Kolkata Court March 1950 Judgments
Narendra Krishna Bose Vs. Great Eastern Hotel Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal394
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by Banerjee J. dated 14-2-1950, whereby he dismissed the application of the applt. for an injunction restraining resp. 1 from executing a decree for possession obtained by him against resp. 2.2. Respondent 2 (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) was a tenant under resp. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) in respect of Room No. 12, in premises no. 29, Waterloo street, at a monthly rent of Rs. 51. In August 1949, the tenant sub-let a portion of the said room to the applt. at a monthly rent of Rs. 70. The tenant did not pay any rent to the landlord for June, July and August 1949. On 9-9-1949, the landlord through his attorney wrote to the tenant to vacate the room within three days. The tenant not having vacated, on 21-9-1949, the landlord filed Suit No. 3938 of 1949 against the tenant for recovery of possession and for arrears of rent.3. The applt's. case is that in January 1950 he came to know that the landlord had filed a suit...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Ghose Vs. Dwijendra Chunder Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal414,54CWN598
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment & decree of Mitter J. decreeing the pltf.'s suit for delivery of possession of certain premises & recovery of Rs. 900 as arrears of rent & mesne profits.2. The pltfs. who are the respondents before us were the trustees of a deed of trust created by the late Sir Binod Mitter in respect of certain premises No. 8/1/3 London Street, Calcutta. These premises had been let by the trustees to deft. 1 in the suit Salim Ezra Darwish. The latter was a monthly tenant & the conditions of the said tenancy were, (1) that the monthly rent was to be paid in advance on or before the 2nd of every month for the current month ; & (2) that the tenant was allowed to sublet the premises for one year from July 1949. There was a provision that in case the rent was in arrear for any month the tenant would be liable to be ejected along with the sub-tenants, if any.3. Defendant 1 Darwish sublet the said premises to deft. 2, B. K. Ghose, at a rental of Rs. 300 per m...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Sarojini Debi Vs. Rabindra Mohan Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal381
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This is a Rule for action to be taken under Section 28, Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, hereafter referred to as the Act, and an application in revision against an order of a Munsif refusing to take such action. The decree to be dealt with under that section was passed in Title Suit 123 of 1989, a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent which was filed in the 3rd Court of the Munsif at Alipore. The suit was decreed on 28th June 1940 for rent only. On appeal by the landlord, the Subordinate Judge of Alipore added a decree for ejectment. There was a second appeal to this Court and on 22nd December 1948, Lodge J. dismissed the appeal. There have been subsequent proceedings under Section 47, Civil P. C. but I do not think they have any bearing on the present matter.2. The tenant applied to the original Court which passed the decree under Section 28 of the Act. The Munsif held that the case was covered by the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Act as the lan...
Tag this Judgment!Sandhya Trading Co. Vs. Governor-general, Dominion of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal426
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of a decree of a learned Small Cause Court Judge dismissing the petitioners' claim for damages against the Governor-General of the Dominion of India.2. The plaintiffs brought a suit claiming damages for the failure of the Governor-General to deliver electric switches to the value of Rs. 1300 which bad been consigned for carriage by railway to Delhi. A sum of Rs. 1304 was claimed as damages. On behalf of the defendant a point was taken that no notice was served as required by Section 80, Civil P. C. The notice was not sent to the General Manager of the East Indian Railway as required by Section 80 of the Code, but was sent to the Secretary of the Railway Board at Delhi. Apparently the General Manager of the East Indian Railway received the notice at sometime or another, but there is no evidence at all as to when the notice reached him.3. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court held that as notice had not been served in accordance with S...
Tag this Judgment!Bhuwalka Bros. Ltd. Vs. Fatehchand Murlidhar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal294
ORDERBanerjee, J. 1. This is an application for leave of the Court to revoke the authority of an arbitrator. The petitioner also challenged the existence of the arbitration agreement & prayed for Court's decision on the question. This prayer, however, has been abandoned by Counsel.2. In this application the only point I have to consider is whether I should grant the leave. The Court has power to grant leave if it thinks fit.Section 5, Arbitration Act is as follows:'The authority Of an appointed arbitrator.....shall not be'revocable except with the leave of the Court, unless a contrary intention is expressed in the arbitration agreement.'This section corresponds to Section 5 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, & Section 1, English Arbitration Act of 1889. Section 5 read:'A submission, unless a different intention is expressed therein, shall be irrevocable except, by leave of the Court.'The English section was also in the same words in substance.3. Referring to the English section Bowen...
Tag this Judgment!Harit Krishna Deb Vs. Anil Krishna Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal370
1. This appeal by the decree-holder arises out of an order under Section 47, Civil P. C. by which his application for execution has been dismissed as barred by limitation. The facts material for the purposes of the present appeal are as follows :2. On 15th September 1936, the appellant obtained a decree in an administration suit and he put that decree into execution on 15th September 1939 in Title Execution Case No. 71 of 1939. The judgment-debtor filed an objection under Section 47 raising the question of the maintainability of the execution and this objection gave rise to Miscellaneous Case No. 54 of 1940. This case was dismissed by the executing Court by an order dated 17th June 1940. Thereafter the judgment-debtor intimated to the Court that he proposed to file an appeal to this Court against the order of dismissal and prayed for stay of execution. This prayer was granted for a limited period but eventually the executing Court wanted to proceed with the execution as no order for st...
Tag this Judgment!Bhujagendra Bhusan Banerjee Vs. Dist. Board of 24-parganas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal366
Guha, J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of increased pay amounting to Rs. 1327-8-0 and for additional provident fund dues of Rs. 1250. The facts which gave rise to the present litigation are briefly as follows.2. The plaintiff was an employee under the District Board of the 24-parganas who are the defendants in this suit. He joined the service of the District Board on 1st June 1915. On 1st January 1920 a time scale for clerks was introduced, the time scale being Rs. 45/3/75 (efficiency bar) 21/2-100. On 1st January 1922, the plaintiff was allowed to draw the pay of Rs. 66 and in June 1924 his pay became Rs. 72. He continued to draw the same say till June 1928, when he was transferred to Basirhat. From 1st August 1928 he drew pay at Rs. 82-8-0. From 1st June 1980 he drew pay at Rs. 87-8-0 but the amount was reduced by Rs. 2-8-0 with effect from 1st July 1930. From 1st July 1930 to 23rd April 1940 when he retired from service he continued to ...
Tag this Judgment!Basantilata Dhar Vs. Amar Nath Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal411,54CWN451
Banerjee, J. 1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P. C., against a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, 24 Parganas, whereby he set aside an order of dismissal of a suit made on 14th December 1942, and restored the suit to 'file for hearing.2. The only question that arises in this case is a question of limitation and depends on the construction of Sections 10 and 11, Indian Soldiers' (Litigation) Act (IV [4] of 1925). The relevant portions of the sections are as follows :Section 10: '(1) In any proceeding before a Court in which a decree or order has been passed against any Indian Soldier whilst he was serving under war conditions or at any time after the 1st day of April 1925, whilst he was serving under any special conditions, the soldier may apply to the Court which passed the decree or order for an order to set aside the same, and, if the Court after giving an opportunity to the opposite party of being heard, is satisfied that the interests of justice require th...
Tag this Judgment!First National Bank Ltd. Vs. Pioneer Commercial Bank
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal34,[1951]21CompCas261(Cal)
Sinha, J.1. This is a suit for a declaration that the defendant bank, which is now in liquidation, holds a sum of Rs. 27,875/- being the amount collected by it on 3 bills of that value as agent or trustee for the plaintiff, for a decree for Rs. 27,875/- for injunction and for other ancillary reliefs.2. On November 6, 1946, the plaintiff sent, by a letter of that date, a bill for Rs. 10,225/- to the Champadanga branch of the defendant bank for collection and for sending the proceeds by a 'Lahore Draft'. On November 12, 1946, and November 13, 1946, the plaintiff similarly sent two bills for Rs. 8825/- and Rs. 8825/- respectively with similar instructions to the said branch of the defendant bank. On November 19, 1946, the Manager of the plaintiff bank asking for information as to what has happened to the bills, the said branch of the, defendant bank sent three drafts to the plaintiff drawn on November 26, 1946 on its head office in Calcutta for Rs. 10,225/-, Rs. 8,825/- and Rs. 8,825/- re...
Tag this Judgment!Dominion of India Vs. Gopal Chandra Tapadar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal37,55CWN113
ORDER1. This is a Rule obtained by the Dominion of India, now Union o India against a judgment of the F. B. of the Presidency Small Causes Ct. Calcutta, by which the pltf's. suit for recovery of the price of 440 bags of cement was decreed against the second deft. The facts giving rise to this Rule are as follows:2. The pltf. was the consignee of 440 bags of cement despatched from Japla on the East Indian Railway System for carriage to Gai-bandha on the Bengal & Assam Railway system. This consignment never reached its destination & accordingly the pltf. instituted the suit against the Governor-General of India in Council as representing (l) The East Indian Railway, (2) The Oudh & Trihut Railway, & (3) the Bengal .. & Assam Railway. Of these three railways the East Indian Railway & the Bengal & Assam Railway have their offices in Calcutta. The pltf. instituted the suit in the Presidency Small Cause Court, Calcutta, on the allegation that the cause of action arose in Calcutta as the East ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »