Kolkata Court January 1944 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.
Nanda Lal Vs. Askaran Baboo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal310
1. The Maharaja of Burdwan held two villages Sundarpore and Char Bajramari in lakhiraj right. Before 1865 he settled 8 annas share of these villages in mukurari mourasi right with Bhairab Babu and the remaining 8 annas share with Amarchand Babu in the same right. Thus two mukurari mourasi tenures, each comprising an undivided 8 annas share in the lands of these two villages, were created. For the sake of convenience we will designate these two tenures as Mudafat Bhairab and Mudafat Amar Chand. The suc-cessors-in-interest of Bhairab Babu and Amar Chand Babu in their turn granted two dar-mukarari mourasi leases to Nobo Krishna Mukherjee by two separate pottas executed in the year 1865. The annual rent reserved by each potta was Rs. 2050. The pottas executed by Bhairab Babu's successors-in-interest is on the record (Ex. 1 (a) 1) but the other potta has not been produced. It is admitted by the parties that the two dar-mukarari mourasi pottas were on the same terms. The tenant agreed not to...
Keshabdeo Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal317
Derbyshire, C.J.1. On 8th June 1943, Keshabdeo Harlalka was convicted by Mr. J. Ahmad, Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta of an offence under Rule 81 (4) of the Defence of India Rules and seconded to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The offence, the facts of which are not denied, consisted of selling to Messrs. A. Firpo, Ltd. of Calcutta, 200 bags of sugar at the rate of Rs. 25 per maund instead of Rs. 13-8-0 per maund. Rs. 13-8-0 per maund was the price fixed by Mr. M. K. Kirpalani, Chief Controller of Prices, Bengal, under the powers given him by Rule 81 (2) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, the date of the Price Control Order being 15th June 1942. Messrs. A. Firpo, Ltd. who were confectioners, required the sugar and were quoted the rate charged, and after getting in touch with the police agreed to pay the price demanded. The price was paid in the following way. A cheque for Rs. 7425 representing the sum payable at the controlled rate for the sugar and c...
Naba Kumar Singh Dudhuria Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1944
Reported in: [1944]12ITR327(Cal)
MCNAIR, J. - Two questions of law have been referred to this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Question (1) : 'Whether in an appeal under Section 30 (1) the validity of an assessment under Section 23 (4) can be challenged when no proceeding under Section 27 of the Act was taken to cancel the order under Section 23 (4).' It appeared that the question had been framed by mistake leaving out the words 'under Section 33 (1) from a decision in an appeal' after the words with which the question starts, namely, 'whether in an appeal', and the question as re-framed after consolation and agreement with the Advocates appearing now reads, 'Whether in an appeal under Section 33 (1) from a decision in appeal under Section 30 (1)' and so on as originally framed.The second question is, 'Whether on the facts of the case the lands taken over by the assessees in satisfaction of a debt should be independently valued and such valuation should be considered for the purpose of arriving at the figur...
Amode Lal Burman Vs. Girija Sankar Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal157
1. The property which is the subject matter of this appeal originally belonged to one Ramdas Mohanta. On 14th April 1914, he executed a will by which he dedicated the disputed property for the sheba-puja of two idols Sree Sree Banku Behari Jieu and Sree Sree Shalgram Shila Thakur. Ram Das died on 12th December 1914. On 10th May 1916, letters of administration with a copy of Ram Das's will annexed were granted to his widow, Golap Sundari Debi. Golap Sundari performed the sheba-puja of the deities for some time. On 12th December 1916, she executed a kobala in favour of one Satish Chandra Choudhury. By this kobala, she transferred the disputed property to Satish, for meeting the expense of the sheba-puja of the idols, for maintenance and marriage of the minor Arun Bala, the daughter of Ram Das. Arun Bala attained majority in the year 1926. On 11th April 1928, she sold the disputed property to defendant 1. In the kobala, which she executed in favour of defendant 1, it was stated that she i...
Sree Sree Iswar Radha Ballav Jew Through Shebait Maharajadhiraj Uday C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal298
1. Patni Taluk Dihi Moureswar in the district of Birbhum belongs to 20 persons who are described as respondents 2 to 21 in the memorandum of appeal to this Court printed at p. 56, Part 1 of the paper-book. The patnidar had given a usufructuary mortgage to one Bibhuti Bhusan Das who is respondent' 1 in this Court. Bibhuti Bhusan Das held a tenure under the patni. He paid patni rent on previous occasions and was put in possession of the patni as girbidar. He is respondent 1 in this appeal. The Maharaja of Burdwan, who was the zamindar, instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1339 to 1342 B.S. on 15th April 1986. The said rent suit was numbered as 22 of that year. In the rent suit he not only made the patnidars defendants but also Girbidar Bibhuti Bhusan Das. He recovered a rent decree on 17th July 1938 for a sum of Rs. 27,000 odd. He put that decree into execution and the patni was sold and purchased by him at the court sale on 22nd August 1941. There were various...
Lal Mohan Krishna Lal Paul Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal62
McNair, J.1. Two references have been made to this Court under Section 66, Income-tax Act. In Reference No. 7 of 1942, the questions formulated are as follows: (1) When the assessee, required to explain the credit entry of Rs. 50,000 in this ease, offers an explanation which is false or unbelievable, whether there is anything in law which casts the, burden of proof on the Income-tax Officer or the appellate authority to prove by positive evidence that they are items of revenue assessable to tax. (2) Whether in the circumstances of this case there was any material to hold that the sum of Rs. 50,000 credits appearing in the personal accounts of the proprietors of the business constitute assessable income.2. In Reference No. 8 of 1942, the same two questions are referred, and the following further question which arose by reason of the penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 28(1)(c) of the Act is also referred, whether in the facts and circumstances there is any material for the fin...
Superintendent, R.M.S. (C) Division Vs. R.M.S. (C) Division Co-operati ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal135
B.K. Mnkherjea, J.1. The material facts involved in this case are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows: One Khudiram Mukherji who was an employee in the R.M.S. (C) Division of the Postal Department had borrowed a certain sum of money from the opposite party NO. 1 which is a Co-operative Credit Society of the R.M.S. Division. The opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 who are also sorters in the same Department stood sureties for the debt. Khudiram died without satisfying his debt, and after his death the opposite party NO. 1 obtained an award against the two sureties under the provisions of the Co-operative Credit Societies Act for a sum of about Rs. 240. The award was put into execution in execution ease No. 167 of 1941 of the Court of the Third Munsif at Howrah. The creditor prayed for realisation of the money due on the award by attachment of the salaries of the two judgment-debtors. On 13th September 1941, the executing Court ordered attachment to issue under Order21, Rul...
Lal Mohan Krishna Lal Paul Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1944
Reported in: [1944]12ITR441(Cal)
MCNAIR, J. - Two references have been made to this Court under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act. In reference No. 7 of 1942 the questions formulated are as follows :(1) When the assessee, required to explain the credit entry of Rs. 50,000 in this case, offers an explanation which is false or unbelievable, whether there is anything in law which casts the burden of proof on the Income-tax Officer or the appellate authority to prove by positive evidence that they are items of revenue assessable to tax.(2) Whether in the circumstances of this case there was any material to hold that the sum of Rs. 50,000 credits appearing in the personal accounts of the proprietors of the business constitute assessable income.In Reference No. 8 of 1942 the same two questions are referred and the following further question which arose by reason of the penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 28(1) (c) of the Act is also referred, 'whether in the facts and circumstances there is any material for the fin...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Moulvi A. Hamid
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal385
Derbyshire, C.J.1. In this matter, on the application of the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, the Court on 20th December 1943, issued a rule upon the District Magistrate of Murshidabad and Mr. S. U. Choudhury, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, to show cause why the orders made by Mr. Choudhury in this matter should not be set aside or why such other or further order should not be made as to the Court might seem fit and proper. The Court further ordered that in the meantime notwithstanding anything in the orders abovementioned, police investigations should proceed forthwith and continue. The matter arises in this way. One Moulvi A. Hamid is a supply officer in Berhampore. Amongst the supplies with which he has to deal is sugar which as to sale, distribution and price is controlled by Government. On 29th November 1943 one Brindaban Saha, a grocer of Berhampore, made a statement which I will read:My name is Brindaban Saha, son of late Ashutosh Saha of Berhampore Strand R...
Sri Sri Raj Rajeswar Thakur Represanted by Managing Shebait and Next F ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal287
ORDERHanderson, J.1. This Rule has been issued in connexion with a proceeding under Section 88, Ben. Ten. Act. I have already dealt with the question common to this and the connected rules in my previous judgment delivered in Civil Revn. Case No. 1294 of 1942. There is, however, one special point in the present case which requires consideration. The original rent was Rs. 12-15-11 gandas. The case of the principal opposite parties (NOS. 1 to 5) was that the share due from them would amount to Rs. 12-1-0. If this division is correct, the balance due from the pro forma opposite parties 6 to 8 would be 14 annas 11 gandas. Mr. Lahiri's contention is that this offends against proviso (b) to Sub-section (2). The Munsif made an Order in favour of opposite parties 1 to 5 in the terms of their prayer. He did not make any Order with regard to pro forma opposite parties 6 to 8. The petitioner could, therefore, only succeed in revision by showing that it follows by necessary implication that the se...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »