Kolkata Court April 1949 Judgments
Nani Gopal Dutta and ors. Vs. Kshitish Chandra Banerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal108
G.N. Das, J.1. These appeals are on behalf of the plffs. appellants. Second Appeal No. 1571 of 1943 arises out of Title Suit No. 103 of 1941. In this appeal the plffs. pray for a declaration of their right of pasturage over the banks of a tank known as Chapra tank & for a further declaration of a right of burial on the southern part of the northern bank of the said tank. They also pray for a permanent injunction restraining the defts. from interfering with the exercise of their right of pasturage & right of burial as aforesaid. The suit was framed under Order 1, R. 8, Civ. P. C. on behalf of the villagers of a village known as Debgram. The right was based on immemorial user & was claimed under three heads, viz., (i) easement of necessity, (ii) lost grant, & (iii) customary right.2. The other S. A. No. 1572 of 1943 arises out of Title Suit No. 105 of 1941. The plffs. are the same in this suit & the right is claimed over the banks of a tank called Boaria tank. The right that is claimed i...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Tripura Modern Bank Ltd.; Her Highness Maharani Regent Mohadebi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal240,54CWN262
Chatterjee, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Sarkar J., dated 1st March 1949, whereby he dismissed an application presented by a number of creditors of the Tripura Modern Bank Ltd., under Section 153, Companies Act.2. This Bank had a subscribed capital of Rs. 22,50,000 and a paid up capital of Rs. 15,54,000. It was made a scheduled bank in the year 1945, but it got into difficulties thereafter. In the petition it was stated that by reason of various difficulties and the change in the political situation the business of the company was affected and it had to meet liabilities to the extent of over two crores of rupees. Owing to the suspension of business of a number of banks in Calcutta which were also scheduled banks, the company was unable to meet heavy demands and it was not possible for the bank to make further payments without realising its investments.3. The petition discloses that the situation is really serious. The liability of the Bank on the date of the presentation o...
Tag this Judgment!Rupendra Deb Raikut Vs. Ashrumati Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal286
Baneerjee, J.1. This is an application under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent for transfer of a suit pending in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Jalpaiguri to this Court to be tried and determined in its Extraordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction.2. The suit has been filed to recover a large estate, called Baikunthpur, situated in the district of Jalpaiguri being one of the largest estates in that district and concerns a family which is of importance not only in that district but also in the province of Bengal.3. This family, originally Koch, apostatised to Hinduism, and although affected to be Hindus it has retained and is governed by family customs which as regards some matters are at variance with Hindu law. It appears that the law of primogeniture governs succession to the estate; females are excluded from inheritance. The successive holders of the estate are called Raikuts. Mokrund Deb Raikut v. Bissessuree, 9 S. D. A. R. 159 and Fanindra Deb v. Rajeswar Dass, 12 I. A. 72 : (11 Cal....
Tag this Judgment!Sudhindra Nath Dutt Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal422
Lahiri, J.1. Messrs. Harold F. Ritchie and Co. Ltd. are a reputed business concern carrying on business at 11 Olive Street, Calcutta. Amongst other things they are importers & distributors of Eno's Fruit Salt, Germolene and Brylcream. It is said that on 14-5-1948, they received an order from Messrs. Section N. Siddique & Sons of 2 Waterworks Road - Dacca for the supply of 100 cases of Eno's Fruit Salt, 50 cases of Germolene and 50 cases of Brylcream by a letter which has been marked as Ex. 1 in the case. On the same day at about 4.30 p.m. a man named A. Rahaman representing himself to be an agent of Messrs. S. N. Siddique & Sons of Dacca came to see the Manager of Messrs. Harold F. Ritchie & Co. Ltd., Mr. Maurice D. Sopher in connection with the order for sale; but as it was late in the afternoon & the office hour was over he was asked by the Manager to come on the following morning which was a Saturday. Next morning Rahaman again came at 9 O'clock but had to wait at the outer office f...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed HosseIn Vs. Mt. Chembelli and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal262
ORDERSarkar, J.1. This is an application for amendment of the plaint. The suit is on a dishonoured cheque. The plaint did not state that any notice of dishonour has been given or that any circumstances existed which rendered it unnecessary to give such notice. The plaintiff now seeks to introduce these statements in the plaint by an amendment. The application is opposed by the defendants on the ground that by reason of the absence of these allegations the plaint as it stands now discloses no cause of action and hence it must be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (a), Civil P. C. and the Court has no power to allow the amendment. The defendants rely on the judgment of Gentle J. in Sailesh Nath v. J. Chaudhury, 50 C. W. N. 540 which directly supports their contention.2. The plaintiff's answer is two fold : First the plaint discloses a cause of action in spite of the omission to state anything with regard to the notice of dishonour and secondly that Order 7, Rule 11, does not take away the C...
Tag this Judgment!Ezra Proprietary Estates Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal326,[1950]18ITR762(Cal)
Harries, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, to this Court in respect of an assessment of the applicant company for the assessment years 1939-40 and 1940-41. The question which has been submitted to the Court for answer is as follows : 'Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the provisions of Section 23A were properly invoked ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company whose main source of income is income from property assessable under Section 9, Income-tax Act. Its only other source of income is interest on deposits, but such income is only slightly over 1 per cent, of the assessable income.3. The relevant accounting years for the two assessments were the calendar years 1938 and 1939. According to the assessee the company made a profit of Rs. 30,000 in 1938 and Rs. 15,000 in 1939 and the whole of the profit for these two years was distributed amongst the share-holders as dividends.4...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal Vs. N. C. Mandal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1949
Reported in: [1949]17ITR591(Cal)
CHATTERJEE, J. - The Commissioner of Income-tax has caused the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following question to this Court for its opinion :-'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case Mr. N. C. Mandal was entitled to relief under Section 25(3) in respect of his share of income from the firm of N. C. Mandal & Co., Solicitors, for the period March 1, 1943, to March 15, 1944.'The facts are admitted and are as follows : Mr. N. C. Mandal who was a senior attorney of this Court had been carrying on his business or profession as an attorney. In 1925 he entered into partnership with another solicitor, Mr. K. L. Mandal, and both carried on business as attorneys of this Court under the name and style of N. C. Mandal and Co. On March 1, 1944, two new partners were taken in and the shares were redistributed. Formerly, Mr. N. C. Mandal had 12 annas share. That share was continued. Mr. K. L. Mandal had 4 annas share. That share was reduced to 2 annas. The two new partners we...
Tag this Judgment!East India Prospecting Syndicate Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Ta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal40,[1951]19ITR571(Cal)
Harries, C.J.1. This is a Reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, in respect of the assessment of the East India Prospecting Syndicate, Calcutta, to excess profits tax.2. The Syndicate claimed that it was not liable to pay excess profits because it was not carrying on a business within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. The Tribunal found that it was carrying on a business but it was requested by the syndicate to state a case for the opinion of this Court. The Tribunal stated a case and formulated the following question for the opinion of this Court.'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee can be said to be carrying on a 'business' within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, so as to bring the income in question within the charge to excess profits tax?'3. The facts of the case giving rise to this dispute can be shortly stated 'as follows:4. Sometime in the year 1919 the Villiers C...
Tag this Judgment!Harimohan Dutt Vs. C.K. Sen and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal391
P.B. Mukherji, J.1. This is a suit by the plff. for the recovery of possession of the first floor & the three rooms in the ground floor in premises No. 60, Harrison Road, Calcutta, in the occupation Calcutta 391 of the deft. Co. & for a decree for the sum of Rs. 3,400/- on account of arrears of rent & for mesne profits.2. The plff's. case is that the deft. co. was a monthly tenant in respect of the said premises at a rent of Rs. 200/- per month commencing from the month of August 1943. On 16-9-1943 the deft. Company paid a sum of Rs. 200/- as advance payment of rent. On 15/16-1-1945 the plff. gave a notice to the deft. Company to quit & vacate the said premises on the expiry of the month of January 1945. The plff. claims Rs. 3,600/-out of which he has given credit for the advance payment of Rs. 200/- making a total claim of Rs. 3,400/- only being rent at Rs. 200/- per month from August 1943 to January 1945.3. The deft, filed its written statement & has taken a number of points therein....
Tag this Judgment!Akshoy Kumar Bose and ors. Vs. Sukumar Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal320
Das Gupta, J.1. The property which is the subject-matter of this litigation was acquired by Satish Chandra Dutta, father of defendants 1 and 3 in the year 1906 by a patta from Narendra Nath Das and others. Satish had a brother named Sital. Respondent 1 is the son of Sital and brought the suit for partition of the property on the allegation that the property, though acquired in the name of only one brother Satish, was really the joint property of the two brothers Satish and Sital. The present appellant was impleaded as defendant 4, as he had acquired a portion of the property in suit by settlement from Satish and another portion by purchase from the heirs of Satish. Other defendants were, apart from the sons of Satish, the other tenants who were in possession of parts of the property, having taken settlement either from Satish or his heirs.2. The defence was that the property was not joint and was really the personal property of Satish acquired with his own money.3. The trial Court reje...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »