Kolkata Court December 1949 Judgments
Reliance Development and Engineering Ltd. Vs. Bhabani Charan Banerjee ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal342,54CWN372
Harries, C.J. 1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Subordinate Judge, made in a claim case.2. Certain property had been attached before judgment and the property was claimed by the petitioners in this case. They made their application under the provisions of Order 38, Rule 8, Civil P. C. That rule provides that where any claim is made to property attached before judgment the claim is to be investigated in the manner provided for the investigation of claims to property attached in execution of a decree for the payment of money. In other words, the claim is to be investigated under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C.3. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the company were not in possession of certain bricks which had been attached before judgment. The company claimed to be in possession of these bricks under a document which purported to transfer the bricks to them. The learned Judge, however, was not satisfied that this document really transf...
Tag this Judgment!Jubilee Bank Ltd. Vs. Sm. Santimoyee Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal487
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of defendant 2 directed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge decreeing the plaintiff's claim that the properties in suit are trust properties and that Defendant Bank be restrained from getting possession thereof or from interfering with the plaintiff's possession in any way and granting further consequential reliefs. 2. The plaintiff's case is that premises No. 21/A/1 and 21/A/2, Satis Mukherjee Road, Calcutta, belonged to the estate of Upendra Lal Banerjee who had during his life-time executed a Deed of Family Settlement in May 1933. It is alleged that under that deed the properties in suit vested in the third son of the settlor, Dhirendranath Banerjee who is defendant 3 in the present suit and for his life only. The property had so vested subject to the rights of maintenance and residence of the settlor's surviving daughters and their children. Plaintiff 1 is the wife of defendant 3 and plaintiffs 2-11 are either the minor son...
Tag this Judgment!BipIn Behari Ray and ors. Vs. Rakhal Krishna Hazra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal229
Harries, C.J.1. This is an application for extension of time to make the necessary deposit under the provisions of Order 45, Rule 7, Civil P. C.2. Admittedly the payments were not made in time and the question arises whether this Court has jurisdiction to extend the time.3. Other High Courts have held that by reason of the Rules governing Appeals to His Majesty in Council the High Court has jurisdiction to extend the time and I am party to one of those decisions whilst sitting in the High Court at Patna. This Court however has consistently held that the time for making the deposit under Order 46, Rule 7, cannot be extended and that the Court has no jurisdiction to grant an application such as the present.4. This matter was considered by a Bench of this Court in Raj Kumar Govind Narain Singh v. Shamlal Singh, 39 C. W. N. 651. There an application was made to cancel a certificate on the ground that the deposit had not been made in time in accordance with the provisions of Order 46, Rule ...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Nath Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Sree Sree Iswar Kalimata of Kalighat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal341
Harries, G.J.1. In this ease it is conceded that the value of the suit and the value of the appeal exceed RS. 10,000. The appeal was allowed in part and portion of the decree of the trial Court was vacated.2. In these circumstances it appears to us that the decree of this Court is not a decree of affirmance but is a decree varying the decree of the Court below. That being so the appellants are entitled as of right to a certificate and accordingly we grant leave to appeal and grant a certificate under Section 110, Civil P. C.3. Costs of this application will be costs in the appeal the hearing fee being assessed at two gold mohurs. 4. Let the supplementary affidavit filed in Court today be kept on the record.Banerjee J.I agree....
Tag this Judgment!Basanta Lal Vs. Comrs. for the Port of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal460
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The pltf.-applt. had despatched on 14-4-1943 a consignment of goods consisting of 264 tins of cocoanut oil from Sahebbazar, a station on the Calcutta Port Rly. to Bankura a station on the Bengal Nagpur Ry. On April, 23, delivery was obtained by the consignor as the goods had been booked to self & it then transpired that 44 of the tins had been cut open & were completely empty. The total quantity of oil of which delivery could not be obtained was assessed before delivery of the remaining tins. On 6-4-1944, the present suit was filed claiming damages for the loss of the quantity of oil which had not been delivered. Before the suit was filed notice under Section 77. Railways Act, had been served on 15-1-1944. The claim was preferred against the Comrs. for the Port of Calcutta as also the Bengal Nagpur Rly. Administration & during the pendency of the suit the Governor-General in Council was also brought on the record as it was stated that the administration of the Beng...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Homeopathic Medical Association and ors. Vs. Kanai Lal Pal and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal263,54CWN389
G.N. Das, J.1. The above cases were heard together. They arise out of applications under Section 115, Civil P. C., hereinafter called the Code. The Orders complained of in these Rules were passed by the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta hereinafter called the Chief Judge, modifying on appeal the orders made by the Additional Rent Controller fixing the standard rent of certain premises under the provisions of the West Bengal Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, hereinafter called the Act.2. Mr. Banerjee appearing for the opposite party has raised a preliminary objection that this Court has no power to interfere with the orders complained of under Section 115 of the Code. His contention is that exercise of this power under Section 115 of the Code has been excluded by Section 37 (6) and (7) of the Act.3. It has not been disputed by Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Provincial Legislature may, by appropriate legislation, take away the p...
Tag this Judgment!Akhil Ranjan Das Gupta Vs. B.N. Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal472,54CWN536
Sen, J.1. This rule has been obtained by the defendant against an order allowing the plaintiff to amend his plaint. 2. The facts are these. The plaintiff instituted a suit in ejectment against the defendant when the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, was not in force. His suit was based on a notice to quit and the bar to the recovery of possession which had been laid down in the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1916, then in force was sought to be removed by the plea that the plaintiff required the premises bona fide for his own use and occupation. While the suit was pending, the present Act (The West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948) came into force. Section 12 (3) of the present Act lays down that if a tenant fails for three consecutive months to pay or deposit in accordance with the provisions of this Act any rent payable by him in respect of any premises which has accrued due after the commencement of this Act, the interest of t...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Bhupal Chandra Sinha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal421,54CWN438
1. These two rules were issued at the instance of the Corporation of Calcutta in two oases in which two managers of Govt. Stores were proceeded against before the municipal Magistrate of Calcutta under Section 421, Calcutta Municipal Act--Act III [3] of 1923.2. It appears that several maunds of whole-barley were seized from these two Government Stores and the finding of the learned Magistrate, after an elaborate discussion of all the evidence, is that these were unwholesome, unfit for human consumption and also injurious to public health. The learned Magistrate however, felt himself bound by two decisions, namely, the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of The Province of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay, 73 I. A. 271 : (A. I. R. (34) 1947 P. C. 34) and that of this Court in the case of The Corporation of Calcutta v. Sub-Post Master, Dharamtolla Post Office, being Cri. Revn. No. 878 of 1948, D/- 7-4-1949 : : AIR1950Cal36 , by our learned brothers Rama Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Mihirlal Vs. Panchkari Santra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal520,54CWN637
Das Gupta, J.1. The applicant before us purchased at auction an occupancy raiyati holding, in execution of a rent decree. The sale was held on 13th March 1946. On 25th April 1946, an application was filed by one Kachimannessa Bibi claiming to have purchased the interest of the judgment-debtors, for setting aside the sale under the provisions of Section 174 (3), Bengal Tenancy Act. This application was dismissed by the Court on 13th December 1947. On 5th January 1948, the auction-purchaser the petitioner before us filed an application for confirmation of the sale. The sale was ultimately confirmed on 27th March 1948. On 27th June 1948, an application was filed by two of the 17 judgment-debtors who are Panch Kari Santra and Satya Bala Dasi, opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, under Section 174 (3) Bengal Tenancy Act, for setting aside the sale on the ground of fraud and irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale. The learned Munsif allowed the application and the learned District Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Premananda Vs. Dhirendra Nath Ganguly and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal397,54CWN454
Das Gupta, J.1. The petitioner instituted a suit for partition on the allegation that along with the opposite parties he was in joint possession of three plots of lands C. S. Plots Nos. 9313, 9311 and 9315 of Monza Bali. In view of the allegation and the nature of relief claimed he paid fixed court-fees of Rs. 15. After both parties had examined their witnesses and produced documents and closed their evidence the learned Subordinate Judge heard the arguments of the parties and then passed an order directing the appointment of a commissioner to ascertain the proper valuation of the suit property being of opinion that ad valorem court-fees on the value of the property was payable on the plaint. It is against this order that the plaintiff has filed the application and a rule was issued on the opposite parties to show cause why this order should not be set aside The ground for the learned Subordinate Judge's decision that ad valorem court-fee was payable was a statement made by the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »