Kolkata Court November 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.
Mrityunjoy Ganguly Vs. Bholanath Ganguly
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal455
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The only point raised in this petn. for revn. is whether under Section 17, Provincial Small Cause Cts. Act, as it now stands, after the amendment under Act, IX [9] of 1935, it is competent for the Ct. of Small Causes to accept security for the performance of the decree as may be filed not along with the original appln. for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. but done subsequently.2. The ex parte decree in this case was passed on 25-6-1948. The deft. opposite party made an appln. on 26-7-1948, alleging that he had no knowledge of the ex parte decree before 22-7-1948. He accordingly prayed for the restoration of the suit with a prayer for accepting, security for the due performance of the order as the Ct. may pass thereafter. The learned Small Cause Ct. Judge, however, directed the deposit of the decretal amount in cash on or before 13-8-1948. The prayer for permission to file a security bond was renewed on this date. This prayer was al...
Gajendra Duary and ors. Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal200
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Magistrate directing certain accused persons to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 600 with two sureties of like amount for keeping the peace until the conclusion of a certain enquiry.2. The petitioners were being prosecuted under Section 110, Criminal P. C. The learned Magistrate was hearing the case in camp. Whilst the case was proceeding there was an outcry that there was a fire in a neighbouring house and everybody seems to have run out including the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate in his judgment says that he learnt from some man and two females who were inmates of a hut which was burning that they had seen one Tari running out from behind the hut as soon as it was on fire. Tari, it was said, was a sister of three of the petitioners and either the landlord or the paramour of the fourth petitioner. The hut which was burning belonged to two persons, Srinath Roy and Debendra Roy, who were prosecution wi...
Abinash @ Ambarish Chandra Roy Vs. S.C. Sreemani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal466,54CWN535
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This is a Rule against an order passed in appeal purporting to be made Under Section 16, West Bengal Bent Control Act, 1948. The landlord brought a suit for rent ON, 5th May 1918. The Act in question came into force on 1st December 1948. The decision of the trial Court was made on 14th February 1948. 2. The short point taken before me is that as the suit began before the new Act came into force the suit itself is not one Under Section 16 (1) of the Act and therefore there was no appeal Under Section 16 (2). The point does not appear to have been taken in the lower appellate Court. It could only be said that the suit was one covered by Section. 16 (l) of the Act if it be held that the words 'or tried by' in that section which says 'that no suit or proceeding by a landlord against a tenant for the recovery of rent or possession of any premises which the Court of Small Causes of Calcutta is competent to try, shall be instituted or tried by any Court other than the said...
Bhagabati Devi Vs. Bholanath Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal440,54CWN474
ORDERGuha, J.1. This revision case at the instance of the tenant defendant arises out of an application under Section 18 read with Section 12(1)(b), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, hereinafter called the Act of 1948 rescinding a decree for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent from July 1945 to May 1946. The decree was passed by the trial Court on 17th March 1948 and an appeal against it was dismissed on 22nd November 1948. The Act of 1948 came into force on 1st December 1948 and the application under Section 18 read with Section 12(1)(b) was filed on 10th December 1943, the tenant being still in possession of the disputed premises. In the application it was stated that all arrears of rent up to November 1948, i.e. up to filing of the application had been paid by the tenant applicant and rescission of the ejectment decree was prayed for. The learned Munsif dismissed the petition holding that by payment contemplated under Section 12(1)(b) of the A...
Sm. Sovarani Roy and anr. Vs. the King and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal157
ORDERHarries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Presidency Magistrate convicting the accused persons of an offence under Section 341, Penal Code and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and in default of payment of the fine each to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.2. How this dispute could be made the subject matter of criminal proceedings I find it difficult to understand. The learned Magistrate seems to think that it was not a civil dispute. But if ever there was a civil dispute this is one.3. Shortly the case of the complainant was that he was the tenant of certain rooms of the ground floor and of the first floor of the premises concerned, No. 310 Chittaranjan Avenue. According to him there were on the first floor a bathroom and a privy which he as tenant used. He went away according to his evidence on the last Saraswati Puja day and on returning the next morning found that the door of the bathroom and the privy on the first floor ha...
Rameswar Das Bhiwaniwalla and anr. Vs. Byomkesh Samanta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal186
G.N. Das, J.1. These two appeals arise out of Title Suit No. 95 of 1941 of the Court of the 1st Munsif at Burdwan. Second Appeal No. 1773 of 1943 is at the instance of the plaintiff. Second Appeal No. 1827 of 1943 is at the instance of the defendant. The suit was for declaration of the plaintiff's exclusive title and possession in respect of Cadastral Survey Dags Nos. 81 and 33 of khatian No. 253 of mouza Ichlabad. The plaintiff's allegation is that the plaintiff purchased the residuary share in touzi No. 147 of the Bardwan Collectorate in January 1936, the residuary share being 13 as. 6 gds. 3 karas and 3 tils, that the plaintiff obtained symbolical possession on 24th May 1936, that there was a separate account No. 16 comprising 2 gds. 2 karas 2 krantis and 2 tils share in the aforesaid touzi, the disputed lands being the lauds of the said separate account, that the defendant's predecessor held the said separate account which was closed and later on the previous owners of separate acc...
BadruddIn and Sons Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal147
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of a Municipal Magistrate convicting the appellant of an offence under Section 386 (1) (a), Calcutta Municipal Act read with Schedule 19 of the Act.2. The charge was that the appellant con-ducted the business of electroplating or nickel plating at certain premises without the necessary permission or license from the Corporation.3. It seems that two previous prosecutions had been brought against the appellant and in each case he had pleaded guilty and was convicted. On this occasion, however, he pleaded not guilty. He was found guilty by the learned Magistrate, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 per diem over a period of time.4. Mr. Sudhangshu Mukherjee has taken a number of points and I shall deal with the points seriatim. He first contended that the trial was invalid by reason of the fact that the Magistrate on one day beard the case or arguments in the case in the absence of the accused person. It appears that on 19th May w...
Sachindra Nath Vs. Jadunath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal156
ORDERHarries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a lower appellate Court dismissing an appeal from an order of a learned Munsif refusing to set aside a sale under Section 174, Bengal Tenancy Act.2. It will be unnecessary to deal with the facts of the case in any detail because the case was disposed of on a point of limitation.3. Admittedly the last day for preferring an appeal to the lower appellate Court was 22nd March 1948. On that date the appellant presented the appeal, but he did not deposit in Court the amount recoverable in execution as required by the proviso to Section 174 (5), Bengal Tenancy Act. The Court made the following order -- that the appeal be registered and the appellant was directed to deposit the amount recoverable in execution of the decree within limitation. The amount recoverable was not deposited for some little time and indeed could not have been deposited within limitation because the case was filed on the last possible day.4. Before the l...
Pacha Alias Naran Naskar and ors. Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal246,54CWN181
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Magistrate whereby he declined to hold that certain proceedings were void ab initio.2. A complaint was made to a learned Magistrate by one Khagendra Nath Haldar alleging that the present petitioner had set fire to a stack of straw on 18th December 1948, and that they were guilty of offences under the Penal Code. It is clear from the order sheet that the Magistrate took no action at all except to send the complaint to the Officer-in-charge of the Mandirbazar Police Station for taking cognizance. In fact that is the allegation made in para. 2 of the petition.3. The Police investigated and eventually framed a charge sheet and the case proceeded in Court based on the charge sheet. Later it was suggested that the whole of the proceedings were void ab initio because the Magistrate had acted wrongly and reliance was placed on a number of authorities including a very recent authority of this Court to which I am a party.4....
Lalmohan Singh Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal339
ORDERHarries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate convicting the petitioner of an offence under Section 500, Penal Code, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in default of payment of the fine, to simple imprisonment for one month.2. The charge arose out of a letter which the petitioner wrote to the Editor of the Newspaper Swaraj, for the purpose of publication. To understand the allegations in the letter it will be necessary shortly to set out the facts of the case.3. The complainant was the owner of a certain premises No. 24, Hyat Khan Lane, Calcutta. It appears that one Amar Guha had somehow obtained possession of part of these premises, but it is common ground that later he was treated as a tenant. Amar Guha was an evacuee from East Bengal. Later, one Sitanath with the assistance of Amar Guha came into these premises and took possession of part of them, but it is clear from the findings of the learned Magistrate th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »