10th February 1893). The term of the contract expired in Kartic 1301 B.S. Ahadi, however, continued to cultivate the land as a labourer on the same terms till his death, and since his death, his heirs, the...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Chandra Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal319a
ORDEREdgley, J.1. The petitioners in this case were convicted on a summary trial of an offence under Section 323, Penal Code. The main point which has been urged by the learned advocate for the petitioners is that the conviction should be set aside and a retrial ordered owing to the failure on the part of the learned Magistrate to comply with the provisions of Section 256 (1), Criminal P.C. Admittedly, the witnesses for the prosecution were cross-examined immediately after their evidence-in-chief had been taken on 22nd August 1942. No adjournment was granted as contemplated by Section 256 (1) of the Code, nor did the learned Magistrate record any reasons in writing for having the witnesses cross-examined forthwith. At the same time, the petitioners were re-presented by a pleader at the trial and no objection appears to have been raised to the procedure which was adopted by the learned Magistrate.2. It is argued by the learned advocate that this defect of procedure cannot be treated as ...
Tag this Judgment!Gourisankar Sukul and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Wakfs, Objector and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal240
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The petitioners in these rules are three persons to wit Gouri Sankar Sukul, Goonganarayan Sukul and Joynarayan Sukul who are the proprietors of a certain estate in the district of Tippera, under which there was a sikmi taluk governed by Regulation 8 of 1819. In 1918 the petitioners brought a rent suit in the Court of the third Subordinate Judge at Comilla against the then patnidars for recovery of arrears of rent due in respect of the sikmi taluk and in execution of the decree which they obtained in that suit, the tenure was put up to sale and was purchased by opposite parties 2 and 3. The purchasers took delivery of possession of the tenure after their purchase and continued to be in possession since then paying rents to the petitioners. In 1935, the petitioners filed a rent suit against opposite parties 2 and 3 in the Court of the first Munsif at Chandpur for recovery of rent of the tenure for the years 1338 to 1341 B.S. and obtained a decree. In execution of thi...
Tag this Judgment!Official Trustee Vs. L. Chippendale
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal335
Gentle, J.1. This suit arises out of a deed of settlement dated 11th June 1928 purporting to create a trust, which deed was executed by the late Thomas Sansoni to whom reference hereafter can conveniently be made as 'the settlor'. The settlor was twice married. By his first marriage he had two daughters,, the defendant and Miss Phyllis Anne Sansoni, and one son named Paul. The issue by his second marriage was one daughter, Hope Enid, now Mrs. Douglas. The settlor separated from his second wife about 30 years, ago. It has been stated that the second wife died in. July 1939, a few weeks after the death of the settlor. After he had separated from his wife he lived, with a Miss Daisy Mackintosh, who was known, as Mrs. Thomas, and by whom he had three children. Miss Mackintosh lived in Calcutta, and the relationship between her and the settlor continued for about 30 years. For the major portion of this time the settlor stayed each week end with Miss Mackintosh,|but from the year 1935, about...
Tag this Judgment!inland Revenue Commissioners Vs. D. H. Williams Executors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1943
Reported in: [1943]11ITR84(Cal)
Their Lordships took time for consideration.LORD GREENE, M.R. - It is conceded in this appeal that if the sum in question was not of a nature to attract income-tax in the hands of the company it cannot be taxed in the hands of the shareholder, whose executors are the appellants, either for income-tax or for surtax. The sole question, therefore, which we have to consider is whether or not this sum was in the hands of the company a receipt on capital account, or a receipt on revenue account. The fact that the company has agreed to have it treated as between itself and the Inland Revenue as a receipt on revenue account cannot bind the present appellants, who are not affected by the view which the company may have taken.The difficulty lies, as it does so often, in the application of principles to the facts of an individual case; and in this class of case, different minds may well take different views. I have come to the conclusion that the decision of Macnaghten, J., was right. The first t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »