Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal893,57CWN439
g.n. das, j.1. this is an appeal by defendant 1 against a decision of sri j. m. bir, learned subordinate judge, burdwan directing that the disputed property which consists of a tank and its banks, be sold amongst the co-sharers. the disputed property was recorded in c. s. dag 1205 of mouza rasuikhand, p. s. raina, district burdwan. the plaintiffs claim 13 annas 12 gandas 2 kara 2 kranti share in the disputed property. the share of defendant 1 is stated to be 1 anna 12 gandas 1 kara 1 kranti 14 tils, that of defendants nos. 2 to 4, 4 gandas 1 kara 1 kranti 16 tils and that of defendant no. 5, 10 gandas 1 kara 10 tils. the plaintiffs allege that defendant 1 has been exercising acts of possession in the tank and its banks and has not taken any care about the tank and that it is not convenient and possible to possess the disputed property jointly with the defendants, that the defendants refused to have the tank amicably partitioned though the plaintiffs requested the defendants to do so. the plaintiffs accordingly filed the present suit for partition. there was a further prayer in the plaint that in case the court was of opinion that the tank could not be conveniently partitioned and that a partition of the tank would affect the intrinsic value thereof, necessary orders in accordance with law might be passed.2. the defence of defendant 1, appellant in this court, was that the plaintiffs are benamdars of defendants 2 to 4 and as such the suit was not maintainable by them. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1948Cal197
ordersharpe, j.1. the petitioners have been convicted under section 430, and section 430 read with section 114 of the indian penal code, respectively, and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 100/-each, in default two months' rigorous imprisonment. the facts, which have not been fully set out in the judgment of the learned magistrate, appear to be that the landlord had agreed with the tenants of ms flats to pump water from a reservoir, in which filtered water supplied by the corporation was collected, and for this purpose a separate charge was imposed and paid by the tenants. one of the tenants alleged that on certain dates in the month of june 1946, the water was not pumped as per agreement, and on his making enquiries the pumpman, petitioner no. 1, informed him that the landlord, petitioner no. 2, has stopped the water supply, in other words had cancelled the order for pumping water into the flats.2. on these facts the learned magistrate held that the offence of mischief as defined under section 425 and the offence contemplated by section 430 of the indian penal code had been committed.3. it seems difficult to hold that the facts of the present case will amount to the offence of mischief as defined in section 425 of the indian penal code. it may be that the landlord would be liable for damages on account of a breach of the agreement to pump the water from the central reservoir, for which, according to the evidence, a separate charge is levied but i fail to see how this omission .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1940Cal455
1. this appeal is by the defendant, the province of bengal, from the judgment and decree of the district judge of rangpur dated 2nd march 1938, by which the judgment and decree of the munsif, second court, rangpur, dated 31st july 1937 has been affirmed. the subject-matter of the suit is 199.23 acres of land in mouzas ganeshpore and pirabad held without payment of revenue from at least 1805. no attempt had been made on the part of the government to assess it with revenue before 1935. the plaintiff-respondent is the owner of a permanently settled estate, being touzi no. 161 of the rangpur collectorate. the lands in suit lie within the geographical limits of that estate. when settlement proceeding under chapter 10, ben. ten. act, was in progress resumption proceedings were started by the settlement officer which culminated in a resolution passed by the board of revenue on 31st july 1935 declaring that the said lands were liable to be assessed with revenue. in pursuance of the said resolution a sum of rs. 381 was assessed as revenue. shortly after, the plaintiff brought this suit for a declaration that the lands were not liable to be assessed with revenue and the assessment made is illegal. the grounds on which he wished to sustain his suit are two in number: (i) that he and his predecessors had been holding the lands as revenue free property from before 12th august 1765, the date of the accession of the east india company to the dewani, under a revenue free grant from raja .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1896)ILR23Cal738
w. comer petheram, c.j.1. the question raised in this reference is whether a decree passed in a suit to which the defendant has appeared and defended, but was not present or represented at the concluding portion of the hearing is an ex parte decree within the meaning of section 108 of the civil procedure code.2. i do not think the point by any means clear, but as the words used in the section are capable of the wider meaning, i do not feel constrained to differ from the rest of the court upon it and agree to the answer to the question which they propose to give.o'kinealy, j.3. in this case the plaintiff brought a suit in the court below against three defendants for possession of land, the plaint was filed, and the 10th of august fixed to settle the issues. on this day one only of the defendants appeared and asked for time and got twenty-seven days. time was granted, and the court directed the parties to appear on the 6th september. i take the order from the order sheet. none of the defendants appeared on the 6th of september, and the court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff in the following terms:plaintiff present, defendants absent, though they appeared on a former date. suit decreed ex parte with costs.4. it is clear that the judicial officer was of opinion that the three defendants had already appeared when he passed this decision.5. on the 12th september the defendant who had previously appeared applied under section 108 of the code of civil procedure for an order .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal357
richard garth, c.j.1. the two suits (nos. 63 and 64) out of which this appeal arises were brought to recover possession of a share in an ancestral estate which originally belonged to neelcanth roy.2. neelcanth roy left six sons, who lived together in commensality and carried on a joint business, each having a sixth of the ancestral property.3. the eldest of these sons was bhoirub rai, who died leaving a daughter, woomamoyee, and two grandchildren.4. two days before bhoirub's death, it was alleged by his brothers that he executed a hibanama, the effect of which was to disinherit his owe daughter and grandchildren, and to convey his share of the property (subject to certain provisions for the maintenance of his own family) to his surviving brothers.5. the existence of this alleged hibanama appears to have been kept secret for some time. bhoirub died in the year 1822, and after his death the family continued to live together as before in commensality, the eldest male member acting as the kurta. in 1851, however, disputes arose in the family. the hibanama was then brought to light, and a private partition took place amongst the brothers, excluding, of course, the heirs of bhoirub.6. upon this a suit was brought by woomamoyee and others, claiming, under bhoirub, to set aside the alleged hibanama, and the partition that had been made in pursuance of it; and the ultimate result of this suit before the sadr dewany adawlut, was, that the hibanama and the partition were both set aside, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1991]191ITR518(Cal)
ajit k. sengupta, j. 1. as many as eight questions of law--four at the instance of the assessee and four at the instance of the revenue--for theassessment year 1972-73 have been referred to this court. counsel for the parties are agreed that all the questions but two are covered either by the decisions of this court or of the supreme court. we do not, therefore, propose to set out the facts in respect of such questions. we, however, propose to answer the questions which are admittedly covered by the decisions of this court or of the supreme court, as the case may be. be it mentioned that we have rearranged the questions for convenience :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in law in holding that the cash subsidy on controlled cloth of rs. 52,87,267 was liable to tax under the income-tax act, 1961 ? 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in law in holding that the benefit of rs. 14,48,604 received by the assessee-company under the export incentive scheme is taxable under the income-tax act, 1961 ?' 2. in view of the decisions of this court in kesoram industries and cotton mills ltd. v. cit : [1978]115itr143(cal) ; jeewanlal (1929) ltd. v. cit : [1983]142itr448(cal) and bharat general and textile industries ltd. v. cit : [1985]153itr747(cal) , the aforesaid two questions (which are questions nos. (ii) and (iii), respectively, in the statement of case referred at the instance .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1885)ILR11Cal175
richard garth, c.j.1. i think that the sums in question are not recoverable.2. they are called abwabs by the plaintiff himself, and they are abwabs, as it seems to me, to all intents and purposes; and i consider that the regulation of 1793, as well as the rent law of 1859, intended to put an end to the abwab system, and to render them illegal.3. it has been argued that to abolish this system is contrary to the wishes of both landlords and ryots, and i believe that to be true.4. landlords often find it a convenient means of enhancing their rents in an irregular way; and the ryots, as a rule, would far rather submit to pay abwabs than have their assul rent increased.5. but the system appears to me to be clearly illegal, and i consider that the civil courts should do their best to put an end to it.6. the plaintiffs' suit will therefore be dismissed as regards the disputed items, with costs in the lower appellate court and in this court, as well as with the costs of this reference.mitter, j. (tottenham and pigot, jj., concurring).7. i am of opinion that the question referred to us should be answered in the negative.8. the plaintiffs claim the disputed items as 'old usual abwabs.' in the zamindari accounts they are also entered as abwabs. the defendant denied that he ever paid them. the district judge, on appeal, awarded a decree in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of these items, on the ground that they had been realized by the plaintiffs and their predecessor in title from .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2006(3)CHN433
v.s. sirpurkar, c.j.1. the judgment will dispose of the following four appeals, they being apot no. 646 of 2005, apot no. 647 of 2005, apqt no. 648 of 2005 and apot no. 649 of 2005. the questions of law and the issues involved in these appeals are almost identical. all the above appeals are filed by coal india limited, which is a company registered under the companies act, 1956 and being the government company, is a state. in all these appeals, the interim orders passed by the learned single judge of this court in writ petitions filed by the respondent explosive companies are impugned. by that order, the learned single judge has issued an injunction restraining the coal india from incorporating a supplementary clause in the principal contract. the following factual matrix would be necessary to appreciate the' controversies and the issues involved.2. appellant coal india limited owns and operates coal mines. all the coal mines were nationalized by coal mines nationalization act and that is how, the private ownership of the coal mines was brought to an end. blasting is a necessary operation for excavating coal from the mines and for that coal india needs explosives from the manufacturers. the respondent explosive companies in all the four appeals are the manufacturers of the explosives. coal india . procures the explosives through a process of floating tender whereby offers are invited from the various manufacturers of explosives. one such tender notice was floated on 11th .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1942Cal371
r.c. mitter, j.1. in 1907 one mobarak ali applied to the government for settlement of 174 drones 8 kanis lgandaand 2 cottas( = 1138-72acres) of noabad land belonging to the government. that area was then covered with jungle. in his application he stated that he was willing to take the settlement 'according to the practice of settlement of such lands.' that meant that he was prepared to take settlement according to usual terms and conditions on which noabad lands are settled by the government. that application was granted and a 114/1 was created. there was a jamabandi which fixed the rent at rs. 175 a year (ex. 5, ii. 6) from 1314 rule section he was let into possession. later on he was asked to execute the kabuliat but he evaded the request with the result that there is no written document which shows the terms and conditions of the settlement. in the jamabandi, ex. 5, there is a column for entering the date and the terms 'as mentioned in the patta.' there being no patta or kabuliat in this case, the terms and conditions of the settlement were not noted in that column but only the date of commencement of the settlement was mentioned. as the purpose of the jamabandi was to fix the rent, the rent assessed was mentioned in the appropriate column arid the date from which the rent so assessed was to run was also stated.2. later on, mobarak ali sold 8 annas of his interest to one nilambar and the remaining 8 annas to santinidhan. nilambar in his turn sold his share to one nritya .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1885)ILR11Cal250
pigot, j.1. this is a suit by one kumar dukhinessur malia against maharani hara sundari debi for possession of certain property.2. the circumstances out of which this suit has arisen are as follows:--the property in dispute admittedly belonged to baboo gobind prosad pundit, and was disposed of by his will, dated the 4th asar 1265, in which he purported to dedicate it to an idol, sri damudor chunder jew. on the death of baboo gobind prosad pundit, his widow entered into possession of this property as shebait; and after her, her second daughter maharani hara sundari debi, defendant no. 1 in the cause. plaintiff asserts that neither the deceased baboo gobind prosad pundit, nor his widow, dealt with the property as the property dedicated to the idol, but as family property. further, he submits that the will is void and inoperative, except so far as the religious and charitable and other gifts contained therein are concerned, and he claims in his own right, and as assignee of one of the heirs under mitakshara law, to have the will construed, his rights declared, and possession given to him of the property in dispute.3. in answer, the defendant hara sundari debi asserts that the whole property has been validly endowed by gobind prosad. pundit, and that she holds as shebait; and she denies that the family is governed by the mitakshara law.4. the written statement of the defendant no. 2, kumar ramessur malia, supports her answer. in paragraph no. 4 of his written statement he asserts .....
Tag this Judgment!