Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1957Cal171
ORDERSen, J.1. This is a revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question raised relates to the valuation of the suit in question for the purpose of court-fees. The plaintiff, who is the petitioner in this Court, instituted the suit for specific performance of a contract for exchange and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. The suit land measures about 72 Bighas in several lots. According to the petitioner he is a refugee from East Pakistan and he had considerable lands in East Pakistan and he arranged with Mobarak Hossain, defendant No. 1, to exchange Mobarak's land in the district of Nadia in West Bengal with the petitioner's land falling in what is now Kusthia district in East Bengal, and deeds of agreement were actually executed between the parties and possession of the respective lands was delivered. On the basis of these arrangements Kalachand, the plaintiff, obtained possession of the suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1956Cal636
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This is a Reference under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and involves a single question of law. The matter was argued before us at some considerable length.2. The relevant facts are few in number. One H. M. Thaddeus, an inhabitant of Calcutta, appears to have got into trouble with his wife in regard to their married life and the lady sought the assistance of this Court by instituting a suit for judicial separation. That suit, which was Suit No. 20 of 1940, was ultimately disposed of on 28-2-1940 by consent. The terms of the consent decree, so far as they are material for the present purpose, were that an order for judicial separation was to be made in favour of the plaintiff wife and the defendant husband was to be directed to pay to his wife a sum of Rs. 800/- as her alimony 'in the manner specified in the terms.' The first of the terms of settlement referred to the payment of this alimony and was to the follow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1957]31ITR545(Cal)
CHAKRAVARTTI, C.J. - This is a reference under section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and involves a single question of law. The matter was argued before us at some considerable length.The relevant facts are few in number. One H. M. Thaddeus, an inhabitant of Calcutta, appears to have got into trouble with his wife in regard to their married life and the lady sought the assistance of this Court by instituting a suit for judicial separation. That suit which was Suit No. 20 of 1940, was ultimately disposed of on the 28th February, 1940, by consent. The terms of the consent decree, so far as they are material for the present purpose, were that an order for judicial separation was to be made in favour of the plaintiff wife and the defendant husband was to be directed to pay to his wife a sum of Rs. 800 as her alimony 'in the manner specified in the terms.' The first of the terms of settlement referred to the payment of this alimony and w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1956Cal467
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by the petitioner Banwarilal Garodia, a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act to declare Award No. 484 of 1954 dated 31-3-1954 of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce illegal and invalid and to set aside such award. There is an alternative prayer to modify the award by deleting 'payme:it of interest' mentioned in para 20(u) of the petition. The Notice of Motion was taken out as early as 3-5-1955, but has managed to remain undisposed so long.2. Mr. Bhabra appearing for the applicant did not urge all the grounds mentioned in para 20 of the petition. He selected the grounds stated in sub-paras (a), (c), (f), (g), (h), (q), (r), (s), (u) and (v) of para 20 of the petition and abandoned all others. In fact, he urged before me five points to set aside the award and to declare it in-valid.3. His first point of objection was that the contract itself was illegal under the West Bengal tration Goods Act 5 of 1950, and, therefore, the arbitratio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1957Cal211,60CWN1058
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. On May 29, 1935, the defendant-respondent Sushil Chandra Moulik and his brother Suresh Chandra Moulik, since deceased, borrowed a sum of Rs. 7,000/- from the plaintiff appellants' father late Krishnadas Banerjee on a first mortgage of their premises No. 32, Mahesh Barik Lane, Baliaghata, 24-Parganas. The mortgage deed (Ex. 1 (a)) provided, inter alia, for payment of interest at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent, per annum compound with half-yearly rests and the stipulated date of re-payment was May 29, 1936.2. On the back of the mortgage bond (Ex. 1 (a)) there were several endorsements of payment of interest totalling Rs. 2,229-8-0 and these were duly given credit in the plaint which laid the claim at Rs. 11,508/- on account of the outstanding principal and interest. The plaintiffs prayed for the usual mortgage decrees, preliminary, final and personal, and for costs.3. The suit was contested by the defendant Sushil Chandra Moulik who claimed to be the 16 annas owner of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1957Cal67,60CWN1065
Das Gupta, J.1. The petitioner brought the present suit for joint possession of 6-1/2 bighas of land in 18, 18/1, 18/2 and 18/3 Alipore Road, within the Municipality of Calcutta, on the strength of his purchase at a sale for arrears of revenue of Touzi No. 6 of the 24 Parganas Collectorate. These lands, according to the petitioner, appertained to a number of amalgamated touzis, touzis Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 33, 51, 53 and 91. It is averred that the former proprietor of touzi No. 6 was in khas possession of his interest therein and had not let it out to any person; that the defendant's possession of these lands as regards what appertains to touzi No. 6 was an, encumbrance, so that the plaintiff as purchaser at a revenue sale having obtained the interest free from encumbrances was entitled to obtain joint possession thereof with the defendant, who has title to the lands in so far as they appertained to some other touzis. There was also a prayer for mesne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1956Cal530,60CWN835
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. This Rule raises the question whether when a court before which an application to file an appeal in forma pauperis under Order 44, Rule 1, Civil P. C. is made, does not reject the application in view of the proviso to that rule but issues notice on the opposite party to show cause why the application to prosecute the appeal as pauper should not be allowed, it is open to the court, at a later stage, to reject the application on the ground that under the proviso it is bound to reject it.It appears in the present case that a defendant against whom a suit had been decreed by a Munsif of Serampore filed an application to prosecute the appeal in forma pauperis on the ground that she was unable to pay the fee required for the memorandum of appeal. The learned Judge examined the applicant and thereafter directed issue of notice. The notice that was issued called upon the opposite party to produce evidence, if they so desired, to show' that the applicant was not a pauper an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1956Cal428
Chakravartti, C.J.1. We think that in all the circumstances of the case the order of the 12th of March last ought not to be sustained. It is true that the order has spent itself, because what was directed by it was only that the appellant should hand over the prints of the film & the relevant publicity materials to the Indira Cinema by 11 o'clock of the 13th of March last. When the appellants lodged their appeal & moved for an interim stay of the order, it appeared to us that there were 'prima facie' grounds for thinking that exceptions to the order could justly be taken and accordingly we granted an Interim stay. The result has been that the 13th of March has come and gone and so far as the particular order passed on that date is concerned, whether it is sustained or held to have been wrongly passed, is of no practical consequence to anyone.It has, however been represented to' us that the basis of the order nevertheless remains and it is necessary and proper that we should express our...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1957Cal78,60CWN997
ORDERSinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows. The Bewa Union Board situate in the district of Murshidabad, consists of three Wards, namely, Wards Nos. 1, 2 and 3. On or about 14-12-1952 a general election was held in the said, Union Board. After the election was held, applications were made to set aside the election under Section 17B, Bengal Village Self-Government Act. The elections of members of Wards Nos. 1 and 2were set aside. Thereafter, the electoral rolls for wards Nos. 1 and 2 were revised and nomination, papers were called for from those two wards. Ward No. 3 was entirely ignored. The electoral roll for Ward No. 3 was not revised and no nomination paper was called for, from that Ward. It is on this footing that the election was again held in Wards Nos. 1 and 2. Against the second election, objection was taken under Section 17B of the said Act. Appeals were filed by two persons-Insan Ali Biswas and Sk. Ummar Ali both claiming to be residents of Ward No. 3. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1957Cal69,[1956]30ITR46(Cal)
Das Gupta, J.1. This is a reference made by the Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Income-tax authorities for the opinion of this Court on a question which is formulated in these words; Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal were right in holding that under the endowment the two' deities took equally and that their shares being thus defined there was no scope for an assessment at the maximum rate. One Dinanath Ghose executed an Arpan-nama on 3-6-1917 by which he dedicated to the two deities, one of which is Radha Shyara Jew Jugal Murti and the other a Narayan Sila called Sri Sri Sridhar Jew, properties mentioned in Schs. 'Ka' and 'Kha' of the document. He did not specify the shares which each of the deities was to get in these properties. If the gift was a joint gift to the two deities with the share of each indeterminate, the income receivable by each of the deities would be indeterminate and under the proviso to Section 41, Income-tax Act tax was levia...
Tag this Judgment!