Kolkata Court April 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.
Rameswarlal Bagla and ors. Vs. Bezonji Barjorji Nadadwalla and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal236
Chatterji, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of Clough J. dated 14th July 1948. whereby ho dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with costs.2. Three persons, viz., Radhakissen Bagla, Ramniwas Bagla and B. B. Nadodwala, carried on business under the name and style of 'Bagla Minerals Company'. The said Mr. Nadodwala, and one Mr. Haq carried on business in partnership under the name and style of 'Behar Mining Company.' They were also owners of a colliery known as East Chasnalla Colliery.3. According to the plaintiffs on 12th December 1942, the Bagla Minerals Company (hereinafter called the plaintiff firm) agreed to buy and the defendants in their firm of Behar Mining Company (hereinafter called the defendant firm) agreed to sell 2,600 tons of coal on the following terms: (a) 600 tons of coal lying at East Chasnalla Colliery at Rs. 12 per ton f. o. r., Jharia; (b) 2,000 tons Golukhadih Steam Coal which had been bought from another concern of Nadadwala called the Bengal Transmarine...
Gour Chand Malick Vs. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal478
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a taxation matter coming on a Chamber Summons sent to me for disposal by way of transfer from the list of my learned brother Banerjee as question of taxation of fees paid to him as counsel has been raised in this appln.2. The matter arises out of a mtge. Suit No. 298 of 1937 Gour Chand Mullick v. Praduymna Kumar Mullick. In that suit pltf. Gour Chand Mullick was appointed a Receiver. Pltf. Gour Chand Mullick employed Messrs. P.I. Mullick & Co , as the attorneys to act in that suit & signed a warrant of attorney in their favour. He also employed his said attorneys to act for him in his capacity as Receiver but he did not sign any fresh warrant of attorney as such receiver.3. Two points arise for determination on this appln.:(1) The Taxing Officer by his report dated 14-2-1949 has held that the costs incurred by Messrs. P.I. Mullick & Co., as Attorneys for the Receiver cannot be taxed unless there is a proper order of the Ct. directing such taxation & from who...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Sub-post Master, Dharamtola Post-office
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal417
ORDER1. This rule was issued against an order of acquittal passed by the Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta and raises some very important questions of law.2. A complaint was filed on behalf of the Corporation of Calcutta against the opposite party station inter alia that premises No. 43, Dharamtola Street, Calcutta was being used or permitted to be used as grains, flour and atta shop without taking out a license for the year 1945-46 Under Section 386, Calcutta Municipal Act. Summons was accordingly issued against the opposite party. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 1st March 1948 held that the storing of grains in the premises was by the Post and Telegraphs Department of the Government for the benefit of the employees of that Department, and not for trade, and to that purpose could not be taken to be 'storing' as contemplated Under Section 386 (1) (a), Calcutta Municipal Act; and that the prosecution was also bad in law as the relevant provisions could not bind the Crown. The Mag...
Sm. Rajlakshmi Dassi and ors. Vs. Banamali Sen and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal510
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. Banamali San and Manamatha Nath Sen, sons of late Bholanath Sen, instituted in the second Court of the Munsif of Sealdah a suit for the declaration of a document of surrender by Rajlakshmi Dasi in favour of her sons as collusive and fraudulent. It is not disputed before me that the deed was executed at a place which is outside the jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsif of Sealdah and within the jurisdiction of the original side of the Calcutta High Court. This was, however, registered at the Sealdah Sub-Registrar's office which is within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsiff, Sealdah. It is stated that by this deed the mother surrendered her rights to a large sum of money awarded as compensation on the acquisition of land which was lying in deposit with the President of the Calcutta Improvement Trust Tribunal. It further appears that certain other immovable properties within the jurisdiction of the Sealdah Mansif's Court were also surrendered by this docume...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›