Kolkata Court April 1943 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.
Raleigh Investment Co., Ltd. Vs. Governor-general in Council.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1943
Reported in: [1943]11ITR393(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - This matter originally came before McNair, J., who referred it to the Chief Justice, under rule 3 of Chapter V of the Original Side Rules which is as follows :-'Where it shall appear to any judge at any stage of a suit, application or other matter, that it involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1935, or any order in council made thereunder, he shall report to that effect to the Chief Justice, who shall constitute a Bench of two or more judges to hear the suit, application or other matter.'Put shortly the plaintiffs claim that certain provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 as amended by the Income-tax Act of 1939 are beyond the law making powers of the Indian central Legislature and that in consequence certain money they have paid under protest to the Government of India as income tax under the protest to the Government of India as income tax under the said provision was not legally payable by them; the...
Smt. Brindarani Debi Vs. Co-operative Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal1
1. The plaintiff claims the amount due on a policy of insurance on the life of her deceased husband Sudhir Chunder Mullick. Mr. Mulliek died intestate on 10th February 1941. The defendant, the Co-operative Assurance Co. Ltd., denies liability on the ground that the policy lapsed on 20th January 1941, for non-payment of premium. They say that it was revived by the insurance company on 5th February 1941 on the faith of a declaration by the assured that he was free from any disease. On the death of the assured it appeared that he was suffering from tuberculosis and the doctor who signed the certificate has repor. ted that he had been suffering from this disease for the previous six months. The medical report is not disputed, and the plaintiff does not rely on the declaration made by or on behalf of her deceased husband. She contends however that the policy did not lapse on the ground that payment of the premium was within the days of grace allowed by the policy. The defendant company carr...
Bhowani Mohan Joarder Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal382
Roxburgh, J.1. This Rule arises out of an Order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Pabna, fining the petitioner the sum of Rupees 10 and sentencing him in default to simple imprisonment for one week under the provisions of Section 480, Criminal P.C. for a contempt of his Court. The facts are briefly that the petitioner, who is a muktear, was arguing a certain matter relating to the forfeiture of a bond when it was pointed out that he had not filed any muktearnama and therefore could not appear. The muktear interrupted and insulted the Court by saying that this would be seen in a higher Court. The Magistrate thereupon drew up proceedings and passed the Order above mentioned. An appeal was lodged before the Sessions Judge of Pabna who held that no appeal lay. The main point pressed before us is that the Order of the learned Sessions Judge is incorrect in holding that no appeal lay. The matter turns on the interpretation to be given to Section 486, Criminal P.C. Clause (1) ...
Uday Chand Mahatab Bahadur of Burdwan Vs. Phanindra Lal Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal384
1. This appeal is by the decree-holder, and raises a question with regard to the interpretation of Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act. The sale was held on 22nd February 1941. The new section came into force on 9th January 1941. The judgment-debtor filed an application asking that the sale be set aside on the ground that it was a nullity in view of the provisions of the new section. This application succeeded. The decree-holder appealed. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal both on the merits and on the ground that it was incompetent. I am bound to say that I do not understand how it could be held that the appeal was incompetent. The application of the respondent was made under the provisions of Section 47, Civil P.C. The Order made by the Munsif was appealable as a decree.2. Tho question involves the application of Sub-section (2) of Section 168A. The execution case was filed on 16th December 1940. The Order for attachment was made on 17th December 1940 and the attachment was actu...
Raja Kamla Ranjan Roy Vs. BepIn Behary Sadhkhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal34
ORDERDas, J.1. This application for review of taxation raises a question of principle which appears to be of some interest and importance to the profession and the litigants. The suit out of which this application arises was a mortgage suit. After some proceedings the suit terminated and the defendant was directed to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff as between attorney and client. There were certain proceedings in the suit the costs of which, however, were not directed to be paid by the defendant. As the defendant desired to settle and pay costs payable by him without taxation the plaintiff's attorneys Messrs. Kar, Mehta & Co., made out a complete bill of costs including (a) items of charges payable by the defendant as between attorney and client, (b) items of charges payable by the plaintiff as between attorney and client (pure)' in respect of the very proceedings for which the defendant had been ordered to pay ordinary attorney and client costs and (c) items. of charges in ...
H.V. Low and Co. Ltd. Vs. Kumar Pashupati Nath Maliah and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal69
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Das J. given on 9th December 1942. The plaintiffs, H. V. Low & Co. Ltd., applied for an order that the Receiver appointed by an order of this Court made in the present suit might be directed to take possession forthwith of the properties charged under a consent order made by this Court on 22nd July 1936, that the Court of Wards should be directed to afford all facilities to the Receiver for that purpose, and that the Receiver should sell the properties in execution of the order, and there was an application for other incidental reliefs. Das J. refused that application. Prom his refusal this appeal is brought. This suit was begun in 1924. The plaintiffs were at that time the managing agents of some collieries which belonged to Raja Pramatha Nath Maliah, the collieries I understand being situated on the land of the Raja. The plaintiffs lent to the Raja a sum of four lacs of rupees for the purpose of working or developing the collier...
Smt. Khatun Jinnat Sahebani W/O RehanuddIn Patari and anr. Vs. Isha Pr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal44
Rau, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs in a suit brought by them for recovery of possession of a raiyati holding. The holding originally belonged, to one Ana Mia, who held it, as. to 12 annas, under defendants 1 to 3, and as to the remaining 4 annas, under defendant 17. After Ana Mia's death, by successive devolutions, 7 annas odd of the raiyati interest passed to defendant 11 and 4 gundas odd to defendant 9. On 19th May 1922, plaintiff 1 purchased the interest of defendant 11. This was before raiyati holdings were transferable under the Bengal Tenancy (Amendment) Act of 1928. Then, on 25th January 1930-after the aforesaid Act-plaintiffs 1 and 2 purchased the interest of defendant 9. Under the raiyati holding, plaintiff 2 and one Aminulla had the entire under-raiyati interest, and they were in possession through certain bargadars who had executed kabuliyats in their favour. In 1931, defendants 1 to 3 brought a rent suit against defendants 4 to 14 (making defendant 17 a pro forma de...
Kartick Chandra Mallik and anr. Vs. Rani Harsha Mukhi Dasi, Executrix ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal345
ORDERB.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffs and the suit was one commenced by them to set aside a revenue sale, and in the alternative for a declaration that their putni interest, under the estate sold, was not in any way affected by the sale and could not be annulled. The facts are not disputed and lie within a narrow compass. Touzi No. 335 of the 24-Pargannas Colleetorate which belonged to certain deities named Sri Sri Gopi Nath Jew and others was sold for non-payment of arrears of revenue on 23rd September 193C. There was a putni created under this estate as well as estates Nos. 1078 and 1233 of the 24-Pargan-nas Colleetorate, which also belonged to the deities, in favour of the predecessors of the present plaintiffs, by a registered kabuliyat dated 5th Aswin 1314 B.S. The plaintiffs who are the present putnidars instituted this suit, and their allegations in substance were that the revenue sale was premature and without jurisdiction and that there were vari...
Moulvi Ali HossaIn Mian and ors. Vs. Rajkumar Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal417
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendants, and it arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiffs to enforce a right of pre-emption in respect to certain lands which are described in Schedule (ga) to the plaint. The material facts lie within a short compass and are for the most part undisputed. The plaintiffs' case is that the lands of Schedule (ka) to the plaint constituted a raiyati holding which belonged to the plaintiffs as occupancy raiyats. A one-fourth share of this holding, which is described in Schedule (kha) was let out to defendant 6 as an under raiyat, but the latter by unfair means succeeded in getting his name recorded as a cosharer with the plaintiffs in respect to that one. fourth share. The plaintiffs thereupon in-stituted a suit against defendant 6, and to this suit one Nawab Ali and his wife defendant 7, in whose favour defendant 6 was said to have executed a kobala were made parties. The suit culminated in a compromise to which the plaintiffs ...
Muhammad Juman Mia Vs. Akali Mudiani W/O Shew Charan Kahar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal577
Pal, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff in a snit for recovery of possession on a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit land. The disputed land belonged to defendant 1 as appertaining to his jote bearing a rent of Rs. 19-2-0. He mortgaged the suit land to one Jeotram Goala on 32nd Jaistha 1338 B.S. Thereafter on 21st Baisakh 1334 B.S., he again mortgaged it to one Mathur Lai Ram. Both these were simple mortgages and the mortgagor retained the possession of the mortgaged properties. Jeotram Goala, the first mortgagee, sold his mortgage interest to one Amolak Chand Oswal in the benami of one Jugraj. Both the mortgagees instituted suits in enforcement of their respective mortgages in 1932. There is no definite evidence on the record to show the dates of institution of these suits. Both the suits wera instituted in the first Court of Munsif, Gaibandha. The mortgage suit by Mathur Lai, the second mortgagee, was Suit No. 465 of 1932 and the one by Amolak Chand Oswal, the first m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »