Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1925)ILR52Cal253
Walmsley, J.1. There are two appeals before us, and a reference under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The circumstances are as follows. It is said that the accused had a quarrel with the family of one Momrej, and that one night they went to his house and set fire to the hat in which Momrej and his two wives and some children were sleeping: the inmates of this hut were not allowed to escape, and they were all burned to death. In other huts Entaz and Bibijan were sleeping, and they were also killed.2. The Committing Magistrate framed charges under Section 120B, read with Section 302, of the Penal Code, and under Section 302 of the Penal Code, and Section 436 of the Penal Code. The learned Judge made changes in the charge under Section 120B read with Section 302 of the Penal Code. The jury was unanimous in finding all the accused guilty on all the charges. The Judge agreed with the verdict and sentenced two of the men to death, and the others to transportation for life. Hence ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 85Ind.Cas.231
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. There are two appeals before us and a Reference under Section 374, Cr. P.C. The circumstances are as follows. It is said that the accused had a quarrel with the family of one Momrez and that one night they went to his house and set fire to the hut in which Momrez and his two wives and some children were sleeping: the inmates of this hut were not allowed to escape and they were all burned to death. In other huts Intaz and Bibijan were sleeping and they were also killed.2. The Committing Magistrate framed charges under Section 120B read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code and under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and Section 436, Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge made changes in the charge under Section 120B read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The Jury was unanimous in finding all the accused guilty on all the charges. The Judge agreed with the verdict and sentenced two of the men to death, and the others to transportation for life. Hence the two appeals and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1925Bom49; (1924)26BOMLR987; 90Ind.Cas.580
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. [His lordship after setting out the facts of the case, proceeded:] I shall first take up the points relating to the notice convening the extraordinary general meeting on July 19. In order to appreciate them, it is material to state here that the capital of the Tata Bank was seven and a half crores of rupees, consisting of ten lakhs shares of 11Sectin. 75 each. In respect of each share at the material time Rs. 22-8-0 were oiled in with the result that at that date its paid up capital was two and a quarter crores. The balance sheet of this Bank published before these negotiations commenced relates to the year ending with March 31, 1923. It appears from the evidence that about the end of June 1923, the condition of the Bank was not satisfactory. The deposits in the Bank at the end of March 1923 amounted to about Rs. 5,95,00,000, while at the end of June 1923 they had gone down to 3,37,00,000 of rupees. It is also in evidence that the Manager of the Bank had foun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1924)26BOMLR921
Fawcett, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts of the case and the correspondence between the parties, observed:--] At the trial it was not disputed that the goods tendered to the defendants were contract goods. But it was contended that owing to the bales being described by the figure 10 instead of the figure 9/5 mentioned in the contract, the defendants were not bound to accept the goods. This contention was overruled by the learned Judge in the Court below, and it is now admitted that there was a breach of the contract by the defendants. The Judge held that the date of this breach was April 5, 1921, and though in the judgment he refers to the defendants' final repudiation of May 17, it is clear that this does not affect the previous finding that there was a breach on April 5. We agree there was a clear breach on April 5, 1921, and that this was not affected by the subsequent negotiations which broke down on May 17.2. The only other point in dispute was whether the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1925Cal587
Mukerji, J.1. The confession of the prisoner Jibaiikrishna Sircar was recorded by the Honorary Presidency Magistrate, Rai Bahadur Dr. Haridhan Dutt on the 15th and the 16th December 1923. It was not retracted at any time during the commitment enquiry. In his statement before the Committing Magistrate at the close of the enquiry on the 10th April 1924, the prisoner said 'I have said whatever I had to say to Dr. Haridhan Dutt in my statement before him.' On the 19th May 1924 a petition, purporting to have been filed by the prisoner and bearing that date, was put up before me, retracting the confession.2. The confession of the prisoner Haripada Mookerjee was recorded by the Honorary Presidency Magistrate Mr. S.N. Roy on the 13th, 14th and 15th December 1923. On the 17th December 1923, the prisoner along with his co-accused was put up before a Stipendiary Magistrate with a charge sheet submitted on that day and the case was adjourned to the 27th December 1923. On the last mentioned day a p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1925)ILR52Cal67
Mukerji, J.1. The confession of the prisoner Jiban Krishna Sarkar was recorded, by the Honorary Presidency Magistrate, Hal Bahadur Hari Dhone Datt on the 15th and the 16th December 1923. It was not retracted, at any time daring the commitment enquiry. In his statement before the Committing Magistrate, at the close of the enquiry on the 10th April 1924, the prisoner said, 'I have said whatever I had to say to Dr. Hari Dhone Dutt in my statement before him.' On the 19th May 1924 a petition, purporting to have been filed by the prisoner and bearing that date, was put tip before me, retracting the confession.2. The confession of the prisoner Haripada Mukerjee was recorded by the Honorary Presidency Magistrate, Mr.N. Roy, on the 13th, 14th and 15th December 1923. On the 17th December 1923 the prisoner, along with, his co-accused, was put up before a Stipendiary Magistrate with a charge sheet submitted on that day, and. the case was adjourned to the 27th December 1923. On the last-mentioned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1925All73
Boys, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the Sessions Judge, Kamaun, upholding an order of a First-class Magistrate refusing to make an order under Section 488 at the instance of a woman called Musammat Kumli for the payment by one Gardiner of Rs. 15 a month for the education of a child, whom the woman alleges to be her illegitimate child by Gardiner.2. The narrative of case is briefly as follows : - Musammat Kumli was engaged by Gardiner, whose wife was dead, to look after his children some time at the end of 1910 or beginning of 1911. Her husband was in jail, and was released in 1913, in about July as the woman says. She belongs or belonged to the dom caste. She gave birth to a child, the date as alleged by her being November the 15th, 1913. She apparently used to look after Gardiner's children during the winter months and, usually, if not always, return to her home, a village three miles outside Naini Tal, during the hot months, when the children were at Naini ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 82Ind.Cas.257
Boys, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the Sessions Judge, Kamaun, upholding an order of a First Class Magistrate refusing to make an order under Section 488 at the instance of a woman called Musammat Kumli for the payment by one Gardiner of Rs. 15 a month for the education of a child, whom the woman alleges to be her illegitimate child by Gardiner.2. The narrative of the case is briefly as follows: Musammat Kumli was engaged by Gardiner, whose wife was dead, to look after his children some time at the end of 1910 or beginning of 1911. Her husband was in Jail, and was released in 1913, in about July as the woman says. She belongs or belonged to the Dom caste. She gave birth to a child, the date as alleged by her being November the 15th, 1913. She apparently used to look after Gardiner's children during the winter months and, usually if not always, return to her home a village three miles outside Naini Tal, during the hot months, when the children were at Naini T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1925Cal34
Chatterjea, J.1. This is a case stated by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal, under the provisions of Section 66 of Act XI of 1922, and Section 51 of Act VII of 1918.2. The Rogers Pratt Shellac Company is incorporated in the United States of America, with its headquarters in the city of New York. The Company have a branch office in Calcutta to buy gum, shellac and other Indian products, and a factory at Wyndhamgunj in the United Provinces. No sales are conducted in India by the Company; their transactions are limited to the purchase of shellac and other goods, some of which are purchased on account of a certain Gramophone Company which pay the Company a fixed percentage on the purchase plus expense, while the balance is sold in the open market.3. Income-Tax was assessed for the years 1921-22, as also super-tax, and the tax was paid under protest on the 6th May, 1922.4. They were similarly assessed for the year 1922-23, and the tax was paid on the 29th March, 1923, with a notice tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1925)ILR52Cal1
Chatterjea, J.1. What is meant by the words 'business connection' in Section 41?2. The expression is not defined, but it must mean doing business through a broker or agent or some such person.3. The Advocate-General (Mr. S. R. Das) and the Standing Counsel (Mr. B. L. Mitter), for the Secretary of State. English decisions would hardly be of any assistance to the Court, for the simple reason that the scheme of the English Acts was entirely different from that of the Indian Acts. The Madras decision in Board of Revenue v. Madras Export Company (1922) I. L. R. 46 Mad. 360. was based on the supposition that the law is the same in England and in India. The Indian Act, though to some extent modelled on English statute, materially differs from the latter in several matters. The English Act, as was pointed out in Colquhoun v. Brooks (1889) 14 App. Cas. 493., imposes a territorial limit with regard to income chargeable to income-tax---either (2) that from which taxable income is derived must be ...
Tag this Judgment!