Kolkata Court January 1954 Judgments
Mrs. Roma Banerjee Vs. Ushapati Banerjee, Muktear, Alipore
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1954
Reported in: AIR1958Cal692,1958CriLJ1478
J.P. Mitter, J.1. This Reference under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act is by the Additional Sessions 'Judge, First Extra Court, Alipur.2. The case against the respondent Mukhtear Ushapati Banerjee is as follows:3. He was engaged by one Mrs. Roma Banerjee to conduct a prosecution by her against one Mrs. Anjali Lindsay and her husband for cheating. The case ended in the conviction of the accused persons whereupon they preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge, 24-Parganas. At this stage, the respondent represented, to the complainant Mrs. Roma Banerjee that a senior lawyer should be engaged on her behalf and induced her to pav to him Rs. 75/- as the fee of the senior lawyer to be engaged in the case. As for a long time Mrs. Banerjee received no information as to the fate of the said appeal, she caused enquiries to be made and discovered that the respondent Mukhtear had, in the meantime, without her knowledge, compromised the said criminal appeal on the accused, persons paying a...
Tag this Judgment!Manik Ratan GuIn and anr. Vs. Prakash Chandra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal338
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. These two appeals are by the defendants in two suits against whom the claim of the holder of two hundis in whose favour they had been endorsed by the payee of hundi, the Midnapur Branch of the Bank of Calcutta, for the amount due on the hundi with interest had been allowed.2. In Appeal No. 136 of 1949 the appellants Manick Ratan Guin and Nakul Ratan Guin were the drawees, of the hundi, the drawer being Krishna Charan Guin. They were accepted by Manick Ratan and Nakul Ratan on the very date the hundi was drawn and it was transferred by the payee hank on 18-4-1947. In Appeal No. 137 of 1949 Manick Ratan is the drawer of the hundi while the other appellant Prosanta Kumar Sen Gupta is the drawee who accepted it on the same date. This also was transferred by the Bank on 24-5-1947. The transfer in both the cases was by wav of adjustment against dues of the transferees against the Bank on account of several deposits.Of the several defences taken, we are concerned with onl...
Tag this Judgment!Bimal Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Manmatha Nath Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal345,58CWN760
G.N. Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the concurrent judgments of the courts below. The question which now awaits mydecision Is a narrow one, namely the decision of issue No. 7 which runs as follows: 'Is the defendant entitled to get any compensation for improvement effected? If so, what?' This issue arose under the following circumstances.The disputed property belonged to one Gopal Das. Gopal Das died leaving a widow Charubala, a son Satya Charan and three daughters Mrinalini, Kali Rani & Chapala. On the death of Gopal Das the property devolved on his son Satya Charan. Satya Charan having died the estate devolved on Charubala. Charubala, by three documents executed on the same date, namely, 22-5-1926, parcelled out the entire estate amongst her three daughters.Charubala died later in Bhadra, 1343 B.S.The plaintiffs claim to be the reversioners to the estate of Satyacharan on Charubala's death. The contesting defendant Is the son of Haridasi the purchaser of the di...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Nath Maity and anr. Vs. Ram Chandra Nayek and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal367
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. Two brothers Ashutosh Maity and Behary Maity held the suit land as tenants under the appellants. Behary died leaving his widow Rashi Dei as his sole heiress. The appellants as landlords brought a rent suit against their tenants Ashutosh and Rashi Dei and in execution of the decree obtained therein purchased the disputed holding on 19-11-1936. Prior to the institution of the rent suit Ashutosh had purported to mortgage the suit land to the contesting respondents' father Keshab Nayek by a duly registered deed sometime in the year 1928. The amount secured by the deed was Rs. 300/-. In the mortgage suit which was brought in the year 1940 the appellants as rent sale purchasers as aforesaid were impleaded as defendants but eventually the suit was dismissed against them for non-prosecution upon their plea of a paramount title.In execution of the mortgage decree the property was purchased by the mortgagee-decree-holders (who are the contesting respondents before me) on 17-...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnupuriya Choudhurany Vs. Panchkari Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal541
K.C. Das Gupta, J. 1. The subject-matter of this litigation. is holding No. 8 Rajballav Saha Lane within the Howrah Municipality. Admittedly defendants 2 to 5 held this land as tenants under the plaintiff. The tenancy was created in favour of predecessor-in-interest of defendants 2 to 5 by the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest on 26-3-1865. The plaintiff has brought the present suit for khas possession of the property and mesne profits and in the alternative for damages on the allegation that none of the defendants 2 to 5 have any right and title whatsoever to sell the said property contrary to the terms of the Patta and Kabuliyat and that according to the terms of the Patta and Kabuliyat they were bound to sell the property to the plaintiff and that defendants 2 to 5 having sold the property contrary to the terms of the said Patta and Kabuliya't the plaintiff was entitled to get possession of the property in suit. The Kabuliyat is in these words: 'This Kabuliyat is executed by (Sree...
Tag this Judgment!Sriram Jhabarmul Vs. S.C. Das Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal447
ORDERSinha, J.1. This application concerns the assessment of excess profits tax (hereinafter referred to as the E. P. Tax) under the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 (Act 15 of 1840) (hereinafter referred to as the E. P. T. Act), of the firm of Sriram Jhabarmull for the chargeable accounting period, 26-3-1942 to 13-4-1943. The firm has been assessed on the footing of a Hindu undivided family, of which the Karta is Nandram Agarwalla.2. The original E. P. T. Act did not contain any provision for provisional assessment. This was introduced by Ordinance No. 16 of 1943 which introduced Section 14A. As this provision is not generally found in the current text books, I set it out below :'14A. 'Power to make provisional assessments'. (1) The Excess Profits Tax Officer before proceeding to make an assessment (in this Section referred to as the provisional assessment) under Section 14, may at any time after the expiry of the period specified in the notice issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 13 a...
Tag this Judgment!Sriram Jhabarmull, in Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1954
Reported in: [1954]26ITR498(Cal)
ORDERSINHA, J. - This application concerns the assessment of excess profits tax under the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 (Act XV of 1940), of the firm of Sriram Jhabarmull for the chargeable accounting period, 26th March, 1942, to 13th April, 1943. The firm has been assessed on the footing of a Hindu undivided family of which the karta is Nandram Agarwalla.The original Excess Profits Tax Act did not contain any provision for provisional assessment. This was introduced by Ordinance No. XVI of 1943 which introduced Section 14A. As this provision is not generally found in the current text book, I set it out below :'14A. Power to make provisional assessments. - (1) The Excess Profits Tax Officer, before proceeding to make an assessment (in this section referred to as the provisional assessment) under Section 14, may at any time after the expiry of the period specified in the notice issued under sub-section (1) of Section 13 as that within which the return therein referred to is to be furnish...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupati Bhusan Mondal and ors. Vs. Jadunath Ghosal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal70,58CWN814
G.N. Das, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and is directed against the decision of Sri B. M. Ray Chaudhury, learned Subordinate Judge, Birbhum dated 15-11-1948, affirming the decision if Sri Durgadas Bose, Munsif, 1st Court, Bolpur, dated 28-2-1945. 2. The suit out of which this appeal has arises was for a declaration of the right of easement viz., to exercise the right of irrigation from a reservoir called Kanai Chowdhury's Bundh and described in schedule Ka to the plaint and for certain other reliefs. The right of irrigation is claimed in respect of the plots mentioned in schedule Kha of the plaint, the servient tenement being the reservoir described in Schedule. Ka includes three cadastral survey plots being Dags Nos. 13,108 and 110. Plots 13 and 110 are said to be the watery portion of Kanai Choudhury's Bundh, the embankment being C. S. Plot No. 108. The plaintiffs' allegation is that the right of irrigation was being exercised from time immemorial by certain channels exis...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Bimal Kumari Vs. Asoke Mitra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal402
Mitter, J.1. This is a suit for (a) specific performance of an agreement for sale of a property situate outside the jurisdiction of this Court, (b) leave under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P. C. in respect of possession of the said premises, (c) decree for Rs. 30,000/- with interest thereon at 12 per cent, from 22-1-1948 until payment if title be not found good on such enquiry, (d) alternatively, for refund of Rs. 30,000/- with interest at the said rate and decree for Rs, 10,000/- as compensation, (e) leave under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P. C. in respect of charge on the said property, (f) leave under Clause 12, Letters Patent, (g) Receiver, (h) injunction and (i) costs.2. The plaintiff is the wife of one Maharaja Bahadur Singh Nahar. The original defendant was one Asoke Mitra who formerly worked as a solicitor of this Court and owned premises No. 43/1, Ramesh Mitra Road, Calcutta, situate outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The suit was filed in 1949. In 1951 the plaint was amended by the...
Tag this Judgment!Dilwar Sultan Vs. Keshab Chandra Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal422
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application under Section 28, Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act 1949. The application was dismissed by the trial court and the tenant's appeal from the said decision failed before the Subordinate Judge who dismissed it on the merits and also on the ground that no appeal lay from an order rejecting an application under Section 28, Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949. Hence this Second Appeal by the tenant who has also filed an application in the alternative under Section 115, Civil P. C. for revision of the orders of the two courts below.2. A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of the second appeal, but in view of the alternative application in revision and the nature of the questions involved in this case, it is not necessary to examine the merits of the said objection.3. On 15-12-1948 the respondents landlords obtained an ex parte decree for ejectment against the tenant appellant. Before, however, possession could be rec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »