Kolkata Court January 1949 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.
JainaraIn Vs. the Governor-general of India Representing the B. and A. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal462
ORDERChakravartti, J.1. The complaint in this rule is that the Cts. below have wrongly thrown out the pltf's. suit on the ground of limitation. The facts are extremely simple & are as follows:2. On 6-5-1944, the petnr. handed over a bundle of cloth at the Burra bazar Booking Office of the B. & A. Rly. for carriage from Calcutta to a station called Jogbani. The handle was never delivered. Some correspondence followed in the course of which by a letter dated 13-3-1945, the Rly. informed the petnr. that one bundle belonging to his consignment was lying undelivered at the destination & that he must make arrangements for taking delivery within a certain time. The letter reads as follows:'Dear Sir,Sub : Calcutta Burra Bazar to Jogbani P. W. B. 963712 of 6.5.44. one bundle of cloth.With reference to your letter No. nil dated 2/8/44, I beg to inform you that one bundle of cloth belonging to the above consignment is lying undelivered at destination at your sole risk & responsibility & incurring...
Mrs. E.W. Evans Vs. Miss. Stella Benjamin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal470
ORDERChakravartti, J.1. This rule is directed against a judgment & decree passed by a F. B. of the Small Causes Ct. whereby the Bench decreed a suit for damages brought by the opposite party against the petnr. on account of a certain defect said to have been discovered in an Electrolux purchased by the former from the latter. The opposite party was attracted by an advertisement, appearing in the Statesman of 17-4-1946. By that advertisement the petnr. invited purchasers for an 'Electrolux gas operated, Model L.22, 3 1/2 cubit ft. Inspection by appointment. Phone P. K. 2583.' On the same day the opposite party went to the petnr's. house with her brother & a person who is an employee of the Oriental Gas Co. Ltd., had a look at the machine & made the purchase for Rs. 850. Subsequently, she by a letter, sent through her Solicitor, on 9-5-1946 complained to the deft. that she had made a false representation as regards the serviceable character of the machine & that it was in a defective con...
Hafizul Ekbal and ors. Vs. Gopal Sardar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal472
Harries, C.J.1. These are two petns. for revn. of orders mode by a learned Mag. under Section 144, Cr. P. C.2. The opposite parties presented petns. to the Dist. Mag. complaining that the present petrs. in these cases were interfering with their possession. It seems that these petns. wore not even verified but the Dist. Mag. immediately issued an order in these terms :'The usurping party may please be restrained immediately under Sections 144, 107, Cr. P. C. & asked to come through Civil Ct. & the party in possession may be allowed to continue in possession.'3. Strange to say, this order is in terms addressed to the Supdt. of Police. The latter on receiving this order also made an order in these terms :'S. D. O. will please issue order as directed & send to O. C. Harishchandrapur P. S. to take immediate steps.'4. Presumably the learned Dist. Mag. was acting under the second para, of Sub-section (1) of Section 144 which provides :'such Mag. any, by a written order stating the material f...
Ashutosh Hait Vs. Indra Hait
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal217
ORDERSen, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the accused petitioner who has been convicted of having committed the offence of hurt with a dangerous weanon, to wit, a gun and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.2. The case against the accused briefly is as follows: There was a certain piece of land which was in the possession of the complainant who ploughed it. On the day of the occurrence the accused Ashutosh Hait armed with a gun came on the land accompanied by others armed with spears and lathis and began to beat the complainant. The accused then said that he would shoot the complainant unless he left the land. On the complainant refusing to leave the land the accused fired a shot at him but missed. The complainant then began to run away when another shot was fired and it hit him on the leg. On these allegations the complainant charged the accused and others with having committed various offences punishable under the Indian...
Harit Krishna Deb Vs. Anil Krishna Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal469
ORDERG.N. Das, J.1 This Rule was issued by my learned brother Mukherjea J. and myself for a review of the order passed by us on 5-3-1948, in appeal from Original Order No. 49 of 1946, The relevant facts are stated in our order and need not be restated.2. The question which arose for our decision in that appeal was one of limitation. We agreed with the trial Court in holding that the application for execution was barred by limitation. The main ground both in the trial Court and before us was thus stated in our order :'Both in the Court below and in this Court, it has been argued that under Article 182 (5), Limitation Act, time would run from 2-12-1943, when the final order was passed in the execution case.'This contention was repelled by us in the order sought to be reviewed.3. The judgment of this Court was delivered by me, and my learned brother Mukherjea J. concurred. As Mukherjea J. has ceased to be a Judge of this Court, the Rule has come up for hearing before me.4. Mr. Gupta who h...
B.A. Shervashidze Vs. Govt. of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal474
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appln. from a person who describes himself as a White Russian & is now confined at the Alipore Jail. He asks us to hold that his confinement is unlawful & that he is entitled to be released There is no formal petn. but the matter came to the notice of the Ct. as a result of a letter sent by the detained person to myself as Chief Justice of this Ct.2. In that letter the detained person states that he is a native of Georgia in Russia; but not a citizen of the U. S. S. E. He says that he is stateless & is what is commonly described as a White Russian.3. This detained person states that he arrived in India in the month of March 1942, as a volunteer of the British Army & has been in India ever since. Whether this statement is true or false we have no means of testing.4. On 22-7-1947, he states that he was arrested at his residence in Kalimpong & was taken to Kalimpong jail This detention he says was made under para 7, of the Foreigners Order of 1939. On 24-7-1947,...
In the Goods of Gagan Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal578
ORDERBanerjee, J.1. I regret I cannot accede to the prayer of the petitioner. I know what the refusal means. The applicant will have to make an application for a fresh certificate of succession Even though it is to collect the debt foe which a certificate had already been taken and the duty paid, the duty prescribed by the Court-fees Act must be again paid: In Re: Saroje Baehini, 20 C. W. N. 1125 at p. 1128 : (A. I. R. (4) 1917 Cal. 380). This means further depletion of a loan fund. The debt for which the certificate was taken is a small one2. I wish I could grant the prayer. If the point involved were a technical one, I would have ignored it, and granted the prayer.3. But, in my view, the point is not a technical one at all. It is one of substance. It touches the jurisdiction of the Court.4. The fact may be said in two or three sentences. The certificate was granted to several persons jointly. One of them has died. The survivors ask that the name of the deceased be deleted in the cert...
Quinn Vs. Keshab Chandra Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1949
Reported in: 1949CriLJ632
ORDERSen, J.1. In my opinion, this rule should be discharged. The facts giving rise to this rule briefly are as follows: One Hedayet Ali instituted a suit for ejectment in this Hon'bla Court and obtained an ex parie decree. The suit was instituted against the lessee. When the decree was being executed by the Sheriff, the subtenants' of the lessee refused to vacate and protested against the Sheriff's attempt to remove themThereupon the party seeking to execute the decree went away. On the next date, some of the sub-tenants o the lessee filed an application before Majumdar J. praying that Hedayet Ali and his servants or agents should be restrained by an injunction from executing the said decree. The learned Judge passed an order granting an interim injunction in terma of this prayer and there was a further observation that the Sheriff was to act on counsel's endorsement. The application was made returnable on the next Monday. The complainant's case is that this interim injunction was sho...
Jitendra Nath Sarcar and anr. Vs. Biswanath Bagchi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal201
Sen, J.1. This appeal is by the defendants in a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that as reversioners they have title to the land in suit and for the setting aside of an alienation made by the last limited owner Katyani Devi in favour of her daughter Sita-labala and for the setting aside of the transfer by Sitala Bala to the other defendant Jitendra Nath Sarkar. The plaintiffs' suit has been decreed by both the Courts below and the defendants have appealed.2. The defence taken was that the transfer by the last limited owner was for legal necessity and therefore conveyed the entire interest to Sitalabala. The next defence was that Sita-labala's transfer to the defendant Jitendra Nath Sarkar was for valid consideration and therefore unassailable. A further point taken was that the question of legal necessity could not be reagitated in this suit inasmuch as that question had been raised and finally decided in a former suit in which the present parties were also parties; in...
Suprintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. P. Sen and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1949
Reported in: 1950CriLJ144
Harries, C. J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Provincial Government from an order made by a learned Magistrate of the first class, Howrah, acquitting the respondents upon a charge Under Section 60(a)(iii), Factories Act.2. Respondent 1. P. Sen, wa3 the occupier and respondent 2, A. T, Sen, was the manager of a registered factory (regigfcered No. 316) styled Sen & Co., situated at No. 3 Kuchil Sarkar Lane, Howrah. On 16th September 1947, Sri S. K, Sinha, Inspector of Factories, inspected this factory and found moving parts of the machinery not securely fenced or guarded as required by Section 24(i)(c), Factories Act, read with n, 24(1), Bengal Factories Rules. In particular the back and change gears of lathes, toothed gears of the boring mills, oblique belts driving the blowers, and Emery wheel were not securely fenced.3. On 9th February 1948, the Inspector, Sri S. E. Sinha, himself filed a complaint in the Court of the District Magistrate, Howrah, against both respondents Under S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »