Kolkata Court May 1949 Judgments
Abdoola Haroon and Co. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal36
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order under Section 421, Calcutta Municipal Act passed by the Municipal Magistrate directing the destruction of certain tinned jam, marmalade etc., belonging to the petitioners defendants and at their cost, on the finding that the seized stock was unfit for human consumption.2. Proceedings out of which the present rule arises were initiated on a complaint, under Section 421, Calcutta Municipal Act, hereafter referred to as the Act, filed by a Food Inspector of the Calcutta Corporation. The allegation was that the entire lot of jam, marmalade etc., packed in tins, which were stored at 30 Park Lane, Calcutta, had been found on examination to be unwholesome, unsound and unfit for human consumption. Some of the tins had been seized by the Corporation Officer while the remaining quantity of the stock was kept under seal. As required under said Section 421 the seized articles were produced before the Magistrate for inspection...
Tag this Judgment!Gobardhan Banerjee Vs. Sukhamoy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal481
1. Bidhusekhar Banerjee had a wife of the name of Digambari Debi. Five sons were bora to them, viz., Gobardhan (deft, 1), Anath, Ajit, Asit & Anil. Digambari died some-time in 1912 but Bidhusekhar died about nine years thereafter. At the time of Digambari's death all the five sons were living but at the time of Bidhusekhar's death Anath was dead but the other four sons survived him. We are stating those facts because one of the points raised in this case is whether the properties in suit belonged to Bidhusekhar or to his wife Digambari. In the view that we are taking it is not necessary to decide this point. Anath died in the year 1917 leaving him surviving a widow, viz., Lilabati. It is admitted that Anath had two sons, Mohitkumar & Monmohan but it is a point in controversy in this case as to whether Mohitkumar predeceased his father or survived him. Ajit is dead; he died after Bidhusekhar. His family consists of at the present time, his widow, Bijan Bashini & three sons Rashamoy Guna...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mahaluxmi Cotton Mills Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal399,54CWN70
ORDERSinha, J.1. This is an application for sanction of a scheme of arrangement under Section 153, Companies Act. The Company was incorporated in the year 1921 with an authorised capital of Rs. 20,00,000 divided into 80,000 shares of Rs. 25 each. The authorised capital is now divided into 4,00,000 shares of Rs. 5 each. The issued capital is RS. 20,00,000 and the amount of capital paid up or credited as paid up is Rs. 19,86,898. The Registered Office of the Company is at 18, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta. The object of the Company is, inter alia, to deal in cotton and to carry on the business of ginning cotton, spinning yarn and manufacture of linen cloth and other goods.2. The Managing Agents of the Company are M/s Hemendra Nath Dutta & Sons Limited, a private limited company. They were so appointed on 10th March 1943 for a period of 20 years. Two of the Directors of the Managing Agency Company, viz., Hemendra Nath Dutta and Rabindra Nath Dutta are also Directors of the Company. The bus...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Chandra Bose Vs. Bhupendra Narayan Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal15,54CWN243
K.C. Chunder, J.1. These are three appeals arising out of three execution proceedings of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad. In two of them, there was an appeal to the District Judge who modified the order in execution of the Subordinate Judge and there are two second appeals against the District Judge's decision. The third is the First Miscellaneous Appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge. The Raja Bahadur of Nashipur is the owner of a Touzi No. 1152/1. There is a patni under it of which the appellant Naresh Chandra Basu has a ten annas interest while the remaining six annas belong to the Maitras. Under the patni, the Raja Bahadur has another jote. The jote fell into arrears of rent. Rent suit No. 7 of 1933 was filed for arrears of rents from 1336 to 1339 B. S. This was decreed and an appeal was taken up to the High Court which upheld the decree on 28th May 1940. In the meantime Rent Execution case No. 42 of 1939 had been filed and the jote in arrears was sold...
Tag this Judgment!Dominion of India Vs. Hiralal Bothra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal12
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The decree-holder opposite party obtained a decree on 15th May 1947, from the Court of Munsif, Jamalpur, within the district of Mymensingh, against 'The Governor-General of India in Council, New Delhi and B. A. Railway, having its Head Office at 3 Koilaghat Street, Calcutta.' The nature of particulars of the claim on which the decree was passed cannot be ascertained from the records. On 8th December 1947, the decree-holder applied to the Court of Munsif, Jamalpur, under Order 21 Rule 6, Civil P. C., for a certificate of non-satisfaction, A certificate was issued accordingly and a copy o! the order was, as applied for by the decree, holder, directed by the Munsif at Jamalpur to be sent to the Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta with a copy of the decree. This order was passed in Money Execution Case No. 86 of 1947. On 13th March 1948, the decree-holder opposite party filed in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, an application for execution of the decree so t...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Sammad Vs. Jitoo Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal20,54CWN149
Lahiri, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant from cadastral survey plot No. 633 of Khatian 587 Mouza Garulia on termination of the defendant's tenancy by a notice to quit under Section 106, T. P. Act. The Court of appeal below dismissed the suit and hence this appeal is by the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff's case is that he took a lease of 9 cottas of land under a patta dated 19th POUS 1308 (3rd January 1902) from his two uncles Sk. Osman and Sk. Meajan and out of this area of 9 cottas the plaintiff granted a sublease to the defendant for three cottas for residential purposes; in the record of rights finally published in 1931 the defendant was recorded as an under-raiyat with a right of occupancy. This entry was challenged by the plaintiff as wrong. The plaintiff further alleged that he served a notice to quit under Section 106, T. P. Act, on 21st Jaistha 1342, by registered post and the defendant accepted the same wi...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman of the District Board Vs. Bagala Kumar Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1949
Reported in: 1950CriLJ33
Harries, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Hooghly recommending that a certain order of acquittal be set aside and that a criminal case be sent back to a learned Magistrate for trial according to law.2. The case for the prosacution wag that the opposite party, Bagala Kumar Chatterjee, held a Bishahari Jhapan Mela, at Debipur on 21st August 1947 without any licence from the petitioner, the Hooghly District Board, as required by 8. 100A, Bengal Local Self-Government Act of 18S5. It is said that by holding the mela the opposite party committed an offence punishable Under Section 100D of that Act.3. The opposite party contended that he did not hold the said mela or fair at Debipur as alleged by the petitioner and the case was in due course tried by Sri P. Naskar, a Magistrate of the First Class at Chinsurah. Ha did not go into the merits of the case, but he acquitted the opposite party boldiug that the District Board were not era powered by law to issue Iicen...
Tag this Judgment!Bameswar Bamdev Shiva and anr. Vs. Anath Nath Mukherjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal490
Das Gupta, J.1. In this suit only one question has been left for my decision. With regard to the rest, an order has been made by consent of the parties.2. The facts of the case are as follows : One Sriman Chandra Mukherjee died in the year 1878-leaving a will whereby he created a debutter & appointed his wife, Bama Sundari, executrix & directed that the pltf. deities should be installed by her. Pursuant to this direction, the pltf. deities were installed by Bama Sundari. Thereafter, in the year 1933, a suit was filed being Suit No. 2385 of 1933 in which, on 30-8-1934, a decree was passed declaring certain persons to be shebaits. The persona who were declared shebaits were (1) Bimal Chandra Mukherjee, (2) Charu Chandra Mukherjee, (3) Dino Nath Mukherjee, (4) Anadi Mohon Mukherjee, (5) Jnanendra Nath Mukherjee, (6) Govinda Chandra Mukherjee, (7) Atul Chandra Mukherjee, (8) Dulal Chandra Mukherjee & (9) Kali Krishna Mukherjee. They are the descendants of one Harish Chandra Mukherjee, brot...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Khaitan Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1949
Reported in: 1950CriLJ136
Harries, C.J.1. The appellant was convicted of an offence of criminal breach of trust and was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Bs. 0,000. He was also convicted of an offence Under Section 81 (4), Defence of India Bales and was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of us. 26,000. The sentences of imprisonment were made to run concurrently.2. The appellant together with B, h. Bhartia and Maniklal Pal were tried by an Additional Sessions Judge sitting with a jury upon a number of charges. All throe accused were charged with conspiracy to commit fraudulent breach of trust and offences under Rule, 81 (4), Defence of India Rules, The appellant was also charged on three counts Under Section 406, Penal Code, and on two counts under e. 81 U), Defence of India Rules. B. L, Bhartia and Maniklal Pal were charged' on three counts for aiding and abetting offences Under Section 406, Penal Code. They were also charged upon two counts with offences under Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Vs. P.C. Roy and Co. (India) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal335
Chatterjee, J.1. This is a suit for the recovery of Rs. 32,500/- being damages for breach of contract.2. A gentleman by the name of Hazarimull Agarwalla carried on business in' the name & style of Sree Jagadish Rice & Oil Mills at Forbesgunge in the district of Purnea in Bihar. He was the karta & manager of a joint Hindu family which carried on business in that name.3. The case made in the plaint is that it was agreed that Hazarimull Agarwalla would sell & the deft, would purchase 2,500 maunds of rice on inter-alia the following terms & conditions: (a) The deft, would pay the price of rice at 28/-per maund. (b) The deft, would pay also two annas per maund, as expenses for cartages & loading, (c) The deft, would pay Rs. 62/- per hundred new bags, (d) Delivery would be given at the plff's. mill.(2) It is alleged in the plaint that the deft, postponed taking delivery of the goods to which the plff. assented. On 20-9-1943 the plff. called upon the deft, to take delivery of the goods vithin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »