<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1943 (2) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289462</link>
    <description>The Calcutta HC considered whether a fall in the average local prices of staple food-crops was caused by a temporary factor within Section 38(1)(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and whether refusal of rent reduction could stand. It treated the existence and general cause of the price fall as factual findings, but whether the accepted facts met the statutory requirement of a non-temporary cause as a mixed question of fact and law. Judicial notice of the world economic depression was permitted, but its characterisation as temporary was rejected, and the premises used below for discretion under Section 38(2) and the commutation factors were found erroneous. The appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 1943 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2020 17:40:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=618845" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1943 (2) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289462</link>
      <description>The Calcutta HC considered whether a fall in the average local prices of staple food-crops was caused by a temporary factor within Section 38(1)(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and whether refusal of rent reduction could stand. It treated the existence and general cause of the price fall as factual findings, but whether the accepted facts met the statutory requirement of a non-temporary cause as a mixed question of fact and law. Judicial notice of the world economic depression was permitted, but its characterisation as temporary was rejected, and the premises used below for discretion under Section 38(2) and the commutation factors were found erroneous. The appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 1943 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289462</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>