Kolkata Court December 1946 Judgments
Prokash Chandra Ghose and ors. Vs. Mahima Ranjan Chakravartty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal320
Chakravartti, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Order 21, Rule 103, Civil P.C., brought by the decree-holders auction purchasers. The plaintiffs purchased the properties in suit in execution of a mortgage decree, but were resisted by the defendants in their attempt to obtain possession. A proceeding under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code resulted in favour of the defendants. Thereupon, the plaintiffs brought the present suit which has been decreed by both the Courts below. The defendants have appealed.2. The facts are no longer in dispute and may be stated as the common case of the parties in the present appeal. On 4-2-1932, one Phanibhusan Banerjee, to whom the properties originally belonged mortgaged them to the father of the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 1499. This Phani was an officer of defendants 2 to 6 and shortly before the mortgage, had made a written acknowledgment to his masters of a liability for Rs. 8400. Defendants 2 to 6 sued Phani for this amount and, on some date ...
Tag this Judgment!Subimal Chandra Chatterjee Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal369
Chakravartti, J.1. The principal question involved in this appeal is covered by authority, but the appellant contends that it is not concluded. In Corporation of Calcutta v. Fool Coomari Dasi ('37) 41 C.W.N. 353, it was held by Lort-Williams J. sitting singly, that under Section 205, Calcutta Municipal Act, arrears of the occupier's share of the consolidated rate were as much a charge on the premises concerned as arrears of the owner's share. The appellant questions this view and having done so unsuccessfully in the Courts below, contended before us that the case decided by Lort-Williams J. had not been rightly decided. A further contention, noticed below, was also put forward.2. The material facts of the present case are simple and may be briefly stated. The appellant is the owner of premises No. 47/l Gorachand Road which has always been let out to a single tenant. He was sued by the Corporation of Calcutta who claimed from him a sum of Rs. 282-7-9 pies as arrears of the consolidated ...
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Nath Raha Vs. Mir Mahabubar Rahaman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal332
Chakravartti, J.1. This suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the heirs of one Mir Suratjan for a declaration that the revenue sale of four properties, described in the Schedule to the plaint, was without jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for having the sale set aside on the ground that it had not been held in accordance with the provisions of the Revenue Sales Act. The usual incidental reliefs were also sought. The trial Court made the declaration asked for and granted an injunction against the auction-purchaser, restraining him from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession. The latter appealed to the District Judge and having failed there, preferred the present second appeal.2. The facts, admitted or as now found, are the following. Mir Suratjan, who was the owner of the four properties, obtained from the Local Government a loan of Rs. 1000 for the improvement of the first property. The money was made payable in ten annual instalments, beginning from 1932, and eac...
Tag this Judgment!Howard De Walden (Lord) Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1946
Reported in: [1942]10ITR90(Cal)
NOV 25 26; DEC 16 1946This is another appeal by a taxpayer against assessments made under the Finance Act, 1936, Section 11. The facts are extremely complicated, but fortunately it is only necessary to refer to them in the most summary manner in order that the short point which arises may be understood. The point in issue aries in this way. As the result of a series of transaction extending over a number of years certain valuable assets belonging to Lord Howard de Walden and consisting of shares in and debts owing by an English company becomes vested in four Canadian companies. It is not disputed that these transactions were of the kind described in the preamble to Section 18, and it is admitted that their main, and indeed their sole, purpose was to to avoid liability to taxation. The only interests which, during the relevant periods, were held by Lord Howard de Walden in respect of the consideration payable under these transaction, consisted of (1) a life interest in certain notes to ...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Charan Singha and anr. Vs. IsamuddIn Mahmud
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Cal6
ORDERLodge, J.1. The present petitioners were tried by a Magistrate of the 2nd class on charges Under Sections 384 and 312, Penal Code. The case for the prosecution was that the petitioners, being members of the Home Guard, entered the house of the complainant one evening, searched his rooms on the allegation that a theft had taken place in the house of one Pagla and then took the complainant against his will to the house of Pagla and kept him under confinement until 10 P.M. They extracted from him a sum of as. 50 on a threat of preferring a criminal case against him and then allowed him to go.2. The learned Magistrate found both the accused guilty and sentenced them on each count each to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two month. He also directed that half the fine, if realised, should be paid to 'the complainant as compensation.3. The petitioners appealed against the convictions and sentences and their appeal was heard by a Magistrate of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Gurupada Roy Vs. Pashupatinath Malia and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Cal78
ORDER1. This is a Reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Burdwan recommending that an order of the Additional District Magistrate of the same district discharging two accused Kumar Pashupathi Nath Malia and Upendra Nath Ghatak passed on 8th May 1946, be set aside.2. The two accused had been summoned under Section 379, Penal Code, by Magistrate, Mr. P.C. Gope on 25th February 1946, on the complaint of one Gurupada Roy acting on behalf of Guru Prasanna Mukherjee. Eventually prosecution witnesses were directed to be summoned for 26th, 27th and 29th April. In the meantime the accused approached the Additional District Magistrate with a long petition on 19th April and he called for the records and stayed further proceedings. The prayer in the petition was that the record should be called for and the withdrawal of the case should be directed. The petition purported to be made to the District Magistrate in his judicial capacity. Thereafter the matter was dealt with by the Additional Distr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›