Kolkata Court June 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.
Emperor Vs. Muktar Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal306
Blank, J.1. The facts from which the present reference and appeal arise are stated conveniently in the following extract from the letter of reference:The prosecution case is that on the afternoon of Thursday, the 30th April last, four persons, viz., Hatem, Arshed, Abdul Aziz and Safiladdi were coming to Jaliaghata from Mithapur. When they came to the south-west of the house of one Kashem, in Jaliaghata, a party of armed men headed by one Seru attacked them. Arshed and Abdul Aziz fled into the house of Kasem unscathed. Hatem, Safiladdi and his brother Paban who came to their rescue, were injured with lejas. The injured men ran inside Kasem's house and took shelter in his hut. Hatem fell down on the door leading to the hatina of the hut. They were chased by the assailants. Hatem's mother came there running from her house which is close by and lamented over her son. Seru hurled a leja which struck Hatem's mother JarinaBibi. She at once fell dead there. The accused pleaded not guilty. They...
Baijnath Bajoria, in Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1943
Reported in: [1944]12ITR430(Cal)
GENTLE, J. - The applicant, Baijnath Bajoria, applied for registration of his firm on August 24, 1940. The Income-tax Officer refused registration. The assessee carried and on December 23, 1940, directed registration. On January 21, 1941, the Commissioner of Income-tax, purporting to act under the provisions of Section 33 (1) of the Income-tax Act in force at the time, called for the records of the proceedings relevant to the registration of the firm. On February 21, 1941, obviously with the intention of exercising his revisional jurisdiction, subject to what representations might be made on behalf of the assessee, the Commissioner directed notice to be given to him. On March 3, 1941, the assessee appeared through learned Advocate. Finally on April 17, 1941, the Commissioner passed an order which in effect, reversed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the decision of the Income-tax Officer who had refused registration.The relevant matters which transpired dur...
Krishana Hydraulic Press Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal116
Gentle, J.1. Prior to the month of March 1938, a firm named Jaidayal Sagarmal carried on a business of jute, hemp press, oil mills and iron foundry in Benares. The applicants, Krishna Hydraulic Press Ltd., were incorporated on 3rd March 1938, the main purpose of the company being to take over and purchase as a going concern the business of Jaidayal Sagarmal together with all land, buildings, machinery, and other appurtenances attached thereto. After the company's incorporation, a sale deed was executed on 4th March 1938, by which, in consideration of sum of one lac of rupees, the company obtained immovable properties consisting of land, buildings, fixed machinery and other immovable properties of the mill and press and other legal incidents together with the goodwill of the business and the right to use the name of Krishna Mill and Press and benefit of all contracts and all legal incidents of the Krishna Mills. The company has carried on that business ever since it was acquired on 4th ...
Dwijendra Nath Talukdar and anr. Vs. Makhon Lal Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal564
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule raises substantial points of law and I directed that notice should be Served upon the Crown for them to appear. Mr. Sen has duly appeared and has shown t cause against the rule. In this he has been joined by Mr. Lahiri appearing on behalf of the complainant. The petitioners have been convicted of defamation. Briefly the prosecution case is that they have been making allegations on various occasions and to various persons about the chastity of the complainant's wife. The first ground upon which the rule was pressed was that the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence in view of the provisions of Section 198, Criminal P.C., as the person defamed was the wife and not the complainant. What the section lays down is that the complaint must be made by some person aggrieved. While it excludes complaints by busy bodies and mischief-makers, it does not say that the complaint can only be made by the person defamed. The question therefore is wheth...
Sk. KhabiruddIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal644
Lodge, J.1. This is an appeal against conviction and sentence on a charge of dacoity. The appellant Sk. Khabiruddin and three others were placed on their trial before the f Sessions Judge of Midnapore on a charge of dacoity. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in respect of all four accused. They found two accused Sk. Hinu and Sk. Sham, sher not guilty, and they found the remain, ing two accused Sk. Khabiruddin and Sk. Abdul guilty of the offence of dacoity. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the unanimous verdict, acquitted the accused Sk. Hinu and Sk. Shamsher, convicted Sk. Khabiruddin and Sk. Abdul of the offence of dacoity, and sentenced each of them under Section 395, Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years. Sk. Khabiruddin is the sole appellant 9 in this appeal.2. The case for the prosecution is as follows: There was a dacoity in the house of Amarendra Nath Roy of Satdubi within the jurisdiction of Keshpur Police Station at about 1 A. M. on Sunday 20th Apri...
Krishna Hydraulic Press Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1943
Reported in: [1943]11ITR504(Cal)
GENTLE, J. - Prior to the month of March, 1938, a firm named Jaidayal Sagarmal carried on a business of jute, hemp press, oil mills and iron foundry in Benares. The applicants, Krishna Hydraulic Press Ltd., were incorporated on March 3, 1938, the main purpose of the company being to take over and purchase as a going concern the business of Jaidayal Sagarmal together with land, buildings, machinery, and other appurtenances attached thereto. After the companys incorporation a sale deed was executed on March 4 , 1938, by which, in vonsideration of a sum of one lac of rupees, the company obtained immovable properties consisting of land, buildings, fixed machinery and other immovable properties of the mill and press and other legal incidents together with the good will of the business and the right to use the name of Krishna Mills and Press and benefit of all contracts and all legal incidents of the Krishan Mills. The company has carried on that business ever since it was acquired on March ...
Dharanidhar Jana and anr. Vs. Kedar Nath Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal48
ORDERHenderson, J.1. The question raised in this rule is the legality of a certain distraint. Petitioner 1 was in arrears with his chowkidari tax. The Collecting Panchayet issued a warrant for the realisation of the arrears to the complainant, who is one of the chowkidars. Petitioner 1 refused to pay. The chowkidar then attached two cows and the petitioners forcibly took them away from him. They have been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 186, Penal Code. As the rule raised substantial questions of law, I directed notice to be given to the Crown and Mr. Dutta has appeared to show cause against the rule. It appears that there is enmity between petitioner 1 and the collecting Panchayet. Of course, if the distraint was legally valid, the motive actuating the collecting Panchayet in taking coercive steps is quite irrelevant. The legality of the distraint has been attacked on two grounds : (1) that the warrant includes a sum not due and (2) that the collecting Panchayet has n...
In Re: Babu Mohan Lal Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal370
ORDER1. The District Magistrate of Jessore had published an order in terms of Rule 56 of the Defence of India Rules prohibiting public processions for a period beginning from August 1942, and ending January 1943. In contravention of the order so promulgated by the District Magistrate, Mr. Mohan Lai Chatterjee, a pleader, practising at Jessore took out a procession. He was convicted by the Court of first instance for contravening the order passed under B. 56 of the Defence of India Rules, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that Mr. Mohan Lai Chatterji did take part in the public procession, which had been taken out without the permission of the District Magistrate. He, however, came to the conclusion that the procession was an orderly and a peaceful one. He upheld the conviction, but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, which was only three days. As Mr. Chatterji i...
In Re: Babu Monotoshan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal371
ORDER1. The pleader concerned in this case is Mr. Monotoshan Roy, a pleader who practises at Ghatal. He was convicted under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 38, Defence of India Rules, for distributing two pamphlets, which contained matters of a prejudical nature. He was convicted by the trying Magistrate, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. On appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Judge upheld his conviction, but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, which was about a month. In the course of his judgment the learned Sessions Judge records this finding that when the presidents of two District Union Boards came to Ghatal for the purpose of arranging distribution of kerosine oil, the pleader concerned handed over to them two copies of printed pamphlets. On this fact the learned Judge came to the finding that there was distribution, but in considering the question of sentence he made the following observation:The circumstances under which the distribution...
Phani Bhusan Mukherjee Vs. Purna Chandra Bagchi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal199
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows. The appellant obtained a decree for rent against the respondents in respect of a darputni held by the latter under him in Bent Suit No. 5 of 1938 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Burdwan. The decree was put into execution in Rent Execution case no. 157 of 1940 of that Court and the entire tenure in arrears was put up to sale on 4th June 1941 and purchased by the decree holder himself for a sum which just covered the decretal dues and costs. The result was that the decree was satisfied in full by the sale of the darputni tenure. On 7th July 1941 which was the date fixed by the Court for confirmation of the sale, the purchaser presented an application to the Court stating that as he was himself the decree-holder, it was not necessary for him to deposit the arrears of rent a payable in respect of the tenure between the date of the institution of the suit and that of the confirmation of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »