Kolkata Court September 1949 Judgments
Debendra Nath Dutt Vs. Sm. Satyabala Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal217,54CWN110
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application made by a notice of motion. The notice of motion is taken out by the attorney for the plaintiff and is dated 19th August 1949. By special leave the notice of motion was made returnable for 22nd August 1949, The notice of motion asks for the following reliefs :'1. Order getting aside the order of dismissal dated 5th May 1949.2. Restoration of the suit for hearing.3. If necessary, extension of time for making this application.'2. On the day when special leave was asked from the Court to make the notice of motion returnable on 22nd August 1949 the application was not noted as made on that date when the application came on the list on22nd August 1949 the plaintiff did not have the application noted as made even on that date. On 22nd August 1949 directions were obtained from this Court for filing affidavits. Time was taken to file affidavit in opposition by Tuesday week i. e., 30th August 1949 and to file affidavit in reply by the following Monday,...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra Nath Mukherjee and anr. Vs. Jyosit Mookerji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal485,54CWN493
1. These are two appeals on behalf of the judgment-debtors arising out of orders, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Hooghly, disposing of objections raised by them Under Section 47, Civil P. C.2. The judgment-debtors hold certain Patnis under the decree-holders opposite parties. Two suits were brought by the landlord for the realisation of Patni rent which had fallen due.. In September 1944, the suits were decreed: in one case for rent upto the end of 1348 B. S. and in the other upto Ashar 1349 B. S. On 12th March 1945, the landlord decree-holder purchased the Patnis for Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively, which covered a portion of the amounts due under the decrees, viz., Rs. 42,639 11-9 and Rs. 53,254-10-111/2 respectively. On 9th April 1945, some of the judgment-debtors filed applications for setting aside the sale and immediately, thereafter, the landlord moved the Court for the appointment of a Receiver. The two matters were taken up together for hearing on 21st August 1945...
Tag this Judgment!National Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohendra Nath Kundu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-20-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal163
Das Gupta, J.1. Section 26 (F), Bengal Tenancy Act, as enacted by the amending Act of 1928, gave the immediate landlord of a holding a right of pre-emption, in the cage of a transfer of the holding by the tenant, with a few exceptions. When the Act was further amended the right of the pre-emption was taken away from landlords and given to cosharer tenants. In the present case, the facts are that when a cosharer tenant transferred his interest, in (sic) the opposite parties as landlords exercised their right of pre-emption, and obtained an order by which the interest of the cosharer tenants stood transferred to them. The other cosharer tenant has since transferred his interest to the petitioner, but the opposite parties have no longer any right of pre-emption as 'landlords,' since the law has changed. They claim, however, to have become cosharers of the tenancy as a result of the transfer to them of a cosharer's interest under the old Section 26F, and so, to be entitled to exercise the ...
Tag this Judgment!Province of West Bengal and anr. Vs. Bholanath Sen and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-20-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal174,54CWN322
G.N. Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the Province of Bengal against an order dated 23rd September 1946, passed by Mr. J. P. Mukherjee, learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Additional Court, District 24 Parganas, dismissing an execution case started by appellant.2. The facts are as follows : Bholanath Sen, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents and Tulsimanjuri Dasi filed a suit in forma pauperis, being Title Suit No. 69 of 1939 against Rajlakshmi Dasi and Nabani Gopal Banerjee. On 31st June 1941, the suit was dismissed and under the pro-visions of Order 33, Rule 11, Civil P. C., a decree for payment of Rs. 2484-12-0 being the court-fees which would have been payable to the Government, had the plaintiff not been permitted to sue as paupers, was passed against the plaintiffs in favour of the Government.3. In 1900 the said Bholanath Sen had borrowed a sum of Rs. 8000 from Jogendranath Das on a mortgage. In 1911, Jogendra sued to enforce the mortgage. The Court, however, pass-ed a money decre...
Tag this Judgment!Ralyaram Melaram, a Firm and anr. Vs. Kaluram Agarwalla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal149
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order made by a learned Subordinate Judge of Asansol ordering the defendants to supply certain particulars of the written statement filed by them.2. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge in which they prayed for the cancellation of a lease dated 21st May 1946, executed and registered by a predecessor of the plaintiffs. It was alleged that on 22th April 1946 the predecessor of the plaintiffs as karta of a joint family entered into an agreement with defendant 2 for the grant of a lease of certain coal bearing lands. On 21st May 1946, this lease was actually executed by the predecessor of the plaintiffs.3. The plaintiffs alleged that at the time of the agreement another lease was produced and it was agreed that the terms of the proposed lease would be the same as those in the lease which was produced. Defendant 2, it is said, was to draft the lease which he did. The allegation is that he presented a d...
Tag this Judgment!Sadananda Pyne Vs. Harinam Sha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal179
Das Gupta, J.1. The principal question for decision in this appeal is whether the Dikshaguru of a Hindu not being the person who invested him with the sacred thread is his heir, on failure of other heirs. The appeal is against the decision of a Probate Court, allowing an application for revocation of a probate that bad been granted of a will of one Manmatha Nath Mandal, who will be later referred to simply as Manmatha. Manmatha died in July 1933, leaving his widow Manada Bala Dassi hereinafter referred to as Manada. Manada died in 1945. Disputes arose over properties left by Manmatha, after the death of Manada, between purchasers from Pachkari Bhuian who sold as a guardian of Gokul said to have been adopted by Manmatha and the purchaser from Janaki Nath Chakravarti who claimed to be Manmatha's heir on the death of Manada, on the ground that he was Manmatha's 'Dikshaguru'. On 23rd August 1945, Panchkari Bhuian applied for Probate of a will said to have been left by Manmatha. He stated t...
Tag this Judgment!Ejahar Mollah Vs. Golam Robbani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal203
ORDERG.N. Das, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioner who is a purchaser of an occupancy holding under a Kobala dated 17-3-1947 against an order of the lower appellate court allowing an application for pre-emption under Section 26 (F), Bengal Tenancy Act.2. Mr. Mukherjee, appearing for the petitioner, contends that the lower appellate court was wrong in holding that the petitioner was estopped from stating that there was no sub-division of the parent, jama. To appreciate the legal position it may be stated that admittedly there was a parent jama of Rs. 7/14/-and odd which was held by Belat Ali, Ejahar Ali and Mojahar Ali. It is admittedly an ancestral jama. According to the opposite party the share of Belat Ali was eight annas and the shares of Ejahar and Mojahar were each four annas in this jama. The petitioner, who is admittedly a co-sharer in the ancestral jama, purchased the shares of some of the heirs- of Belat Ali. In the Kobala it is recited that there was kharij of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Chandra Pal Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal125
Das Gupta, J.1. The appellant was tried by a Special Tribunal of Alipore constituted under the West Bengal Black Marketing Act, 1948 and convicted under Section 3 read with Section 2 (h) of that Act, also under Section 3 read with Section 2 (h) and Section 6 of the Act, and under Section 474, Penal Code, and was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment for the first mentioned offence and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the second offence. No separate sentence was passed under Section 474, Penal Code. The two sentences under the two offences under the West Bengal Black Marketing Act were ordered to run con. currently. It was further ordered that the hand printing press together with the printing outfit seized were forfeited under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act.2. The prosecution case was that on the night of 25th April 1948, a Sub-Inspector of the Enforcement Branch, Calcutta, accompanied by certain other Police Officers and some search witnesses went to premises No....
Tag this Judgment!Badridas Goenka and ors. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal140
ORDERSen, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the petitioners against an order passed by Sri N. K. Ghose, Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, whereby the petitioners have been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each, the fine purporting to have been inflicted under Section 493, Calcutta Municipal Act.2. The facts briefly are as follows: On 15th September 1948, the Corporation of Calcutta filed an application before the aforesaid Municipal Magistrate under Section 363, Calcutta Municipal Act. The Corporation prayed for the demolition of certain structures constructed at 43 Netaji Subhas Road on the ground that these constructions were made without the sanction of the Corporation and also on the ground that the constructions infringed certain bye-laws framed for buildings under the Calcutta Municipal Act. It was stated in the petition that the Corporation detected this unauthorised building on 10th January 1948. Before the learned Magistrate the persons complained against, that is to say, the...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed AmIn Bros. Ltd. Vs. Dominion of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal323,54CWN514
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a Judgment & order of Sinha, J., winding up the appellant co. The appellants are a limited Company with a nominal capital of Rs. 15,00,000/- divided into 1,500 shares of Rs. 1,000/- each. The amount of capital paid up or credited as paid up is Rs. 15,00,000. The Company carries on the business of Exporters & Importers of hides & skins & other commodities. On 30-3-1948 the Company was assessed to income-tax & corporation tax for the assessment years 1944-45 1945-46, & 1946-1947 in the amount of Rs. 4,56,562-5-0. On the same date the Company was also assessed for the periods ending 31-10-1943, 31-10-1944, & 31-10-1945 at Rs. 30,44, 234/- on account of excess profits tax & compulsory deposits. The total amount of tax for which the co. was assessed was therefore Rs. 35,00,796-5-0. The income-tax assessments for the years 1947-48 & 1948-49 have not been completed & are still pending. On 9-4-1948 notices of demand of the amounts due were served on the C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »