Kolkata Court November 1950 Judgments
Udaychand Mahatab Vs. Rammoy Hajra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1953Cal123,56CWN272
Chakravartti, J.1. Two points have been urged in support of this appeal. The first is that the executing court was not right in directing that the eight annas share of judgment-debtors Nos. 4 and 5 in the tenure concerned should be put up to auction in the first instance and that 'if the bidding did not liquidate the decretal dues,' the entire tenure, including the other eight annas share of judgment debtors Nos. 1 to 3, should then be put to auction. The second ground urged is that the executing court was not right in holding that there must be a fresh sale proclamation under Section 163 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for the reason that there had been no bidding at the previous attempt at a sale.2. The facts, broadly stated, are that the appellant obtained a rent decree on January 13, 1948, against a number of judgment debtors, of whom only five need now be considered. It is stated, and there is no dispute on the point, that judgment-debtors Nos. 1 to 3 who are respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in ...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Pal Vs. Sadan Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal297
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This is a rule against an order passed by the Police Magistrate of Sealdah, on 29-11-1949, dismissing the petitioner's complaint under Section 203, Criminal P. C.2. The facts really are not disputed. The petitioner had brought a case against Sadhan Chatterjee and others under Section 448, Penal Code, for trespass into certain premises of which he is the landlord. The premises had been left by their Muhammadan tenants during the Calcutta riots of 1946 and they had been severely damaged. The landlord had caused them to be repaired and made arrangements to let them to another tenant when the accused were alleged to have made this forcible entry and trespass. That case ended in conviction. The matter came as far as this Court and the conviction was upheld. There was also an application by the landlord under Section 522, Criminal P. C., which eventually failed, apparently on the ground of limitation. There seems some reason to suppose that the failure really was due to r...
Tag this Judgment!Hind Constructions Ltd. Vs. Dwarika Nath Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal289,55CWN248
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by deft. 1 against a decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Ct., Midnapore, in a suit brought for enforcement of an award. The facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly these :The deft. 1 (Messrs. Hind Constructions Ltd.) is a firm of contractors who undertook the construction work of the Reservoir Tank of the B. N. Rly. Co. at Gidni. Of this work deft. 1 gave a subcontract to the pltfs. It is the pltf's case that they have done the work but have not been paid their dues in full. There was a dispute between the parties in relation to this sub-contract with regard to the amount of work done by the pltfs. & the dues payable to them under the terms of the subcontract. The dispute was eventually referred to the arbitration of one Mr. Tarapada Dey on 30-8-1945. A letter of reference which is Ex. 1 in the case, printed at p. 2, Part II of the paper book, was signed on behalf of deft. 1 by H. Bihani, & on behalf of the pltfs. by pltf. 1. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bengal Bank Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chakravartty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal133,[1951]21CompCas315(Cal),55CWN206
Banerjee, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made on June 15, 1950, by Bachawat J., refusing to sanction a scheme. The Company in question is the Bengal Bank Ltd. which was incorporated in 1926 under the Indian Companies Act. The petition under Section 153 was first presented to this Court on or about December 9, 1949, on which day preliminary directions under that section were given.2. The Bank has twenty branches. Five of the branches are in Pakistan and the remaining fifteen are within the State of West Bengal. The authorised capital of the Company is Rs. 25,00,000/-. The paid up capital is Rs. 11,70,000/-. It carries on business as a Bank in India as well as in Pakistan. Its registered office and principal place of business is in India. The majority of the depositors are within the Union of India. Notice of the application has not been given to the creditors in Pakistan.3. Section 153 of the Indian Companies Act deals with the right of Companies to enter into a compromise or arra...
Tag this Judgment!Mehtab Chand Vs. Shriratan Mohta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1953Cal367
Banerjee, J. 1. This suit was filed on 14-8-1945 for redemption of certain jewellery. The written statement was filed on or about 19-11-1945. The defendant died intestate on 15-12-1949, leaving him surviving a widow, Sm. Tarabai and two sons, Sri Ratan and Brij Ratan and his heirs and legal representatives. 2. On 16-12-1949, the plaintiff's attorney was informed of the death and on 20-12-1949, the names of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased were furnished to the plaintiff's attorney. On 4-1-1950, the plaintiff's attorney wrote to the defendant's attorney that he had 'written to his client for information'. On 28-2-1950, the plaintiff's attorney wrote to the defendant's attorney asking for information about the date of the death of the defendant. That was duly supplied. On 20-3-1950, the defendant's attorney wrote to the plaintiff's attorney that the suit had abated. To that the plaintiff's attorney replied: 'I have now been instructed to make the necessary application ...
Tag this Judgment!Elbridge Watson Vs. R.K. Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal430,[1951]19ITR538(Cal)
ORDERDas Gupta, J.1. This is an appln. by one Mr. El-bridge Watson for a writ of mandamus or a writ of like nature or an order directing the resp. Sri R. K. Das, an Income-tax Officer, to show cause why the orders complained of & dated 18-3-1949, should not be set aside & for quashing the said orders.2. The case of the petnr. before me is as follows : The petnr., an American citizen by birth, is a citizen of India & thereafter of the Union of India for about 16 years. The petnr. is the Manager & Director of Messrs. Chrestian Mica Industries Ltd. The total income which the petnr. gets from the said company is the net sum of Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 70,000 annually after deducting the income-tax payable by him. On 22-10-1948, the petnr. was assessed an income-tax for assessment year 1946-47. The tax assessed was Rs. 5,30,526 & after crediting the sums of Rs. 50,252-11-0 & Rs. 12,616-4-0 realised by the resp. a sum of Rs. 4,67,657-1-0 became due & payable by the petnr. to the income-tax authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Santi Priya Mukherjee Vs. Surendra Nath Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal137
Das Gupta, J.1. In my opinion, the application must fail. The application is by one Santi Priya Mukherjee inter alia for an order for a writ to be issued in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent, the Commissioner of Police, to forbear from intimidating petitioner's employees and staff and/or the clients of his business and/or from interfering with them in any manner and/or interfering with the carrying on the petitioner's lawful business in any manner and to recall forthwith his 'men posted near about the petitioner's said business.2. The petitioner's case> as made out in the petition, is as follows:The petitioner is a lessee of the ground-floor and second floor of the premises No. 3, Madan Street' Calcutta and he is the proprietor of the business called 'Nature Cure Home' which provides inter alia for medical and curative aids to patients suffering from rheumatism, gout, nervous breakdown and other allied bodily and nervous infirmities by means of physio-therapy, hydropathy,...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Ismail Doodha and ors. Vs. MomIn Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal52,55CWN135
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Sen J. dated March 17, 1950 dismissing objections made to an account submitted by a Receiver, and passing the account so submitted.2. The respondent Mr. Bon Bihari Das was appointed a Receiver in a suit '(Ali Ismail Doodha v. Momin Bibi & ors)' by an order dated December 8, 1947. He filed an account for the period January 1, 1949 to June 30, 1949, and various objections to this account were taken by the appellants. Only one objection was pressed before the learned Judge before whom. the accounts came for approval and that, objection was, that the Receiver was not entitled to charge five per cent on the value of the corpus of the property of which he had taken possession by way of remuneration. The contention was that the Receiver was only entitled by way of remuneration to charge five per cent on all income which he collected from year to year. But the learned Judge held that upon a true construction of the order appointing Mr. Bon Bih...
Tag this Judgment!Gur Bux Singh Vs. Sohanlal Malhotra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal542,55CWN127
Banerjee, J.1. This is an appeal from an order dated September 21, 1949 made by S. R. Das Gupta J., dismissing a suit for want of-prosecution. The suit was commenced on or about June 27, 1945 and was for dissolution of partnership and accounts.2. After the institution of the suit the plaintiff made an application for the appointment of a receiver and on November 23, 1945 a receiver was appointed. The written statement was filed on or about August 13, 1945. The defendant denies that there was any partnership.3. The suit appeared in the Prospective List and in the Peremptory List of suits for hearing from time to time. It appeared for the last time on August 12, 1947 in the Peremptory List of suits for hearing and then it went out of the list. It was placed on the Special List under Ch. 10 of the Rules of our Court for disposal. The plaintiff showed cause and in showing cause used an affidavit affirmed by him on September 20, 1949. In the affidavit the plaintiff said that he as well as t...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Provashini Debi Vs. Joggeswar Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal375,55CWN61
Banerjee, J.1 The question which we are required to determine in this appeal, is whether under the Hindu law current in the Bengal School, a Brahmin rival wife's daughter is entitled to succeed to the streedhan of a deceased Hindu in preference to her husband's brother. The property is the pitridatta streedhan property of the deceased, that is to say, it is gift and a bequest from her father after marriage. The decision of the question depends on the meaning of para. 16 in Ch. IV Section ii of Dayabhaga of Jimutavahana, who is the paramount authority in the Bengal School. That paragraph has been translated by Colebrooke as follows:'16. As for a passage of Manu, 'The wealth of a woman, which has been in any manner given to her by her father, let the Brahmani damsel take; or let it belong to her offspring;' since the text specifies 'given by her father,' the meaning must be, that property, Which was given to her by her father, even at any other time besides that of the nuptials, shall be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »