Kolkata Court May 1946 Judgments
India Electric Works Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal49
Gentle, J.1. The India Electric Works Ltd., applied under Section 14, Trade Marks Act, 1940 to the Registrar of Trade Marks for registration of the word 'India' as their trade mark of an electric fan. The Registrar refused the application on 26-9-1944. Pursuant to Section 76(1) of the Act the company presented an appeal to this Court against the Registrar's refusal. It was heard by McNair J. and by whom it was dismissed on 8-1-1945. The company now prefers this appeal against the learned Judge's dismissal. The Registrar of Trade Marks is the respondent. In form and substance it is an appeal from a single Judge to a Division Bench of this Court which, for convenience, I will call an inter-court appeal. Mr. S.B. Sinha, on behalf of the Registrar, raised a preliminary objection to the competency of the appeal on the grounds that an appeal to the High Court under Section 76(1) against the Registrar's refusal to register a trademark is final, and no further appeal, therefore, lies and, in a...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prosad Chamria Vs. Anardeyi Sethani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal75
Das, J.1. These two appeals arise respectively out of the order made by Edgley J., on March 1941 dismissing the appellant's application for setting aside the award made by Sir Manmatha Natb Mukherjee as the sole arbitrator appointed in Suit No. 1840 of 1930 and the judgment and decree pronounced by the same learned Judge on 10th March 1941 upon that award. The suit, the award and these two appeals concern the affairs of a family named Chamria whose genealogical table is the following: NANDRAM (died long ago) ______________________________|______________________________ | | Gorakhram Hardatrai m. Anardeyi (died long ago) (died 2-2-1916) (plaintiff died 17-7-1941) | | ______________________________ _______________________________ | | | | | Ramprotap (died 1937) Amolokchand m. Surji Durga Radha Moti (originally defendant 1) (died 1911)(defendant 6) | | | Keshardeo (given in adoption) | | Matrurhull Keshardeo(died 1918) (adopted by Soorji) | (defendant 3)Ratanlal (defendant 1 after the ...
Tag this Judgment!MenajuddIn and anr. Vs. HeronuddIn Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal137
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendants in a rent suit. To appreciate the controversy between the parties, it would be necessary to state a few facts. The lands in suit, in respect of which rent has been claimed by the plaintiffs appertain to a nim howla which is recorded in khatian No. 74 and belonged originally to one Muhammad Selim Khalifa. After Muhammad Selim's death, it devolved upon Abdul Hanif Khalifa and others. The rent of the nim howla having fallen into arrears, the superior landlord instituted a rent suit against the tenure holders and obtained a rent decree on 31-1-1986. The decree was put into execution on 28-3-1936, and a sale was held on 11-8-1936, the purchaser being one Habibur Rahman. After the execution case was started, and before the sale took place, the tenure was put up to sale in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by a mortgagee decree-holder against the tenants, and it was purchased by the present plaintiffs on 2-5-1936. The mortg...
Tag this Judgment!Deba Prosad Garga Vs. Municipal Commissioner of Tamluk
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal121
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffs, and it arises rut of a suit commenced by them in the Court of the First Munsiff at Tamluk for declaration that a resolution, dated 27-101938, passed by the Commissioners of the Tamluk Municipality under Section 129(b), Bengal Municipal Act, (Bengal Act 15 [XV] of 1932) is illegal and ultra vires and that the plaintiffs are not liable to be assessed with rates and taxes on the basis of that resolution. There was a further prayer for an injunction restraining the Commissioners from enforcing that resolution. The Commissioners of the Tamluk Municipality are the principal defendants in the suit, though some of the ratepayers also have been added as parties defendants under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C. To appreciate the point in controversy between the parties, it may be convenient to refer to a few antecedent facts and also to some of the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act. Section 8(21), Bengal Municipal Act, defines 'hol...
Tag this Judgment!Naksetan Bibi Vs. Habibar Rahaman Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal66
Akram, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of an order of remand passed in a suit for dissolution of marriage under Act 8 [VIII] of 1939.2. Shortly stated, the material facts of the case are as follows: Plaintiff was born in 1929 and married to the defendant in 1937; there was disagreement between the parties and the plaintiff instituted the present suit in 1943 on diverse grounds for the dissolution of her marriage. One of the pleas, amongst others, taken by the defendant husband in his defence was that the plaintiff being a minor could not bring the suit without a next friend and the suit as framed was therefore not maintainable; the issue raised in this connection was issue 1, namely, 'is the suit maintainable in the present form?' Regarding this issue, which was tried along with the other issues in the case, the learned Munsif observed as follows:there is no defect in the framing of the suit. The issues framed by mo are answered by me thus (1) the suit is maintainable in t...
Tag this Judgment!Fazlur Rahman Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal192
Khundkar, J.1. This is an appeal by three persons Fazlur Eahman, Imanuddin, and Saidar Rahman, who have been convicted of the offence of dacoity under Section 395, Penal Code. They were tried along with the six other persons who were charged with the same offence, but those others were found not guilty and were acquitted.2. The case for the prosecution was that on 7-2-1945 a number of weavers were returning to their homes from a Hat where they had been selling certain handloom cloths during the day. The hour was about 9-30 P.M., and one of them prosecution witness No. 3, was carrying a hurricane lantern. At a lonely spot they were suddenly surrounded by a number of men who assaulted, them, and took away certain bundles of cloth which they were carrying, as also the money which they had obtained by the sale of their wares.3. The First Information Report was lodged the next day at about 1 P.M., at a police station which is 12 miles distant from the village to which the weavers were proce...
Tag this Judgment!Rahim Bux Pramanik Vs. Osman Gani Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Cal71
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and it arise out of a suit commenced by him to recover khas possession of a plot of land measuring about 5 cottas on establishment of his title to the same. The disputed land, according to the plaintiff, appertains to C.S. plot No. 149 recorded in Khatian No. 58 of Mouza Gopegram. C.S. Plot No. 149 along with Plot No. 150 were comprised in a tenancy held by one Nagendra Nath Sen under pro forma defendant A Kiran Chandra Chakravarti at an annual rental of Rs. 10 and odd annas. Nagendra enjoyed the land of C.S. Dag No. 149 in khas while Dag No. 150 was sublet by, him to the plaintiff and two other persons. In 1935, Nagendra surrendered the tenancy to his landlord Kiran with the previous consent of the sub tenants under Section 86, Ben. Ten. Act, and on 22nd July 1936, the plaintiff took settlement of both the plots of land from Kiran at a rental of Rs. 9 and odd annas a year. The plaintiff avers that on 7th March 1938, defend...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra Dutta Vs. Tinkawari Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal96
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. After hearing Mr. Das for the appellant and Mr. Sanyal for the respondents we are of the opinion that the judgment of the lower appellate Court so far as it dismisses the plaintiff's claim for proportionate share of the surplus sale proceeds should be reversed.2. We agree with the lower appellate Court that by reason of the rent sale, whatever title either the plaintiff or defendants 2 to 7 had had in the property was extinguished and a complete title to the holding vested in the rent sale purchaser. There are, however, the surplus sale proceeds which ought to go to the person to whom the tenancy belonged. It was held in a previous suit to which both the plaintiff as well as defendants 2 to 7 were parties that the plaintiff acquired title by his purchase to 7 1/4 bighas out of the lands comprised in the holding. As between the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 therefore the plaintiff would be entitled to proportionate share of the surplus sale proceeds. Section 169, ...
Tag this Judgment!Punyendra Narayan Deb Vs. Bhairabendra Narayan Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal124
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order, dated 25-8-1945, made by the Subordinate Judge, First Court of 24 Parganas, rejecting an application of the petitioner for security from opposite party 1 under Section 4, Bengal Wills-and Intestacy Regulation (Bengal Regulation V [5] of 1799). The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit filed by him in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge of 24 Parganas, being title Suit No. 42 of 1940, for a declaration of title to the properties appertaining to what is known as Bijni Rai Estate as the heir of late Raja Jogendra Narayan Bhup, and he has prayed for a further declaration that the Bijni Succession Act under which the opposite party 1 has been made the successor to Raja Jogendra Narayan Bhup is illegal and ultra vires and that the decisions in certain previous suits which held the Act to be a valid piece of legislation were not binding upon him and did not affect his rights. The suit is still pending and an application made by...
Tag this Judgment!AsrabuddIn Vs. Abdul Fazal Doctor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal139
Hindley, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a judgment and decree of a learned Subordinate Judge of Rangpur, affirming the decree of a learned Munsiff of that place, in a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondents for ejectment of the appellants from two plots (C.S. 2997 and 2999) within the Municipal area, on the ground that the appellants as their under-rayats, had used the land of the tenancy in a manner which renders it unfit for the purposes of the tenancy, within the meaning of Section 155(1)(a), Bengal Tenancy Act. The case of the respondents was that the purpose of the under-rayati was agricultural and that by digging ditches on the land and raising parts of it, notably by allowing two sub-tenants of the under-rayats to construct houses thereon, the land of the tenancy had suffered such misuse as to unfit it for the original purpose for which the korfa settlement was granted to defendant 14 and the predecessors in interest of the other defendants by the predecessor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »