Kolkata Court March 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.
Murari M. Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Prokash Ch. Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal230
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs for the recovery of a vacant plot of land being the northern portion of premises No. 235/1, Bowbazar Street, Calcutta, more particularly described in the schedule to the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant was a tenant in respect of the said plot of land for a term of 15 years ending on 30th June 1947 at a rent of Rs. 20 per mouth. By a letter dated 25th April 1947, the plaintiffs called upon the defendant to give vacant possession on the expiry of the month of June 1947. It is also alleged in the plaint that a sum of Rs. 60 was due and payable by the defendant on account of rent for three months from April to June 1947.2. The defendant filed his written statement and he took a number of points in defence. Mr. Gouri Mitter who appeared for the defendant has abandoned all these points taken in the written statement and has argued only one point before me and that is a point arising under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, ...
Maniklal Shah Vs. Hiralal Shaw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal377,54CWN225
J.P. Mitter, J.1. This is a suit in the testamentary jurisdiction of the Court for the grant of probate of the Will of one Narsing Prosad Shaw, deceased. The plaintiff Maniklal is the executor under the Will and is the elder of the two surviving sons of the testator. The defendant Hiralal is the other son.2. The original application for grant of probate was presented on 18th December 1947. Hiralal's name not having been mentioned in the said application as one of the sons of the testator, no citation was issued to him, and in due course, probate of the Will, which is dated 12th October 1946 was issued on 22nd December 1947. On 7th May 1948, Hiralal made an application for the revocation of the probate on the ground of absence of citation on him. This application was heard by Majumdar J. who held that the want of citation was a 'just cause' within the meaning of Section 263, Succession Act, and by his order dated 20th July 1948, he revoked the said grant. The directions given by Majumda...
Saraju Prashad Singh Vs. Gangaprosad Shah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal446
Roxburgh, J.1. Civil Revn. case No 1408 of 1948 is against an order of the Subordinate Judge, 24 Parganas, reversing on appeal an order of the Munsif, 2nd Ct., Baraset, granting an ad interim injunction at the instance of the present petnr. against defts. 1, 2, 3 & 5 in the suit before him from interfering, or in any way disturbing the exercise of the functions of the pltf. in the suit as Chairman of the Bhatpara Municipality. The ground on which the Rule has been issued was that the order of the Munsif was not a final order & was not, therefore, appealable.2. The learned Subordinate Judge set aside the ad interim injunction granted by the Munsif, but sent the case back for a decision on the point whether a temporary injunction could be granted at all as prayed for by the pltf.3. The pltf. is the former Chairman of the Municipality & alleges that he was coerced into drawing up a letter of resignation, but before it was accepted he asked that no action be taken on it. The defts. in the ...
Khagendra Nath and ors. Vs. Thandaram Samanta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal454
Roxburgh, J.1. In this case three petnrs. were each convicted under Section 296, I. P. C., & sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40 in default to suffer six weeks R. I. They were also convicted under Section 352, I. P. C., & each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10 in default to suffer R. I. for ten days. There was also an order of compensation. They appealed to the Ses. J. of Howrah who rejected their appeal as being incompetent relying on the case of Nawabali Haji v. Jainab Bibi : AIR1932Cal551 hence the present rule. In that case, it was held that in Section 413, Cr P. C., the words 'a sentence of fine' must be held to include cases where the aggregate sentence does not exceed a fine of rupees fifty. In that case there is a reference also to the case of Akabbar Ali v. Emperor : AIR1931Cal642 where a different argument had been accepted to justify an appeal in a case where two sentences of fine had been imposed. That argument has also been placed before us. There the two sentences of fine o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›