Kolkata Court December 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.
Esrali Molla and ors. Vs. Adhir Kumar Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal502,54CWN489
G.N. Das, J.1. This application in revision is at the instance of certain mortgagees. The mortgage loan was taken on 13th August 1932, The mortgagees instituted a suit for recovery of the sum due on the mortgage treating the claim as one foe recovery of money and not as a claim for enforcement of the security, The suit was, therefore, not framed in terms of Order 34, Civil P. C. The decree was put into execution when the judgment-debtors made an application under Section 34(1),(b) and Section 86, Bengal Money-lenders Act. The decree-holders raised certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of the application. One of the objections with which we are now concerned related to the prayer of the judgment-debtors for instalments under Section 34(1)(b), Bengal Money-lenders Act. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge has refused to re-open the decree under Section 36, Bengal Money-lenders Act, on the ground that the decree does not contravene the provisions of Section 30 of the Act. The ...
Panchanan Chakravarti Vs. Harisatya Bhattacharyya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal529,54CWN610
Das Gupta, J.1. The question in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of Section 18, West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948, for the purpose of rescission or variation of a decree for ejectment passed against him in Title Suit No. 125 of 1948 in the Court of the Additional Munsif, Howrah. The petitioner was a tenant under the opposite party with respect to a portion of holding no. 6, Kailash Basu 4th Bye Lane, Ramkrishnapur, at a monthly rental of Rs. 15-8-0 only. The suit for ejectment was instituted on 20th September 1947 on the allegation that the tenancy had been terminated by a notice to quit served in accordance with law. There was also a claim for Rs. 10 8 0 said to be the outstanding due on account of rent and a claim for mesne profits. It was said that the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent prior to the date of suit and so was not entitled to get the benefit of the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1946, which was then in force. The Court accepte...
King Vs. Alfred D'Cruz and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal317,54CWN321
J.P. Mitter, J.1. In this case, the three accused persona--Alfreed D'Cruz, Shiral D'Cruz and one Lakhi Dasi--have been charged under Section 363 and 366, Penal Code. The two charges relate respectively to abduction and kidnapping from lawful guardianship of a girl called Teresa Gomes. 2. The jury were empanelled on the 8th and after the opening of learned counsel for the prosecution, Dr. Kabir Hossain, Professor of Medical Jurisprudence, Medical College, Calcutta, and one Dr. A. K. Chakravarty, radiologist, Calcutta Police Hospital, were examined. The evidence of these witnesses was concerned with the age of the girl in July this year. The next and the third witness for the prosecution was the girl said to have been abducted and kidnapped, that is, Teresa Gomes. 3. At the conclusion of the last named witness's evidence I asked the gentlemen of the jury if they had any questions to put to the witness, whereupon the foreman of the jury, instead of putting any question, expressed the view...
Sm. Champa Devi Vs. Babulal Goenka
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal161,54CWN207
ORDER1. This rule was issued by our learned brother Sen J. on the petition of one Srimati Champa Devi who was an accused under trial on a charge under Section 323, Penal Code, before a Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta on the com-plaint of one Babulal Goenka, the opposite party. As our learned brother thought that the rule should be disposed of by a Divisional Bench it has been placed before us under the orders of my Lord the Chief Justice.2. The petitioner is a purdanashin lady not resident, it is said, in Calcutta. She applied to the Magistrate for permission to appear by an agent. She was rightly granted such permission by the Magistrate and wag appearing through her lawyer. Then, an application was filed before the Magistrate by the complainant opposite party asking that she should be required to attend personally to be examined under Section 342, Criminal P. C. The petition was rejected by the trying Magistrate. The complainant came up before this Court and our learned brother Sen...
Mubarak HossaIn and anr. Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal193
ORDER1. This Rule was issued at the instance of two persons who have been convicted by a Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta under Section 4, Influx from Western Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1948, and Rule 12, Permit System Rules, 1948, framed thereunder, each being sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. As far as the facts are concerned, on 18th October 1948, the petitioners went from Calcutta to Delhi and then on 23rd October 1948, they went to Lahore from Delhi under Temporary Business Permits NOS. 210 and 211 granted by the High Commissioner for Pakistan, in India at New Delhi. They wanted to return and on 2nd November 1948 they were granted two Temporary Permits being Nos. M. B. 28650 and 28651 by the Deputy High Commissioner for India in Pakistan at Lahore in which the object of the visit was stated to be 'returning back to Calcutta: pending verification,' and these permits were made valid for two months. It is not disput...
Rambandhu Misra and ors. Vs. Brahmananda Laik and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal524,54CWN586
Harries, C.J.1. These two applications are for revision of orders made by a learned District Judge in revision under Section 40A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act2. The decree-holders opposite parties had obtained against the petitioners or their predecessors a mortgage decree for Rs. 20,100 in mortgage Suit No. 75 of 1325 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bankura. By the decree the petitioners were jointly and severally liable. The decree provided that in default of payment by Bhadra 1335 B. S., interest would run at 9 annas per cent. per mensum until realisation. A preliminary decree was obtained on 3rd August 1927, which was made final on 22nd September 1928. In the year 1935, the decree-holders executed the decree for recovery of Rs. 31,534 which was the sum then due on the mortgage after adding the interest which had accrued to the decretal amount and execution costs. The mortgaged properties were put up for sale and purchased by the decree-dolders for Rs. 10,000 on 16th Mar...
Nrisingha Prosad Bose and ors. Vs. Nil Ratan Singha Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal221,54CWN683
G.N. Das, J.1 These appeals are at the instance of the contesting defendants. The facts are not in controversy and may be stated as follows :2. There was an occupancy holding which was held by Ibrahim Sheikh and Sakina Bibi under the landlords. The interest of Ibrahim Sheikh passed later on to Ramswami Chatia. At that stage a suit for recovery of rent being Rent Suit No. 1654 of 1938 was instituted by defendant 1 against Ramswami Chatia and Sakina Bibi. The suit was framed under the provisions of Section 148-A, Bengal Tenancy Act, the co-sharer landlords being impleaded in the suit. On 3-11-1938 the suit resulted in a decree. On 5-12-1940 defendant 1 started execution of the said decree. The tenancy was brought to sale on 15-2-1941 and was purchased by the decree-holder, defendant 1. The auction-purchaser took delivery of possession through Court. Meanwhile in 1933 Ibrahim Sheikh mortgaged a portion of the occupancy holding in favour of Nilratan, plaintiff in the suit which gave rise t...
The Municipal Commissioners of Howrah Vs. Jagabandhu Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal201
ORDERAmarendra Nath Sen, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the Municipal Commissioners of Howrah against an order passed by the Munsif, 3rd Court, Howrah, acting as a Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Howrah, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for the recovery of certain rates on the footing that the subject-matter of the rates was a bustee.2. The learned Munsif has held that the subject matter with respect to which the claim has been made is not a bustee and on this ground he has dismissed the suit.3. The principal question for decision is whether the learned Munsif's judgment on the question whether the subject-matter is a bustee or not is in accordance with law. The learned Munsif has hased his decision on two grounds. First he says, that upon the evidence before him he is satisfied that the area is not a bustee within the meaning of Section 3 (10) read with Section 3 (36), Calcutta Municipal Act, as extended to Howrah. His second ground is that the Municipality of Howrah was bound...
Dominion of India Vs. R.C.K.C. Nath and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal207
Banerjee, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the defendant Dominion of India asking for a revision, under Section 115, Civil P. C., of an order made by the learned First Munsiff at Sealdah. By that order, he held that the Sealdah Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.2. The facts of the case are very simple and may be shortly stated: The plaintiff sued the Governor-General of India-in-Council for damages for short delivery of goods which, he alleges he entrusted to the Railway Administration for carriage from Aligarh (UP.) to Khulna Railway station, which is now within the Dominion of Pakistan.3. After due notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. the plaintiff filed the suit on 7th December 1945, in the Munsiff's Court at Khulna.4. On 15th August 1947, two Dominions were set up in what previously was British India. One was the Dominion of India and the other the Dominion of Pakistan. There is a Governor General for the Dominion of India and there is a Governor-General fo...
Tobacco Manufactures (India) Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Marian Stewart
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal164
S.N. Banerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the employer from an order made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, West Bengal, awarding compensation against the employer to the widow of the deceased workman in the following circumstances.2. One Lionel Henry Stewart was a mechanic employed by Messrs. Tobacco ., (who is the employer,) in its Kidderpore Factory. Stewart lived in Howrah and had to attend the Factory at 8 in the morning, On 10th April 1947, he was going to work riding a bicycle. He was knocked down by a lorry belonging to the Civil Supplies, Government of West Bengal, near Princep's Memorial and received injuries. Stewart died on 13th April 1947 from the injuries. His widow claimed compensation from the employer on the ground that the accident arose in course of and out of the employment.3. The law is well established that the workman in order to be entitled to the compensation, should be acting in the course of his employment, that is to say, when he is doing someth...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »