Kolkata Court December 1950 Judgments

Satish Chandra Mallick and ors. Vs. Sm. Panchumani Dasi

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1952Cal195,55CWN399

ORDERHarries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order made by a learned Munsif whereby ha directed that a suit which had been filed for recovery of arrears of ground rent and municipal taxes should proceed only with regard to the claim for ground rent.2. It is common ground that the Munsif had Jurisdiction to deal with the claim for ground rent which amounted to Rs. 420/-. It is also admitted that the claim for municipal taxes amounting to Rs. 252/- was triable in the Small Cause Court. The learned Munsif was of opinion that he could only proceed with the claim for arrears of ground rent and that the claim for municipal taxes should be heard and determined in the Small Cause Court.3. There is however authority for the proposition that if a claim is partly within the jurisdiction of the regular Courts and partly within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Courts, the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit for the consolidated amount in the regular Courts. (See 'Ramasami Aiyangar...

Manmatha Nath Mukherjee Vs. Jiaul Huq and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1952Cal291,55CWN197

ORDERGuha, J.1. Civil Revision Cases 1219, & 1330 to 1332 of 1948 are directed against a decision of the Additional Judge of Alipore arising out of proceedings commenced under Order 21, Rule 90 Civil P. C. The Rules were heard together. The relevant facts are as follows:2. The Corporation of Calcutta brought a charge suit (Title Suit No. 291 of 1940) in respect of premises No. 12, Samsul Huda Road, against six brothers including Mahammad Hossain, Samsul Huq & Jiaul Huq on 19-6-1941. The suit was decreed in a preliminary form & on 2-2-1942 the decree was made final. On 26-7-1942, an execution proceeding (Title Execution Case No. 67 of 1942) was started. The property was sold by auction in execution of the decree on 20-1-1943 & purchased by Manmatha Nath Mukherji for a sum of Rs. 9000/-. It appears that on 26-4-1943, Mahammad Hossain applied for setting aside the sale. A similar application was made by Samsul Huq & another 'judgment debtor on 20-12-1943. Both these applications which wer...

Vurjee Vandass Moolji Vs. R.H. Singha and Co.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1952Cal290,55CWN287

Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision; of an order of the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta in which lie allowed an appeal from a decision of a Rent Controller & fixed the standard rent of certain premises.2. It has been'held by this Court that decisions given by appellate tribunals under the Rent Control Acts were not revisable in this Court under Section 115, Civil P. C. This application has been made under Article 227 of the Constitution & I think there can be no doubt that the Chief Judge of the Small ' Cause Court is a tribunal functioning in an area over which this Court exercises jurisdiction. Indeed it has not been contended that this application would not lie under Article 227 of the Constitution.3. The facts of the case are that the tenant of certain premises, No. 37 Ezra Street in this city alleged that he took a tenancy of the premises in the year 1945 at a monthly rental of Rs. 250/-which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 275/- per month. He furth...

In Re: P.P. De and Co.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1953Cal309,[1951]21CompCas215(Cal),55CWN271

Bachawat, J.1. This is an application on the part of Messrs. M. L. Mallick and D.N. Das who are the liquidators of Messrs. P. P. De & Co. Ltd. for an order that all attachment and certificate proceedings initiated for realisation of income-tax and sales tax be stayed and for an order setting aside the attachment and execution put in force against the estate and effects of the company for realisation of income-tax and sales tax and for other reliefs. The company went into voluntary liquidation by a special resolution of the members on 7-3-1949.2. It appears that the Union of India and the State of West Bengal are claiming large sums on account of income-tax and sales tax respectively and they seek to realise their claim by execution and attachment of the properties of the company. The notice of motion was served upon the Union of India, the Income-tax Officer, Companies District I and the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, West Bengal. The notice of this application was not served...

Nalini Mohan Chowdhury Vs. District Magistrate and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1951Cal346,55CWN297

Harries, C.J.1. This is a petn. filed under Article 226, Const. Ind. praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari or mandamus in respect of an order of requisition made by the Dist. Mag. of Malda.2. I would state at the outset that a writ of certiorari is not appropriate, but that this is a case in which the Ct. can be asked to issue a mandamus if the facts are established as suggested.3. The petnr. is a pleader who resided in a house No. 34, Bundh Road, English Bazar, Malda. He was a tenant of one Sri Tarapada Das who was a police officer in the employ of the East Bengal Govt. Apparently, he had been in the service of the old province of Bengal and on partition he elected to serve under Govt. of East Bengal which is of course a part of Pakistan.4. In Oct. 1948, Tarapada Das came to reside at Malda and lived in a house which he rented. He eventually applied to the Dist. Mag. who requisitioned a part of the house, of which the petnr. was tenant. The order requisitioning a part of the p...

Basanti Rice Mill Vs. C.S. Maitra

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1952Cal206,55CWN253

Banerjee, J.1. This is an application by the petitioner Basanti Rice Mill for setting aside an order purported to have been made under Section 13(1) of the West Bengal Rice Mills Control Order (1949), suspending the milling licence of the mill for a period of three months with effect from the date of the service of the order.2. The petitioner is a Rice mill which has been carrying on the business of milling rice from 1937. In order to carry on business as a mill it is required to take out a licence every year.3. Clause 4 of the West Bengal Rice Mills Control Order 1949 provides:'No person shall engage in any undertaking or business of milling rice except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence issued in that behalf by the Commissioner.'4. 'Commissioner' has been defined by the Act. It means:'Food Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, or any other officer authorised by him in writing in this behalf to perform all or any of the functions of the Commissioner under this...

Taradas Dutt and anr. Vs. Administrative Officer of the Corporation of ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1951Cal397

ORDER1. In July 1946, an appln. was filed by the present petnrs. before the Municipal Mag. of Calcutta under Section 633, Calcutta Municipal Act, complaining of the existence of a nuisance in premises No. 18 Lake View Road, Calcutta, by reason of keeping of cattle therein. The learned Mag. inspected the place & was satisfied that serious nuisance was being caused due to the keeping of cattle in the said premises. He then passed the following order :'I, therefore, direct under Section 535 that the Corporation do abate the said nuisance by removal of all cattle from the said premises.I also direct under Section 388 that the said premises should no longer be used for the purpose of keeping cattle without license under Section 386.I also direct under Schedule 18 (3) of the Act that the Corporation do properly secure & enclose the said land either by C. I. sheets or by masonry walls of appropriate heights at the cost of the land owners so as to prevent trespass by cattle or men.Defendants w...

Lokenath Mukheejee Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax

Court: Kolkata

Harries, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, West Bengal, under Section 63 (1) of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944, in which this Court is asked to state its opinion upon the following question:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the matter of computation of allowance admissible under Section 6 (1) of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944, rule 5 of the said Act providing for apportionment of common charge between agricultural income and non-agricultural income has been correctly interpreted and applied ?2. The assessee is a zemindar and his zemindary comprised several touzis in the Hooghly, Midnapore and Burdwan Collectorates. His land produced both agricultural and non-agricultural income and of course under the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act he was only assessable in respect of his agricultural income.3. The assessee had to pay land revenue and other charges in respect of his lands and h...

Panchanan Das Vs. Commissioners of Income-tax, West Bengal.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1951]20ITR57(Cal)

HARRIES, C.J. - This is a reference made under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act in which Appellate Income-tax Tribunal formulated the following question for the opinion of this court :-'Whether on a construction of the deed dated 30th August, 1940, the Tribunal was right in holding that the shares of the deities were indeterminate and that the maximum rate should be applied under Section 41 ?'The question was involved in five appeals to the Income-tax Tribunal.The Income which was sought to be assessed in this case was income of certain deities and the income had been provided as the result of an arpannama dated 30th August, 1940, executed by Sri Nut Behari Das by which he dedicated certain properties to three deities Sri Sri Durga Mata, Sri Sri Lakshmi Mate and God Sri Sri Krishna Param Pravu. In the recitals to this deed the settlor or dedicator observed :-'It is my desire to make such provision that every year at the time of the festivals, the worship of the said deities (...

Lokenath Mukherjee Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, West B ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1951]19ITR530(Cal)

HARRIES, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, West Bengal, under section 63(1) of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944, in which this Court is asked to state its opinion upon the following question :-'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the matter of computation of allowance admissible under section 6(1) of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944, rule 5 of the said Act providing for apportionment of common charge between agricultural income and non-agricultural income has been correctly interpreted and applied ?'The assessee is a zamindar and his zemindary comprised several touzis in the Hooghly, Midnapore and Burdwan Collectorates. His land produced both agricultural and non-agricultural income and of course under the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act he was only assessable in respect of his agricultural income.The assessee had to pay land revenue and other charges in respect of his lands and he se...