Kolkata Court September 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.
Sm. Nagendra Bala Hore and anr. Vs. Sree Sree Iswar Dakhina Kalimata T ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal503,54CWN499
G.N. Das, J.1. This rule was obtained by the petitioners who are tenants against an order dated 1st February 1949 passed by Mr. M Mukherji, learned Judge, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, 6th Bench, rejecting an application under Section 18, West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act (XXXVIII [38] of 1948). 2. The case of the petitioners is that their predecessor was a tenant in respect of premises No. 38/4B Baghbazar Street. The landlord served a notice to quit under Section 106 T. P. Act, and started proceedings under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act on the ground of default. The petitioners filed written statements disputing the fact that they were defaulters. On 24th August 1948 an order was made under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. It appears that the petitioners deposited the arrears up to July 1948. It is alleged that since the passing of the order under Section 41 they are depositing rent before the Rent Controller. On 1st December...
Provat Kumar Kar and ors. Vs. William Trevelyan Curties Parkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal116
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate convicting the ten petitioners of an offence under Section 26, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of us. 25. In default of payment of the fine it was provided that each should undergo a period of seven days' imprisonment.2. The ten petitioners were employees of Messrs. Lloyd Bank Limited, and were employed at the Head Office and the Chowringhee Office of the Bank. Disputes had arisen between the Bank and its employees and on 17th January 1948, these disputes were referred to the adjudication of a Tribunal under Section 10(1)(c), Industrial Disputes Act (X1V [14] of 1947).3. Before these proceedings had terminated the ten petitioners together with other employees of the Bank went on a one-day strike on 17th August 1948. This one-day strike admittedly had nothing to do with the disputes which had been referred to the adjudication of a Tribunal under ...
Suchandra Kumar Samanta Vs. the King and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal138
Das Gupta, J.1. This Rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Howrah to show cause why proceedings under Sections 465/109, Penal Code pending in the Court of Mr. Ghatak should not be transferred to some other Court. Two persons, Pramatha Harabab and Haradhan Banerjee were summoned under Section 417, Penal Code on a complaint of one Amulya Charan Harabab, filed on 26th July 1948. After the case was transferred to Mr. Ghatak for trial, several witnesses were examined and the present petitioner Suchandra Kumar Samanta was actually examined as a witness on 28th April 1949. On 6th June, an application appears to have been filed on behalf of the complainant that Suchandra and another person should be summoned to take their trial. The order passed by the Magistrate on 6th June does not indicate that the learned Magistrate did read this petition carefully for he appears to have read it only as a petition for examination of the lawyer Bejoy Krishna Roy Choudhury. On 29th June, he discussed...
Abdul Majid Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal165
ORDERSen, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the accused whose application to be given copies of the witnesses' statement to the police during the investigation of this case has been refused by the learned trying Magistrate. Against the order of refusal the Sessions Judge was moved to refer the matter to this Court. The learned Sessions Judge stated that the order was bad but he said that the Magistrate may reconsider the order and allow the defence to get copies of the statements made by the witnesses before the police or he may acquit the accused. For these reasons he thought that he should not delay the proceedings by making a reference to this Court.2. The learned Magistrate's order is in my opinion entirely wrong. An accused person is entitled under the provisions of Section 162, Criminal P. C., to get copies of the statements made by persons to the police during an investigation under Ch. 14 of the said Code provided that such persons are examined as witnesses by the prosecution...
Boto Krishna Ghose Vs. Akhoy Kumar Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal111,54CWN660
P.N. Mitra, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15, Letters Patent, from a judgment of Chakravartti J. It is on behalf of defendant 1 in a suit for partition of a dwelling house and certain other properties. Our learned brother in concurrence with the Courts below has rejected the appellant's prayer under Section 4, Partition Act, to buy up the plaintiff's share in the dwelling house, and it is the propriety of this decision that is in question before us in this appeal.2. The facts, which are not now in dispute, are these. One Fakir Ghose and his three brothers Dwarik, Tarini and Ambika held a raiyati holding under a ganti tenure which was owned by one Kalidhan Debi, and their dwelling house stood on a portion of this holding. The ganti tenure was purchased by Fakir. He thereafter died leaving two sons Upen and Nabin as his heirs, who obtained by inheritance each an eight annas share of the ganti and a two annas share of the holding including the homestead. On 12th June 1920, Upen sold...
Mohini Mohan Saha and ors. Vs. the Province of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal246
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. Premises No. 81 Bahir Surah Road, was acquired in connection with Improvement Scheme No. IV--Manicktolla (Supplementary) Excavation Area. The declaration was dated 1-9-1941 published in the Calcutta Gazette on 4-9-1941. There were a large number of claimants and the Collector after hearing the parties fixed the land value at Rs. 250 per cottah as an average rate. Compensation was also allowed for certain trees standing on the laud. Most of the claimants accepted the compensation as allowed by the Collector. Eight of the claimants did not accept the award and applied for a reference to the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal. Before the Tribunal evidence was led and experts were examined on behalf of the claimants and the Province. The claim before the Tribunal on behalf of the claimants was at the average rate of Rs. 500 per cottah. The experts on behalf of both the parties agreed that to ascertain the proper market value the valuation should be fixed by dividing the lan...
Abani Mohan Mukerjee Vs. Biswanath Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal142,54CWN654
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal on behalf of Defendant 1 is directed against a preliminary decree for partition passed by the Sub-ordinate Judge, Howarah.2. The property in suit originally belonged to one Narasinga Mukherjee who died on 16th October 1985, leaving his son Abani Mohan, who is defendant 1 in the present suit and Biswanath, the son of a predeceased son Suranath Biswanth is the plaintiff and his mother Parul Bala is defendant 2. Biswanath brought the present suit for partition by metes and bounds in respect of his 8 anna share in the joint properties.3. Various points were raised by Abani by way of defence but it is not necessary to refer to all those in the present appeal. The plaintiff's mother, Parul Bala, did not file any written statement. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit declaring an 8 anna share in the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff and defendant 1 respectively. The decree further provided:'Defendant 2 be declared to have a right of residen...
Kedarnath Bhattacharjee Vs. Mahendranath Kundu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal253,54CWN671
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant in a suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of a small strip of land on declaration of the plaintiffs' title thereto.2. The plaintiffs' case is that their father had purchased holding No. 34 in ward No. 1 of the Nabadwip Municipality which was included within C. S. Plot 1177 of C. S. Khatian No. 4161 of Mouza Nabadwip. It is claimed that the disputed land, which is a narrow strip about 2ft. in breadth and about 57ft. in length appertains to the said holding and as such had been in their possession. C. S. Plot 1178 which lies to the south of plot 1177 belongs to the defendant. To the west of plaintiffs' Plot no. 1177 is C. S. Plot 1176 used for a long time as a common passage by the people in the locality. On 16-5-1942, it is alleged, the defendant dispossessed the plaintiffs from the narrow strip by raising pillars on it and having it fenced off.3. The defence is that the disputed land appertains to th...
indra Chand Dutt Choudhury and ors. Vs. Tinkari Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal170
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff a against the decision by the Courts below dismissing the plaintiffs' suit against the defend-ants for ejectment.2. The principal question in issue in this appeal depends on an interpretation of Section 182, Bengal Tenancy Act and is one of first impression.3. The plaintiffs are admittedly the owners of premises No. 47/1 now re-numbered 46/1 Barrackpore Trunk Road, covering an area of about 1 1/2 bighas, which had been included upto March 1924, within the municipal limits of Cossipore Chitpore; but from after the passing of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, which came into force an 1st April 1924, it is within the ambit of the Calcutta Corporation. As after service of notice under Section 106, T. P. Act, the defendants had not given up possession, the plaintiff filed the present suit for ejectment There is a further claim for arrears of rent for a certain period upto the date of notice and for damages for use and occupation...
Calcutta Agency Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal270,[1950]18ITR635(Cal)
Chatterjee, J.1. The following question has been referred by the Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, to the High Court for its opinion:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the sum of Rs. 22,500 was taxable in the hands of the applicant company.'2. The applicant is a private limited company incorporated in August 1932. From the Memorandum of Association of the company, it appears that it was brought into existence to float various companies including cotton mills.3. In November 1932 a cotton mill was floated under the name of Basanti Cotton Mills Ltd. By Article 132 of the Articles of Association, the applicant company, the Calcutta Agency Ltd., was appointed the Managing Agent of the said Mill.4. The Managing Agents were to receive a monthly allowance of Rs. 500 so long as the subscribed capital did not exceed Rs. 5,00,000 and a commission of 3 per cent on all gross sales of goods manufactured. In case the subscribed capital exceeded Rs. 5,00,000, then for every...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »