Kolkata Court January 1950 Judgments
S. Banerjee Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal388
Sen, J1. The applt Major S. Banerjee has been convicted by the Ct of the First Special Tribunal, Calcutta, of having committed an offence punishable under Section 403, I. P. C., that is to say, he has been convicted of criminal misappropriation. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months & to pay two fines which aggregate to the sum of Rs. 1826/8/-, in default of payment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further term of three months.2. The case for the prosecution briefly is as follows: The applt Satyamoy Banerjee was Superintendent of the Telegraph Workshops, Alipore, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence charged. As such Superintendent he was in charge not only of the administration of the workshops but also of all the properties such as the stores, timber & other materials used in the workshops. The case against him is that during the period between February & April 1945 the applt got certain articles of furniture made for h...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Sushama Roy Choudhurani Vs. A.S.M. Osman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal255,54CWN491
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the Munsif refusing to issue an order for attachment in respect of moneys payable by a person now resident in East Pakistan.2. The present petitioner obtained a decree from the Court at Alipore against the opposite party who was at that time a resident within the jurisdiction of that Court and was serving as an Inspector under the Calcutta Police. The opposite party having opted for Pakistan as from after 15th August 1947, he is now stated to be acting as an Inspector of Police at Dacca. The decree of the Alipore Court was put into execution in that Court. The decree-holder prayed for the realisation of the balance of her decretal dues by attachment of the salary of the opposite party payable at Dacca. The petitioner accordingly prayed for the issue of a writ of attachment of the salary of the opposite party under the provisions contained in Rule 28 of Order 21, Civil P. C. The writ of attachment was returne...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Aziz Khan Vs. Lalit Mohan Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal265,54CWN442
Lahiri, J.1. The applicant for pre-emption under Section 26F (1), Bengal Tenancy Act, obtained this rule which is directed against an order of the First Subordinate Judge, Howrah, affirming the decision of the Munsif Uluberia, by which the application of the opposite party to join as a co-applicant under Section 26F (4) (a) was allowed.2. The facts of the case which, are undisputed are as follows: On 12th November 1946, the opposite party purchased a share of an occupancy holding at an auction sale held in execution of a decree but no notice of the purchase was served on the co-sharers under Section 260. The petitioner came to know about the sale on 28th March 1948 and on 16th April 1948 he made the application under Section 26F (1). Notice of this application was served on the opposite party under Section 26F (3) on 16th July 1948, and on 19th July 1948 the opposite party filed an application under Section 26F (4) (a) for joining in the application as a co-applicant alleging that he w...
Tag this Judgment!Dominion of India Vs. Gosto Behary Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal247,54CWN749
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Judge of the Presidency Small Cause Court, Calcutta, disallowing the objection of the Dominion of India to a certain execution.2. On 12th August 1947, the opposite party instituted a suit in the Small Cause Court at Barisal against the Indian General Navigation Company, River Steamship Navigation Company, Bengal and Assam Railway and the Governor-General in Council representing Bengal and Assam Railway. The claim was for short delivery of certain chillies which had been booked from the steamer station of Ibrahimpur in East Bengal for delivery at Forbesganj in Bihar.3. The first two defendants entered appearance, but it appears that the Bengal and Assam Railway and the Governor-General in Council did not enter appearance. However on 6th February 1948, the plaintiff obtained a decree in the Small Cause Court at Barisal against defendants 3 and 4, that is, the Bengal and Assam Railway and the Governor-General as repr...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Ebrahim Kassam Cochinwalla Vs. Northern Indian Oil Industries Ltd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal230
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application made on behalf of Haji Ebrahim Kassam Cochinwalla on a notice of motion dated 30-11-1949, asking to set aside the award dated 22-7-1949 and filed on 20-8-1949.2. The facts of the case may be stated briefly. By contract dated 2-1-1949 the applicant purchased from the Northern India Oil Industries Ltd., 3 wagons of pure Mahuya Oil. The respondents claimed Rs. 3368-9-3 as damages for non-acceptance being based on the difference between the contract price and the market price. After some disputes, by a letter dated 9-2-1949 the respondents' solicitor informed the applicant of the appointment of Pannalal Kasera as the sole Arbitrator. An application was thereafter made by the present applicant on 24-5-1949 restraining the sole Arbitrator from acting and for allowing the applicant to appoint an Arbitrator on his behalf. That application was finally heard by Banerjee J., and by an order dated 5-7-1949 the learned Judge held that the application ...
Tag this Judgment!Bibhuti Bhusan Roy and anr. Vs. Narendra Narayan Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal228,54CWN667
Lahiri, J.1. These two appeals are at the instance of the plaintiffs. Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1356 of 1944 arises out of Title Suit No. 95 of 1942 in which the plaintiffs ask for a declaration of their title to the disputed land and for confirmation of their possession; and they also ask for an injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 from proceeding with a certain mutation case instituted under the Land Registration Act. Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1357 of 1944 arises out of Title Suit No. 88 of 1942 in which the plaintiffs pray for a declaration that defendants 5 and 6 are tenants under them in respect of kha schedule land of the plaint and ask for an injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 from withdrawing the money which had been deposited by defendants 5 and 6 under the provisions of Section 149, Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The facts which are material for the purpose of these two appeals are these: One Nripendra Bala had a moiety share in Touzi No. 192 of the 24-Parganas...
Tag this Judgment!Panchanan Ghose Vs. Bhaggu Bari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal261
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the employer from an order of the Commissioner for workmen's compensation awarding the respondent a sum of Rs. 441 together with certain costs as compensation in respect of an accident.2. The workman's case was that he was employed by the appellant to load certain bricks into a lorry, to travel with the lorry and unload the bricks on arriving at the lorry's destination. It is said that whilst the respondent was travelling in this lorry on some day about seven months before the hearing before the Commissioner, the lorry travelling along a narrow path overturned. The workman who was travelling on the lorry, it is said, was thrown into a tank along side this narrow path and was injured by bricks from the overturned lorry falling upon him. The workman's case was that he sustained injuries in the chest and on left hand, left knee and waist.3. The appellant denied that the respondent was a workman within the meaning of the Act and he denied that there was...
Tag this Judgment!Sriram Arjundas Vs. Governor General in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal443
Sinha, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff claims recovery of Rs. 9036/- from the defendant in the following circumstances.2. On January 26, 1943, the plaintiff delivered to the North Western Railway at Lahore several cases containing wrosted dress materials for carriage from Lahore to Howarh. The plaintiff was the consignee. The goods arrived in Calcutta on or before the 23rd July, 1943, and they were delivered, except one case containing 8 pieces of wrosted dress materials of the aggregate length of 291 1/2 yds. On August 3, 1943, the East Indian Railway issued a short delivery certificate for non-delivery of the one case to which I have referred.3. On August 25, 1943, the plaintiff made a claim under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act, for Rs. 9,036/- by a letter addressed to the Chief Commercial Manager, East Indian Railway Howrah. That letter was acknowledged and the plaintiff was informed by the Chief Commercial Manager by a letter dated the 31st August 1943, that the matter would...
Tag this Judgment!Rajani Kanto Das Vs. Dayal Chand De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal244,54CWN376
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This is a Rule obtained against an order of the Registrar of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, rejecting an application before him by a sub-tenant, There was a proceeding by Dayal Chand Dey and Murari Mohan Dey under Chap. VII, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, against Baidynath Seal, in which an order was passed on 13th July 1949, thus : 'By consent the suit is decreed with costs.'2. The petitioner claims to be the sub-tenant of Baidyanath Seal and considers that in effect he cannot be removed from the part of the premises which he holds as a sub-tenant under Baidyanath Seal in view of the provisions of Section 11 (3), West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948. He also in his application made some reference to Section 18 of that Act (which appears to me to have no bearing on the present question at all) and made a number of somewhat strange prayers which it is not necessary to set out; but his principal prayer was that a notice be issued on the opposite...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotindra Nath Sanyal Vs. Sm. Taradasi Ghose W/O Satish Chandra Ghose ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal213
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This is a rule against an order of the Additional Court of the Munsif at Sealdah refusing the defendants' prayer that a plaint in an ejectment suit be returned under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil P.C. The suit in question was brought in 1945, under the provisions of the Calcutta Rent Control Order, 1943. At the time when it was brought the amendment made by the insertion of Clause 9A, in the order which took effect on 22nd May 1944, was in force; in other words, the permission of the Rent Controller was necessary in respect of a suit filed on the ground mentioned in Clause 9 (1) (c) of the Order which may be briefly referred to as the ground of bona fide requirement by the landlord. The plaint here includes a cause of action on this ground of bona fide requirement and also one on the ground of default in payment of rent.2. On 1st October 1943, the Rent Control Ordinance replaced the order and on 1st December 1918 the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act replaced the Ordi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »