Kolkata Court August 1949 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Central Vs. Dudwala and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal315,[1950]18ITR653(Cal)
Chatterjee, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioners of Income-tax, the question of law which has been referred to this Court for its opinion by the Tribunal is in these terms :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the Tribunal was right in holding that the partnership firm of Dudwala & Co. should be registered under Section 26A of the income-tax Act.' 2. The facts shortly are as follows. The partners of the firm were Rai Bahadur Rameshwar Nathany, representing the Mitakshara joint family under the name and style of Baldeodas Rameswar, one Mannalal Musuddi and one Ramkumar Agarwal. Mannalal Musuddi went out of the partnership in November 1942 and a fresh deed was executed by which the two partners carried on the business of the firm, in which the share of Rameswar Nathany (representing Baldeodas Rameswar) was twelve annas and Ramkumar Agarwala three anna? The remaining one anna share was devoted to charity. The deed was dated 10th February 1946.3. A suit for part...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarkadas and Co. Vs. Daluram Goganmull
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal10,54CWN544
Harries, C.J.1. This appeal was referred to a Full Bench for decision by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 5-4-1949. In the referring order two questions are propounded, namely,1. In the circumstances of this case was the arbitration clause contained in the contract between Bubna More & Co. and the respondents imported into the contract made between the respondents and the appellants ?2. Which of the two decisions, namely, Chatturbhuj Chandunmull v. Basdeodas Daga, 47 Cal. 799 : (A. I. R. (8) 1921 Cal. 767) and Haji Vali Mahomed Ayoob v. Shamdeo Gopiram, 34 C. W. N. 447 : : AIR1930Cal774 is correctly decided ?2. To appreciate the points in issue in this appeal it will be necessary shortly to set out the facts.3. By a contract indent No. 73 dated 13-12-1947, a firm known as Bubna More & Co. sold to the respondents in this appeal two lacs yards of American O. D. Cotton Merquisette Olive Colour 48' wide at Re. 1-1.6 per yard.4. By the contract the sellers were to deliver the goods t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: saptaha a Bengali Bi-weekly Newspaper; in Re: Benoy Kumar Chatt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal444,54CWN334
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition filed by one Benoy Kumar Chattopadhyaya praying that an order of Provincial Government No. 235 Pr. dated 24th March 1949, forfeiting a sum of Rs. 1000 deposited by the petitioner under the provisions of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, (Act XXIII [23] of 1931) be set aside.2. The petitioner was the publisher and printer of a bi-weekly Bengali newspaper called the 'Saptaha'. On 23rd December 1948, the petitioner deposited Rs. 1,000 as security as required by Section 3 of the Act. On 27th January 1949 the petitioner ceased to be the publisher and printer of the newspaper which apparently became defunct. He thereupon applied to the Presidency Magistrate for refund of the deposit which he had made. The Presidency Magistrate ordered an enquiry under Section 13 of the Act. On 24th March 1949, apparently before the result of the enquiry of the Presidency Magistrate had been communicated to the petitioner, the Provincial Government made an order...
Tag this Judgment!Nanilal Roy Vs. Sm. Suniti Bala Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal429
P.B. Mukherjee, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff on a mortgage dated 12th March 1932 asking for a mortgage decree in Form No. 5 of the Appendix D to the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure. This suit was filed after obtaining leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The defendants are mortgagors including their legal representatives and heirs.2. The only issue raised before me on behalf of the defendants is one of jurisdiction. It is said by the defendants that all other properties are zamindary properties situated in the district of Mymensingh outside the original jurisdiction of the High Court and that l/48th undivided share of premises No. 20, Garanhatta Street is the only Calcutta property by which jurisdiction is intended to be found in the High Court. On the basis of the very well-known decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 'Collector of Gorakhpur v. Ram Sundar Mal', 61 I. A. 286 and 'Venkata Rama Rao v. Sobhanadri Appa Rao', 63 I. A. 169 a...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Chandra Kabiraj and ors. Vs. Sankarsan Kabiraj and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal128
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal has to be allowed on the short ground that the suit is bad for misjoinder of the parties and of causes of action. This objection was raised by the defence in Courts below,2. The plaintiffs are co-sharer landlords and they filed the present suit against a large number of defendants who may be grouped under the following heads : defendants 1 to 16 were their co-sharers; Nos. 17 and 18 were two lawyers of the estate; Nos. 19 to 25 were officers, tahsildars, gomosthas and other employees of the estate ; No. 26 is alleged to have intermeddled with the property as on behalf of defendant 1; and Nos. 27 to 38 were other proprietors of different estates. The claim was one for accounts against all these persons.3. A reading of the plaint itself would at once show that the causes of action were different not only for the different groups but even for different persons within the same group in some cases. It is impossible to allow the plaintiffs to bring such a sui...
Tag this Judgment!Jhajharia Brothers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal570,[1950]18ITR126(Cal)
Chatterjee, J.1. The question referred to this Court by the appellate tribunal is as follows :'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal was right in holding that the non-compliance by the assessee with the provision of Section 12A disentitled him from claiming the deduction of Rs. 32,685 in question and is assessable under the provision of Section 10 of the same Act.'2. The applicant is the managing agent of Radha Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd. Its income is mainly from the managing agency commission which it received from the mill. The Radha Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd., was loated by a number of persons: Radha Krishna Jajharia who was karta of a joint Hindu family, Gobardhandas the Shroff and Joy Doyal Kasaria. It is stated that there was an agreement between these parties to share the managing agency commission payable by the Radha Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd. Later on, both Joy Doyal and Gobardhandas assigned their respective shares of the managing agency commission to Bha...
Tag this Judgment!Panchanan Das Vs. the King on the Complaint of Upendra Nath Samanta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal80
ORDERSen, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of having committed an offence punishable under Section 448, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one mouth. Out of the fine, if paid, the complainant was to be awarded Rs. 150, as compensation. This order of conviction and sentence was passed by Sri B. Majumdar, Magistrate, Second Class, Howrah. An appeal by the petitioner to the Additional District Magistrate was dismissed. The petitioner has now obtained, this Rule.2. The facts alleged by the prosecution, are these. The complainant was a tenant of the accused petitioner in respect of a shop room at 8 Lal Behari Basu Lane and he used this room for the sale of straw. On 3rd Aswin the accused landlord came to the complainant and asked him to vacate the room temporarily as he wished to repair it. Believing in the statement the complainant on 4th Aswin removed his articles from the room and went away. He returned on 14th Aswin and...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Sarat Chandra Bose.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1949
Reported in: [1950]18ITR669(Cal)
HARRIES, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The question propounded i : -'Whether in the facts and circumstance of this case relief under section 25(3) was allowed by the Tribunal.'To appreciate the point raised it will be necessary shortly to set out the facts. The assessee is and was a well known member of the Bar and an Advocate practising on the Original side of the Calcutta High Court. It is common ground that he was assessed to income-tax under the Act of 1918. On December 11, 1941, he was arrested at the instance of Government and was kept in detention until September 14, 1945, when he was released. During that period of course he was unable to carry on his practice as a Barrister and an Advocate and on his behalf it was said that Mr. Bose had given up all idea of practising in the future or, in short, had discontinued his practice. It is accepted by the Tribunal that Mr. Bose dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Uday Chand Mahatab Vs. Dibakar Sen and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal134,54CWN307
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The only question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether in a suit for recovery of arrears of putni rent the provisions of Article110, Limitation Act or those of Article 2 of Schedule III, Bengal Tenancy Act will be attracted.2. The plaintiff filed the suit on the 15th April 1944 for the realisation of arrear putni rent due before the said putni was sold under the Putni Regulation on 1st Jaistha 1348 B. S.3. The defence was that a portion of the claim was barred by limitation as the plaintiff was entitled to claim arrears which had accrued due within three years of the filing of the suit. Both the Courts have disallowed the claim for the period antecedent to the Chaitra Kist of 1347 i. e. mid-April, 1941 holding that this suit is governed by Article110, Limitation Act. Hence this second appeal on behalf of the plaintiff.4. We shall consider in the first instance the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that Article2 of Schedule III, Bengal Tena...
Tag this Judgment!Bengal Central Bank Ltd. Vs. Bezon and Co. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal299
Chatterjee, J.1. This suit was instituted for the recovery of a large sum of money and for the declaration of charge on certain Calcutta premises. The preliminary decree was passed on 27-7-1946. On 1-2-1949, on an application by the plaintiff, Sinha J. passed a final decree and directed that the property in question would not be sold in execution of the decree for six months. He further ordered that if the petitioner, who is defendant 2, paid a sum of Rs. 5000 within that period, the said property would not be sold for another six months.2. The petitioner states that owing to the reasons set forth in his petition, he could not pay the sum of Es. 5000 within the period mentioned in the decree. He says that defendant 1, who was his son-in-law and who was the real debtor, died in July 1949. He is negotiating with a party who is willing to advance Rs. 5000 on the security of his Calcutta property. Therefore he asks that the time fixed by the said decree or order dated 1-2-1949, for payment...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »