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.
Karamali Sikdar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal297
Lodge, J.1. This is an appeal against convictions and sentences Under Sections 148, 147 and 325/34, Penal Code. Twelve persons were placed on their trial before the Additional Sessions Judge of Dacca and a common jury of five. The charges against them framed by the Sessions Court, were that they were members of an unlawful assembly the common object of which was severely to assault Khan Sahib Samsuddin Ahmed, that they were armed with deadly weapons and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 148, Penal Code; secondly, that they attempted to murder Khan Sahib Samsuddin Ahmed and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 307, Penal Code; thirdly, that they in furtherance of the common intention of all namely severely to assault Khan Sahib Samsuddin Ahmed voluntarily caused grievous hurt to him and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 326/34, penal Code. The charge framed by the Magistrate was dropped. The jury were unanimous in their verdict. T...
Mohini Mohan Das and ors. Vs. Kunjabehari Das S/O Krishna Charan Das a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal450
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The petitioners in this rule instituted a suit as plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sylhet against the defendants-opposite party claiming recovery of possession of certain lands on establishment of their title to the same. The suit was instituted on 17th January 1940 and the defendants filed their written statement on 28th March 1940 one of their objections being that the suit was overvalued and that it should have been filed in the Court of the Munsif. There was a specific issue raised on this point which was issue 1, and it was worded as follows : 'Has the suit been overvalued? Has this Court jurisdiction to try this suit?' The defendants did not press for a hearing of this issue as a preliminary issue, and the plaintiffs in the usual course got an order for local investigation which was conducted by a commissioner who submitted his report on 11th March 1941. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants filed objections to the commissioner's report, a...
Shib Nath Banerjee and ors. Vs. A.E. Porter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal377
Mitter, J.1. The nine persons on whose behalf applications under Section 491, Criminal P.C. have been made before us by their relations have been detained in different jails in pursuance of orders passed under Rule 26, Defence of India Rules, on diverse dates between 24th October 1940 and 8th March 1943. Those applications were made on 24th April 1943 after the Federal Court had declared the said rule to be ultra vires Section 2, Sub-section (2), Clause (x), Defence of India Act (35 of 1939), in Keshav Talpade v. Emperor . On the same date, nine rules were issued on the Crown to shew cause why the said persons should not be released, Those rules came on for hearing/before us on 7th May 1943. At an early stage of the hearing, seven out of the nine detenus applied to us to give them facilities to swear affidavits in jail. We granted their prayer. They swore affidavits and those affidavits have been put on the record with liberty to the Crown to file affidavits in answer. Another affidavi...
Akshoy Kumar Banerjee Vs. Mahammad Hedayatulla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal73
Blank, J.1. The facts from which this appeal arises are not disputed. The plaintiff's case is that he purchased certain lands within the Tollygunge Municipality from the recor-ded owner by a kobala dated 3rd September 1936. On 7th September 1936, plaintiff applied for mutation of his name in the municipal records. The transferor gave notice of the transfer by letters dated 2nd December 1936 and subsequent dates. On 17th September 1936, the municipality asked the plaintiff ' to produce documentary evidence to prove his title to the property.' This is a printed form suggesting that the request to produce documentary evidence is the usual procedure. On 30th September 1936, the plaintiff produced the kobala before the overseer Bishnupada Mitra. The plaintiff produced his document again on 15th January 1937 and 3rd July 1937, in both oases before the Vice-Chairman. On 13th August 1937, the Chairman wrote to the plaintiff to produce his document once more. Thereafter the plaintiff sued for c...
Royal Choral Society Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1943
Reported in: [1944]12ITR13(Cal)
LORD GREENE, M. R. :- The Royal Choral Society is an institution which has had a long and honourable history. It has performed services of great value to musical art. It would appear that in general the performances which it has given have been conducted at a loss; but there have been occasions, notably ion the year 1937, when 'Hiwatha' was performed, when a performance was produced at a profit. This circumstance attracted the attention of the Inland Revenue Authorities, who sought to tax the income of the society, alleging that it is not a society 'established for charitable purposes only'; and that its income is not exclusively applied for such purposes'. The question which we have to decide is whether or not that contention of the Revenue is right.The Special Commissioners accepted the view put before them by the Revenue; and their finding is contained in paragraph 13 of the case, where they say this : 'Having considered the arguments and evidence adduced before us, we held that the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›