Kolkata Court December 1948 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bibhuti Bhusan Nandy Vs. Superintendent Presidency, Jail and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ968
Das Gupta, J.1. On 7th December 1948 on the application of Bibhuti Bhu3an Nandi stating that he was arrested on 16th November 1948, by an A. S. I. of Taltala p. a. Calcutta, and was told that the arrest was under Section 30(l), West Bengal Security Act, that he was being detained after his arrest in the Presidency Jail, Calcutta and that this detention was illegal, wrongful and improper, we issued a rule on the Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal and the1 Superintendent, Presidency Jail why an order under S, 491, Criminal P. C., should not be made and the petitioner set at liberty. The Bale was made returnable on 13th December 1943.2. On 13th December, the Deputy Legal Eemembrancer appeared before us, contended that the detention was in accordance with law; and in support of this contention, produced before us the original order signed by an Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, purporting to be an order under S, 16, West Bengal Security Act. This order is ...
iswar Kalimata Vs. Manager Bijni Raj Court of Wards Estate in Assam an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1948
Reported in: AIR1952Cal387
1. Three holdings Nos. 322, 322-B & 331 of sub-division 'M' of Division 6 of Dihi Pan-chanangram in mouza Kalighat had been let out in mokrari mourasi right to different persons, Durga Mohan Dass & others towards the end of the last century. The grantors were some of the shebaits of the deity Sri Sri Kalimata of Kalighat, but the mokarari mourashi grants were made by them not in their character as shebaits. In fact they made the grants on the assertion that the properties so granted were their personal Brah-matter properties. Durga Mohan Dass in course of time acquired by purchase the interest of some of the other mokarari mourashi tenants in those holdings & thus came to own a compact block of land-covering an area of 4 bighas 3 cottas & 8 chattaks & built his house. The premises were numbered by the Corporation of Calcutta as 146 & 147 Russa Road. After his death his three sons & his widow, who were his heirs, sold the said two premises on 20-2-1902 to Rani Abhoyeswari Debi, the then...
Debaprosad Bose Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Cal406,54CWN329
R.P. Mookerjee, J. 1. This is an appeal by Debaprosad Bose who had been found by a majority of jury guilty Under Section 366, Penal Code, and accepting the said majority verdict, the Additional Sessions Judge, 24 Parganas, convicted him and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case is that a certain family of Banerjees lived in the Park Circus area and subsequently shifted to Hazra Road, to a house belonging to a relation. The owner of the house occupied the second floor and the ground floor was occupied partly by Banerjee and another portion of the same floor by the accused Debaprosad Bose and his family. The two families occupying the ground floor were on friendly terms. It is alleged that taking advantage of the friendly relationship, the Accused Debaprosad had enticed the youngest daughter of Banerjee. It is stated that on 10th September 1947, the daughter had left the house on the plea of going to school but instead of going there, went to Deshapriya Par...
Golam Panjatan Ahmed Vs. Najafannessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1948
Reported in: AIR1952Cal230
Kamal Chunder Chunder, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal (in a suit?) for recovery of Rs. 1,700/- including interest from the defendant alleged to have been kept in deposit with the defendant. Both the Courts below decreed the suit. The question is one of limitation.2. Briefly, the facts are that one Akkel Alii Choudhury had married the sister of the defendant and the defendant also had married Akkel Ali's sister. The plaintiffs were the two minor children of Akkel. It appears that Akkel died in Agrahayan, 1327 B.S. From the plaint as also from the evidence, it is to be found that about a month after Akkel's death, the defendant took charge of all the properties of the two minors, and also of a sum of Rs. 1,677/4 as. which was then in the iron chest. He managed the properties of Akkel and acted as de facto guardian of the minors. Then on the 22nd Pous, 1328 B.S. he gave a receipt in the name of the two minors in which he admitted receipt of this money, and he said that this money remai...
Gostha Behari Dutt Vs. (Dead) Palaram Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Cal102
Chakravartti, J.1. These are two Rules directed against the same order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bankura, on 23rd August 1946, whereby he stayed further proceedings in a mortgage suit, purporting to act under Section 33(a). Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The learned Judge has held that the award pleaded by the mortgagor as a bar to the suit was without jurisdiction and void. But he has also held that if the award was void, the proceedings before the Board were in the eye of law still pending and consequently the mortgage suit was liable to be stayed under the provisions of Section 33.2. Rule 1747 of 1946 was taken out by the mortgagee and his complaint is that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge that the suit must be stayed is erroneous.3. Rule 1916 of 1946 was taken out by the mortgagor and he challenges the decision of the learned Judge that the award was without jurisdiction and void.4. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, it i...
Kilburn Properties, Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1948
Reported in: AIR1952Cal333
G.N. Das, J.1. This is a reference under section 66 (1), Income-tax Act & arises out of orders under section 23-A (1) of the Act for the assessment years 1941-42 & 1942-43.2. The assessee is Kilburn Properties Limited Calcutta; the only source of income of the company is house property.3. The assessable income of the company for 1941-42 was Rs. 34,772 & the income-tax payable was Rs. 10,141-13/- only leaving a balance of Rs. 24,630-3/- available for distribution as dividends. The general meeting of the company was held on 6-6-1941. No dividend was declared.4. In the profit & loss account the company showed Rs. 31,331/- as depreciation allowance on the original cost of Rs. 1,19,002/- only & thus the profits were shown as Rs. 55-2-6 only.5. The Income-tax Officer thought that the company should have declared 60 per cent of the assessable income less tax as dividend & made an order in terms of section 23-A (1) of the Act.6. During the assessment year 1942-43 the assessable income was Rs. ...
Kishori Mohan Pal Vs. Sudha Moyee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1948
Reported in: AIR1952Cal353
ORDERSen, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by an applicant for pre-emption under Section 26-F, Bengal Tenancy Act. The petitioner is a co-sharer of a transferor who has transferred a part of the holding to the opposite party. The petitioner applied 'under Section 26-F for pre-emption & deposited the amount of consideration money mentioned in the notice provided for in Section 26-F together with compensation at the rate of ten per cent per annum. When the application came to be heard, the transferee alleged that after his transfer he had erected certain structures on the land & improved it & claimed compensation for such improvement. The petitioner objected to such claim. The learned Munsif has appointed a Commissioner to hold a local investigation & to report on the value of the structures & improvements made on the land. Against this order of local investigation the present Rule has been obtained by the petitioner.2. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that in proceedings under S...
Nagendra Nath Mitra Vs. Sree Sree Baldeoji Thakur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1948
Reported in: AIR1952Cal350
G.N. Das, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the deft. & arises out of a suit for ejectment of the deft. from the disputed property namely premises No. 7, Cornfield Road, Ballygunge, on a declaration that the deft, is a licensee in respect thereof & that the license has been terminated by notice. There is a prayer for a permanent injunction restraining the deft, from entering the premises.2. The plff. in the suit was described as Sree Sree Baldeoji Thakur, represented by his next friend Shebait Sreemat Goswami Sree Sree-Krishna Raiji Maharaj. The plff's. allegation was that the deity Baldeoji Thakur was located in premises No. 20, Banstala Street along with other deities; that the Shebait of the deity was Krishna Raiji; that the deft, was permitted to occupy the disputed premises and that the licence has been determined by a notice to quit.3. The defence of the deft, was that there is no deity by the name of Baldeoji; that the disputed. premises is held by the deft, as shebait of the dei...
The Bengal Bank Ltd. Vs. Satyendra Nath Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1948
Reported in: AIR1952Cal385
ORDERSen, J.1. This is an application under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by the Bengal Bank Limited, who was deft. 2 in a suit brought by the plffs Satyendra Nath Das & Prithwiraj Das.2. The facts leading to this application briefly are as follows: Satyendra Nath Das & Prithwiraj Das sold some timber to deft. 1 Basanta Kumar Nag & demanded the price thereof, Basanta Kumar Nag thereupon drew a cheque on the Economic Bank Limited, Sonamukhi Branch, for the amount claimed & made it over to the plffs. in payment of their debt. The plffs. sent this cheque to the petitioner, the deft. 2 (the Bengal Bank Limited) for collection & credit to their account. The Bengal Bank sent the cheque to the Bankura Branch of the Economic Bank Limited for realisation. The Bankura Branch realised the amount from the Sonamukhi Branch but did not make over the sum realised to the Bengal Bank on account of some 'internal trouble' & asked for time. Thereafter, the Economic Bank Limited went into ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›