Kolkata Court April 1945 Judgments
Municipal Commissioners of Howrah Vs. Haratosh Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal496
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule has been obtained by the plaintiff, the Municipal Commissioners of Howrah. The suit was instituted to recover a sum due as consplidated rate on a bustee. The learned Judge held that the assessment was a nullity, because the special notice prescribed by Section 138 of the Act was not properly given. The persons recorded in the register maintained under Section 143 were opposite party 1 and Chakulal, predecessor of opposite party 10. The actual owners were opposite party 10 and either opposite parties 2 to 9 or their predecessor Purna, it makes no difference which. The special notice was issued in the name of opposite party 1 and Chakulal. It was actually served on opposite party 1 when Chakulal was dead.2. Opposite party 1 is not one of the owners. He merely holds a lease of certain portions of the bustee. Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of the petitioner was unable to show me how, in view of Section 169, he could be jointly liable with opposite parties 2 to 1...
Tag this Judgment!The English and Scottish Joint Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1945
Reported in: [1945]13ITR295(Cal)
GENTLE, J. - This is a reference by a member of the Board of Agricultural Income-tax, Assam, pursuant to Section 28 (1) of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Assam Act'), and is with regard to the English and Scottish Joint Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the Society'). The question which this Courts is required to answer is :'Whether the Society is chargeable to Assam agricultural income-tax in respect of the cultivation and/or manufacture of tea at its Deckiajuli estate in the Province of Assam and sold to its members ?'Agricultural income is defined, so far as is material, in the Indian Income-tax Act as follows :-Section 2 (1) : 'agricultural income means......(b) any income derived from such land by -(i) agriculture.''Such land' in (b) is land which is used for agricultural purposes.By Section 4 (3) (viii) of the same Act agricultural income is not chargeable to income-tax.Section 2 (a) (2) (i) of the Assam Act defines agr...
Tag this Judgment!Bazlu Alias Bazlul Karim Biswas and ors. Vs. Golam HossaIn Halsana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal281
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed upon an application under Section 36, Bengal Money Lenders Act, made by the judgment-debtor. It was allowed by the learned Munsif but on appeal the learned District Judge has dismissed it. The facts briefly are as follows : Golam Hossain Halsana sued the defendant appellants to enforce a mortgage by conditional sale. The final decree in the suit was passed on 17th December 1938. Thereafter, some time after 1st January 1939, an application was made by the decree-holder for possession of the mortgaged property. The judgment-debtor thereupon made this application under Section 36, Bengal Money-Lenders Act, for re-opening the decree on the usual grounds. The only objection to the reopening of the decree was that, inasmuch as, the suit had been decreed before 1st January 1939, and inasmuch as no execution proceedings were pending on or after 1st January 1939, the application was barred by virtue of proviso 2 to Section 36, Bengal Money Lender...
Tag this Judgment!Amir HossaIn and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1945
Reported in: 1949CriLJ948
ORDERHenderson, J.1. The petitioners have been convict. ed of an offence punishable under B, 81 (4)/l21, Defence of India Rules for taking certain cattle from the District of Noakhali to the District of Chittagong inspite of an order of the District Magistrate of Noakhali prohisiting such transport. The order was made by the District Magistrate under the provisions of Rule 81 (2)(a) which empowers the making of orders for regulating amongst other things transport of articles or things kept for sale.2. The rule was issued upon ground No. 1 attached to the petition. It raises the question whether the term 'articles or things' is confined to inanimate objects or is wide enough to include cattle.3. Mr. Dutta concedes that the term 'thing' according to its dictionary meaning is wide enough to include cattle. The real question, however, is whether it is intended to include cattle as used in this rule. It is quite obvious that in many contexts it would be impossible for it to include cattle. ...
Tag this Judgment!Manindra Kumar De and anr. Vs. Satish Chandra De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal456
1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by two plaintiffs to set aside a sale held in execution of a certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act. The plaintiffs alleged fraud, and fraudulent suppression of processes, and on behalf of plaintiff 2 a further ground was taken. It is not disputed that at the time when the certificate was made he was a minor and that no guardian had been appointed to represent him in the proceedings, in the certificate itself it was made to appear that this plaintiff was sui juris. It was accordingly contended that the sale was not binding as against him.2. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff 2, and he was given joint possession of the property in question along with the purchaser thereof. The trial Court however dismissed the suit of plaintiff 1. Two appeals were preferred to the learned District Judge, one by the purchaser and the other by plaintiff 1. The learned District Judge allowed the former appeal but dismissed the l...
Tag this Judgment!Manik Molla and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal432
Sen, J.1. This appeal is by two persons, Manik Molla and Hadan Molla. Manik Molla was charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 344, 366 and 366A, Penal Code. Hadan Molla was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 368, Penal Code. They were tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Jessore and a jury. Manik Molla was found guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 344 and 366A, Penal Code. He was acquitted of the charge under Section 366, Penal Code. Hadan Molla was found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 368, Penal Code. The case for the prosecution briefly is as follows:2. The accused Manik Molla is the husband of the elder sister of Abdul Gafur, who is the husband of Asiran Bibi. It is alleged that Asiran Bibi is aged fourteen or fifteen. The prosecution case is that Manik Molla kidnapped Asiran Bibi and took her away from the lawful guardianship of her husband. He kept her in various h...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter of Jyotirindra Narayan Sinha Chowdhury.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1945
Reported in: [1945]13ITR263(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - This is a reference by the Board of Agricultural Income-tax for Assam under Section 28 (2) of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act of 1939. The reference purports to set out the facts of the case and them formulates the question of law giving thereafter the opinion of the member of the Board making the reference.This is one of the first references made under this Act and probably due to lack of previous experience the case is not stated in the manner in which cases are stated under the Indian Income-tax Act. In the facts of the case reference is made to certain letters and to certain orders made departmentally, and certain facts are stated in the opinion of the member which are derived from certain departmental figures given in previous returns. The form of the first question is one which makes it difficult for us to give the answer, but we propose to give the answer to the question which relates to the liability to tax of the sum of question for this particular yea...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Rebecca Mondal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1947Cal278
ORDER1. The petitioner in this case Miss Rebecca Mondal has been convicted under Section 500, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 51 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. The charge was to the effect:That you, on or about 21-8-1943 at Serampore defamed Birajini Lai by publishing the following imputation concerning the latter to your pleader Babu Ram Chandra Mukherjee who put it in Court of Second Officer Mr. Choudhury to the complainant Birajini intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that, such imputation would harm the reputation of the complainant. The imputation was : That Prosad Chatterjee came to the house of complainant and behaved riotously in the house to the annoyance of Bebecca Mondal, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 500, Penal Code, and within my cognizance.The complainant in the case was Mrs. Birajini Lai. There had been previous cases between these two ladies in which Mrs. Birajini had been unsuccessful ...
Tag this Judgment!AdeluddIn Alias Adoo Faraji and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal482
ORDERLodge, J.1. This is an appeal against a conviction and sentence under Section 412, Penal Code. Four persons were tried jointly in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge of Faridpur on charges under Sections 395 and 412, Penal Code. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty in respect of one of the four accused persons, namely Ayesha Khatun and the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted that verdict and acquitted that accused. The jury by a majority of 3 to 2 found the remaining three accused persons namely, Adu alias Adeluddin Faraji; Kamaruddin and Kalai Howladar guilty under Section 412, Penal Code. The verdict is silent on the point but apparently the jury found them not guilty on the charge of dacoity. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the majority verdict of the jury and sentenced the three accused persons each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 412, Penal Code. All three convicted persons have appealed.2. The case for...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›