Kolkata Court June 1945 Judgments
Westminister Bank, Ltd, Vs. Riches.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1945
Reported in: [1947]15ITR29(Cal)
DU PARCQ, L. J. - Rule 21(1) of the General Rule to All Schedules under the Income Tax Act, 1918, provides that : 'Upon payment of any; interest of money... charged with tax under Schedule D... the person by through whom any such payment is made shall deduct thereat a sum representing the amount of the tax thereon at the rate of tax in force at the time of payment.' Under paragraph 2 of the rule provision is made for assessment to tax of the person who is bound to deduct under paragraph 1. Under schedule D tax is to be charged on 'all interest of money... not specially exempted from tax.' For the purposes of the present case, at any rate, there is nothing in the relevant legislation to qualify the generality of this provision.In an action brought by Mr., Riches, the present defendant, against the Westminister Bank, Ltd. (the present plaintiffs), in their capacity of judicial trustees of the will of Mr. Ridsdel, deceases, Mr. Riches established a claim to a sum of Pound 36,255. He had j...
Tag this Judgment!Rajani Kanta Das, on His Death, Golap Sundari Dasi Vs. Nirmal Chandra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal438
Chakravarti, J.1. This appeal was filed by the plaintiff but he died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court. Thereupon his wife was substituted. The suit was one for a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to remove a wall raised by him in so far as it obstructed two windows on the northern wall of the upper storey of the plaintiff's two-storied house and also for an injunction restraining him from interfering with the access of air and light through the windows aforesaid. The plaintiff's case was that he had constructed the building in the Bengali year 1307 and the windows concerned had been built at the same time. Since then he or his tenants had been in enjoyment of light and air through the windows. The land to the north of the building was formerly vacant but defendant 1 purchased it in the name of defendant 2, who is his son, about 2 or 3 years ago and built a one-storied house the roof of which is about 2 cubits below the sill of the disputed windows. Recently, h...
Tag this Judgment!Fatema Khatun W/O Haji Moulvi Abdul Mokit Vs. Haran Barui and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1945
Reported in: AIR1947Cal132
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the auction-purchaser. It is directed against an order setting aside a sale. Though the facts are simple difficult questions of law concerning technical matters of procedure have arisen. Prom whatever point of view it is regarded, whether from the angle of Section 47, Civil P.C. or Section 174, Bengal Tenancy Act, it is a borderline case.2. The first point that arises is whether the appellant has any locus standi to appeal against an order made under Section 47, Civil P.C. in connection with a matter beyond the scope of Section 174(3), Bengal Tenancy Act. If he is to do so, he must come in either as the representative of the decree-holder or the judgment-debtor.3. In the present case we are concerned only with an application to set aside a sale. The appellant may be the representative either of the decree-holder, the judgment-debtor or neither. By the sale, the auction-purchaser has obtained the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor. It has ...
Tag this Judgment!Rased Molla Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1945
Reported in: AIR1948Cal102
Ellis, J.1. The appellant, Rased Molla was placed on trial before the learned Sessions Judge of Khulna on a charge under Section 304, Penal Code in that on 30-11-1942 ho committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder by causing the death of one Samarthaban Bibi. The jury unanimously returned a verdict of guilty under Section 326, Penal Code and in agreement with that verdict of learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years.2. The facts material to the disposal of this appeal are as follows. On 30-11-1942 the accused Rased Mella along with some other persons went to reap the paddy of a plot of Land close to the house of one Samarthaban Bibi, a woman 70 years of age. Samarthaban Bibi was actually in possession of this plot of land which she cultivated through her bargadar, one Gagan, when the appellant and his party began cutting paddy from the land. Samarthaban Bibi went to the spot with a dao in her hand, protested against ...
Tag this Judgment!Santano Siguira Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal466
ORDERDerbyshire, C.J.1. The appellant appeals against his conviction by a Presidency Magistrate under Section 13 of Ordinance 35 of 1943, which makes it an offence to contravene any of the provisions of the Ordinance. The Ordinance is entitled 'an Ordinance to provide for the prevention of hoarding and profiteering.' It provides inter alia for the fixing of maximum quantities which may be held or sold and maximum prices in Section 8, for restrictions on possession and sale by dealers and producers where maximum is fixed under Section 3, for restrictions on possession by dealers or producers where no maximum is fixed under Section 3, for restriction on price where no maximum is fixed under Section 3, for a general limitation on the quantity to be possessed at one time, and it imposes a duty in Section 8 to declare possession of excess stocks. Section 9, namely, the section in question provides :No dealer or producer shall, unless previously authorised to do so by the Controller General ...
Tag this Judgment!Saraj Bashini Debi Vs. Parindra Nath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal447
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon opposite party 1 auction-purchaser, to show cause why he should not pay into Court the rent due for the years 1346 to 1349 B.S. under the provisions of Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act. The decree in execution of which he purchased the holding was for rent due for the years 1344 and 1345. The execution case was held up for a long time on account of two applications to a Debt Settlement Board. The holding was eventually purchased on 5th April 1943. The sale could not be actually confirmed until 20th May 1944. By this time the rent for the years 1346 to 1350 had accrued. The auction-purchaser has in accordance with the Munsif's order deposited the rent for the year 1350 only. The petitioner then obtained this rule. During the pendency of the present execution case the petitioner instituted a suit to recover rent due for the years 1346 to 1349, as part of the claim was about to become barred by limitation. The learned Munsif held that, as the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaracharja Mullick S/O Narayan Chandra Vs. Sk. Sademani S/O Sk. Sad ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal474
ORDERB.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge of Burdwan, dated 18th May 1943, reversing an order of the Munsif, Third Court of that place made in a proceeding under Section 26F, Ben. Ten. Act. The facts material for our present purposes may be shortly stated as follows: The property in dispute is a tank which appertains to a holding recorded in Khatian No. 825 of mouza Nityanandapur in the District of Burdwan, and the total rent payable in respect of the holding is Rs. 20-8-0 a year. On 27th June 1942, a share in the tank was sold to Sankaracharjya Mullik, the petitioner in this rule, by occupation parties 3 to 6 who were some of the cosharer landlords holding the tank along with other cosharers by purchase from the original tenant. In the kabala, the property was described as part of an occupancy holding. Thereupon opposite party 1 who had also acquired a share in the tank by purchase from some of the cosharers of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Sailendra Nath Kuar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1945
Reported in: AIR1948Cal104
Ellis, J.1. The appellant Sailendra Nath Kuar, a youth 17 years of age, was charged with committing rape on a girl, Kalidasi 7 years of age on 23-4-1944 thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 376, Penal Code. He was found guilty by the unanimous verdict of the jury and was convicted under Section 376 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. He has appealed to this Court against his conviction and sentence.2. The houses of the appellant Sailendra and the girl Kalidasi are close to one another and Kalidasi was in the habit of going to the house of the appellant to play with the appellant's nephew, a boy Sona alias Santosh Kumar 8 years of age. On the day in question the appellant asked Kalidasi to go with him to the tank on a promise of giving her some lotus flowers. So she accompanied him to the tank. The appellant took three cows with him and Sona, his nephew, was with the party. Two of the cows were tethered to pegs and one was actually washed in the wate...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›