Kolkata Court September 1948 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.
Sm. Achia Khatoon Vs. Abdul Hai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-1948
Reported in: AIR1952Cal381
ORDERDas Gupta, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the learned Munsif, passed under Order 32, Rule 2 Civ. P. C. directing a plaint field by a Mahomedan girl, admittedly, just over 15 years of age on the date when the suit was filed, i.e., 24-5-1947, ((?) to be taken off the file. The learned Munsif was ,of the opinion that she being under 18 years of age was a minor, according to the Indian Majority Act, & so in view of the provisions of Order 32 Rule 1, Civ. P. C. it was necessary that the suit by her should have been Instituted in her name by her next friend.2. A preliminary point was taken on behalf of the opposite party that an appeal did lie against the order of the Munsif, & so the application, under Section 115, Civ. P. C. was not maintainable. Order 43, Rule 1 has not included an order passed under Order 32, Rule 2 among the orders from which an appeal will lie under the provisions of Section 104, Civ. P. C. I am unable to agree with the learned Advocate for the opp...
Romesh Roy Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1948
Reported in: AIR1952Cal228
ORDERSen, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of having defamed the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.2. The facts giving rise to this case briefly are as follows: There was a meeting held in the Paikpara area by the local residents to consider the conduct of the residents of No. 6 Raja Manindra Road. These residents were Radhanath Ghose, one Muktakeshi and a young girl named Panchi alias Puspa. After the meeting some 42 members of the locality presented a petition to the Deputy Commissioner of Police stating that Radhanath Ghose was living an immoral life and that Muktakeshi was not his wife but his mistress and further that they were using the girl Puspa as a prostitute and living on her earnings. The police made an enquiry but declined to take action. Thereafter Radhanath Ghose filed a petition before the Chi...
Promode Kumar Roy and ors. Vs. Hirendra Nath Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1948
Reported in: AIR1952Cal232
Chakravartti, J.1. The question involved in this appeal and cross objection is whether the holders of a certain mortgage decree are entitled to execute it against one of their judgment-debtors and, further, whether they are entitled to execute it at all. In the appeal, which is by the decree-holders, they contend that they are not debarred from executing the decree against judgment-debtor No. 5 by a so-called award made under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, as wrongly held by the Court below. In the cross-objection, which is by one of the remaining judgment-debtors, the contention is that execution of the decree is barred altogether by limitation.2. The controversy between the parties has arisen out of the following facts.3. On April 5, 1933, the appellants obtained a final mortgage decree against six judgment-debtors for an amount of Rs. 25,215-7-10. 'The principal advanced on the mortgage was Rs. 18000/-. After obtaining the decree, the decree holders took out execution thrice, ...
Khan Mahammad and anr. Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Cal108
ORDERSen, J.1. The two petitioners have been convicted under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules, for having contravened the provisions of para. 18 (1) and (2), Cotton Cloth and Yam Control Order, 1945 and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 80 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. From this order of conviction and sentence an appeal was taken to the Sessions Judge who dismissed the appeal. Thereafter they obtained the present Rule.2. The facts are very simple. The case for the prosecution is that these two persons were walking along the embankment of the Hooghly river when they were challenged by the local people. It was at about 9 O'clock at night. Each of the petitioners had a bag and in the bag of the petitioner Khan Mahammad were found 9 pieces of mill-made dhoties and 3 yards of mill-made shirting and in the bag of the petitioner Sk. Amanat were found 6 mill-made saris and 4 pieces of mill-made dhoties. The Preventive Officer lodged a first inform...
Kilburn Properties Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1948
Reported in: [1949]17ITR134(Cal)
DAS, J. - This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act and arise out of orders under section 23A (1) of the Act for the assessment year 1941-42 and 1942-43.The assessee is Kilburn Properties Limited, Calcutta; the only source of income of the company is house property.The assessable income of the company for 1941-42 was Rs. 34,772 and income-tax payable was Rs. 10,141-13-0 only leaving a balance of Rs. 24,630-3-0 available for distribution as dividends. The general meeting of the company was held on June 6, 1941. No dividend was declared.In the profit and loss account the company shewed Rs. 31,331 as depreciation allowance on the original cost of Rs. 1,19,002 only and thus the profits were shewn as Rs. 55-2-6 only.The Income-tax Officer though that the company should have declaref 60 per cent. of the assessable income less tax as dividend and the made an order in terms of section 23A(1) of the Act.During the assessment year 1942-43 the assessable income was Rs. ...
Radhagovinda Roy and ors. Vs. Narayan Dhoba
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1948
Reported in: AIR1952Cal287
ORDERDas Gupta, J.1. The rent of the defendant tenant recorded in the settlement Khatian was Rs. 18/-. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 20/- as rent. The learned Court below has found that the rent of Rs. 20/- was being realised from 1336 or 1337 B. Section, but held that the provisions relating to enhancement of rent having been suspended by Section 75A of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the landlord is not entitled to get rent at the rate of Rs. 20/-but can realise only at the rate of Rs. 18/-.2. The only contention in appeal is that Section 75A does not hit the proviso to Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The decision of this turns on the question whether the proviso to Section 29 can be read as a provision relating not to enhancement of rent. What the Section 29 does provide is that the money rent of an occupancy 'raiyat' may be enhanced by contract. It then goes on to put in certain conditions, and thereafter proceeds to say that in certain cases these conditions will not operate. The net r...
Mt. Muneswari and ors. Vs. Sm. Jugal Mohini Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1948
Reported in: AIR1952Cal368
Chakravartti, J.1. These are two appeals, arising out of the same suit; & the same judgment, S. A. No. 1261 of 1943 being an appeal by the plff. & S. A. No. 1511 of 1943 an appeal by the daft. The matter came up to this Court, once before & having been remanded, has come up a second time after a second decision by the lower appellate Court.2. The subject-matter in dispute is a house, situated in the town of Asansol, which, admittedly, was acquired by & belonged to one Hanuman Singh. Hanuman was governed by the Mitak-ahara School of Hindu law & his descendants will appear from the following genealogical table. HANUMAN ______________________|_______________________ | | Ram Nehera Ram Janam | |________________ | | _______________|_____________________________________________ | | | | | | Deoman Ramkripal Ram Sagar Baranasia | ______________________| | | | ________________________|_______________________ | | | | Ramdas Shyamdas | _____________________________________| ______________|______...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›