Kolkata Court July 1949 Judgments
Hazi Mahammad Ekramal Haque Vs. Province of Bengal Through the Land Ac ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal83
K.C. Chancier, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the arbitrator in a proceeding in connection with the assessment of compensation for a building requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, Section 19, read with Defence of India Rules 81 (2) (bb) and Section 75A of the Rules.2. Briefly, the facts are that premises No. 9 Chittaranjan Avenue used to be occupied by the Central Government under a lease which expired on 29th July 1943. The lease had been granted on 28th July 1940, the rent reserved being Rs. 1950 monthly. On the expiry of the lease, the owner refused to renew the tenancy. Therefore on 30th July 1943, a requisition order was served requisitioning the building for the Controller of the Army Factory Accounts. The Collector offered Rs. 2200 as the monthly rent inclusive of the Corporation rates. This was refused by 'the landlord who claimed Rs. 3988 as the monthly rent inclusive of rates. He asked for a reference to arbitrator. The arbitrator came to the conclusion ...
Tag this Judgment!Gour Mohan Roy and ors. Vs. Sailendra Nath Saha Chowdhary
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal152
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit claim to be sub-tenants in respect of certain portions of the premises in suit. Defendant 1 is the superior landlord and defendants 2 and 3 are alleged to be the tenants of such superior landlord.2. This is a suit by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the order for possession of the Small Causes Court, Calcutta, dated 2nd March 1948, passed against defendants 2 and 3 Bhupen Chandra Ghose and Lalan Chandra Ghose (herein-after referred to as the Ghose defendants) does not bind the plaintiffs and for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the sub-tenants of the premises in suit entitled to reside therein until the lawful termination of their sub-tenancy and for injunction restraining defendant 1 Sailendra Nath Saha Chaudhury (hereinafter referred to as the landlord defendant) from executing the Small Causes Court decree or order for possession against the plaintiffs.3. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are and have been the sub-tenan...
Tag this Judgment!Balaram Mandal Vs. Sahebjan Gazi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal85,54CWN139
G.N. Das, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5, Court-fees Act and raises three questions for decision, viz., (1) whether one valuation should be put under Section 7(4)(c), Court-fees Act, subject to correction by the Court under Section 8(c), Court-fees Act; (2) where the defendant and not the plaintiff is before the Court, what is the procedure to be followed for valuing the relief and (3) whether Section 17(2), Court-fees Act as amended would apply to cases arising under Section 7(4)(c), Court-fees Act.2. The substance of the plaint, as it appears from the report of the Stamp Reporter, is that the plaintiff brought the suit out of which the appeal arises on the allegation that the disputed property belonged to one Akazaddin and others. The plaintiff purchased the same by a registered deed of sale for a consideration of Rs. 1,000 from the said Akazaddin and others in the benami of of his brother-in-law defendant 1. The plaintiff went into possession of the property purchased by h...
Tag this Judgment!Paresh Chandra Bhowmick Vs. Usharanjan Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal346
Sen, J.1. This rule came up for hearing before Mookerjee and Das Gupta JJ. As there was a difference of opinion between them the matter has been placed before me for disposal by my Lord the Chief Justice.2. The facts giving rise to this rule briefly are as follows. The Maharaj Kumari Binodini Devi of Manipur deposited the sum of Rs. 5,000 (rupees five thousand only) as a fixed deposit for six months in the Calcutta Mercantile Bank Limited at the Nabadwip Branch. Six months expired on 5th February 1947. On 6th of that month Maharaj Kumari Binodini Devi send her agent, Paresh Chandra Bhowmik, who is the complainant in this case, to get back the money deposited as the date of maturity had passed. Bhowmik appeared at the Nabadwip Branch of the Bank but he was told that there was no money there and he was asked to come to Calcutta to take money. On 7th February 1947, Bhowmik came to the Calcutta Head Office and he was put off for a week. He went to the bank from time to time and payment was...
Tag this Judgment!Kally Nath Dutta Vs. Shew Bux Mohata and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal87,54CWN355
G.N. Das, J.1. This rule was obtained by defendant 3 against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated 15th March 1949 in which he gave certain directions in the matter of the ascertainment of mesne profits, to a Commissioner appointed for this purpose. In 1944 a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title and for recovery of possession was instituted against several defendants. Defendants 1, 2 and 6 were the trustees to the estate of one Sm. Sekheswari. Defendants 3, 4 and 6 were in possession of distinct plots under the trustees. On 20th March 1948 the suit was decreed, the plaintiff's title was declared and a decree for recovery of possession and for mesne profits was passed in favour of the plaintiff. Against the decree defendant 3 preferred an appeal to this Court and obtained Civil Rule No. 872 (F) of 1948 for a stay of the decree for delivery of possession and for ascertainment of mesne profits. This rule was heard on 23rd August 1948. An order was made by this Court dir...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Sewlal, a Firm Vs. Probodh Krishna Shome
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal576,54CWN733
ORDER1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioner against an order of the President of the Tribunal refusing the application of the petitioner for withdrawal of the money lying before him through another advocate. The facts as they appear on record are very unfortunate.2. Mr. Shome was engaged by the petitioner as an advocate in connection with an acquisition case pending before the Collector. A certain sum was awarded by the Collector and a reference was filed through Mr. Shome. The reference succeeded in part. Thereafter it appears disputes arose between Mr. Shome and the petitioner as regards the payment of the sums due to Mr. Shome as his fees for the work done by him in the acquisition case and in the reference case. The petitioner engaged another lawyer to withdraw the compensation money awarded to him which was lying before the President of the Tribunal. Mr. Shome made an application for payment to him of the sums which he claimed on account of his fees and costs. This applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Aditya Kumar Ray Vs. Dhirendra Nath Mandal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal92
P.N. Mitra, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff under Clause 15, Letters Patent from a judgment of Blank J. in a suit for declaration of title to and recovery of khas possession of certain lands. The trial Court decreed the suit, but on appeal the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah, modified that decree by dismissing the plaintiff's claim for khas possession and giving him only a declaration of his title to the landlord's interest in the suit lands. Our learned brother has affirmed that decision of the lower appellate Court.2. The suit lands are C. S. Dag No. 2684, which is a tank, and C. S. Dag. No. 2683, which an adjoining garden. These plots formed part of a maurashi mokarari jama which belonged to one Harish Chandra Mondal. Harish executed a simple mortgage in respect of this jama in favour of the plaintiff. It was stated to us by the learned advocate for the appellant that this mortgage was made in 1921. In 1928, the plaintiff brought a suit upon this mortg...
Tag this Judgment!Bibhuti Bhusan Vs. Surendra Mohan Lahiri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal96
ORDERK.C. Chunder, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the tenant defendant. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment in 1947 and, as is usual, though he claims the house for his personal use and occupation, he is being driven from pillar to post. The Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1946 was then in force. The landlord got the permission of the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller granted a conditional permission.2. The tenant filed an appeal to the District Judge, 24-Parganas under the Ordinance. The District Judge in deciding the appeal very rightly passed a legal order by granting the permission unconditionally. Had the original order of the Rent Controller stood, there might have been some justification for the contention raised before us that the permission was not legal.3. As regards the question that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to pass such an order, the jurisdiction is granted by Section 25 of the Ordinance. No question of Order 41, or anything analogous to it aris...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Siddiq Vs. Mohamed Akbar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal466
Sinha, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 10718-4-0 alleged to be due to the pltf. from the defts. 1 to 4 as drawers & acceptors of a hundi dated 13-11-1938, from deft. 5 as indorser of the hundi & from deft. 6 on the footing that he agreed to discharge the liabilities of the deft. 5.2. The pltf. & Din Mahommad used to carry on business in partnership in the name of East India Export Co. & Asiatic Produce Co. In 1933 they decided to terminate the partnership. The defts. 1 to 4 had drawn & accepted a hundi for Rs. 10,000 payable to the said firm or order 56 days after date. In accord & satisfaction of the pltf.'s share in the partnership, the said Hundi was indorsed by the said firm through Din Mohommed in favour of the pltf. on 14-11-1933. The partnership was dissolved by mutual consent as on & from 31-12-1933 & on 14-2-1934 a deed of dissolution was executed by the pltf. & Din Mohommed. The deed provided, inter alia, that Din Mahommad would be entitled to realise all the outstand...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Charan GuIn Vs. Governor-general in Council, Representing B.N. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal100,54CWN154
G.N. Das, J.1. This rule was obtained by the petitioner Krishna Chandra Guin. It is directed against the decision of Mr. D. N. Chakladar, Munsif, 3rd Court, Midnapore, exercising Small Cause Court powers, whereby he dismissed the petitioner's suit for recovery of a sum of Rupees 152, alleged to be the price of goods consigned for carriage by the B. N. Railway administration represented by the defendant opposite party, and not delivered to the consignee.2. The facts of the case are that Joseph Herber & Co., Calcutta self-consigned a package for carriage by the B. N. Railway from Esplanade, Calcutta, to Midnapore. In the forwarding note, the consignor described the package as containing Gramophone Records and declared the value to be Rs. 99 only. The plaintiff petitioner purchased the goods from the consignor and took an open delivery of the package at Midnapore Railway Station. A part of the contents of the goods was not delivered by the B. N. Railway. After service of the requisite not...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »