Kolkata Court May 1950 Judgments
Prithish Dey Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal319,55CWN140
Das Gupta, J.1. This Rule was issued on the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why the proceedings pending against the petitioner under Section 224 & 224/114, Penal Code, should not be quashed.2. These proceedings have been instituted against the petitioner on the allegation that he along with other accused persons attempted to escape from the Presidency Jail on 6-12-1949.3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has already been punished by the Superintendent of the Presidency Jail for this alleged offence, & so any fresh trial for the same offence would be against the provisions of Section 20 of the Constitution, & also against the provisions of Section 403 Penal Code. (Sic - Code of Criminal Procedure?)4. If the petitioner has already been punished for this alleged offence under Sections 224 & 224/114, Penal Code, for which he is now being prosecuted, I have no doubt that the present proceedings would be against the provisions of Section 20 of the Con...
Tag this Judgment!Harrison Road Properties Vs. Ramdhondas Jhajharia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal225
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by the defendant to set aside the order made in this suit on 19-7-1949, upon the applicant paying to the decree-holder plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1221 and Rs. 1914-2-0. The order dated 19-7-1949, was made on the summons taken out by the plaintiff under Chap. XIIIA of the Rules of this Court. This order of 19-7-1949 was made by consent of parties and had the following terms : (a) The parties were directed to file their respective affidavits of documents within a week from the date of the order. (b) Inspection of the documents disclosed by the parties forthwith after discovery, (c) Liberty to apply for an yearly date for hearing of the suit, (d) Without prejudice to the contentions of the parties the applicant was directed to pay on or before 27-7-1949, to Messrs. P. D. Himatsingha & Co., solicitors for the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 8138-4-0 and Rs. 1881 and also a sum of Rs. 612 on or before the 7th of each and every succeeding months all such s...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Mohamed and anr. Vs. Sailendra Nath Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal294,54CWN642
Banerjee, J.1. In or about October 1947, the Government of West Bengal proposed to rent a portion of the structure then under construction at P. 17, Mission Row Extension in Calcutta, belonging to the petitioners and for the purpose of expediting the completion of the construction agreed to give them facilities for procuring cement, steel and other building materials by the issue of necessary permits, the said materials being then controlled goods.2. It is alleged in the petition that the Government after giving the facilities for some time stopped them.3. On 9-12-1948, the petitioners through their attorney wrote to the Secretary, Government of West Bengal, that if the Government was serious in taking the property on lease, facilities for obtaining the materials should be forthwith given and rent fixed. If on the other hand, the Government was unwilling to give such facilities, the petitioners would have no other alternative but to pub an end to the negotiations with the Government fo...
Tag this Judgment!Pragdas Mathuradas Vs. the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle I, Calcu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1950
Reported in: [1950]18ITR757(Cal)
BACHAWAT, J. - This is a petition by Pragdas Mathuradas for the issue of a writ of mandamus against the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle I, Calcutta, for return of certain books to the petitioner.In connection with the assessment for the Sambat year 2000-2001, notice under Section 22, sub-section (2), of the Indian Income-tax Act was served upon the petitioner. The return was filed and thereafter notice was issued under Section 23, sub-section (2), of the Indian Income-tax Act to produce the evidence upon which the petitioner intended to rely on.On the 13th of December, 1949, two sets of books were produced before the Income-tax Officer. The first set was for the period Kartic Sambat 2000 up to the Chait Sambat 2001, corresponding with 29th October, 1943, up to the 1st of April, 1944, and the second set of books was for the period Chait 2001 up to Kartic 2001, corresponding with 2nd April, 1944, up to 17th October, 1944. The books were examined. The matter was subsequently adjourned....
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Agarwalla Vs. P.C. Roy and Co. (India) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal397
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment & decree of Chatterjee, J. See A I R (39) 1952 Cal 335-Ed. whereby he dismissed the plff's suit for damages for breach of a contract.2. One Hazarimull Agarwalla, as Karta of a joint Hindu family, carried on a business under the name & style of Shri Jagdish Rice & Oil Mills, at Forbesganje in Purneah, Bihar. He died during the pendency of the suit & is now represented by his son, Ramkumar Agarwalla. The deft, is a limited company having its registered office in Calcutta.3. The plaint alleged that there was a contract between the plff. & the deft, company for sale of rice. The contract was entered into between the plff. & the company by 2 letters & a telegram dated respectively July 12, July 15, and July 17, 1943. The terms of the contract were that the company would pay Rs. 28/- per maund of rice, delivery Ex-Mill & would also pay Rs. 62/- for 100 new Gunny Bags & annas two per maund for cartage & loading. It was further alleged that th...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Dutt Khemka Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal2,54CWN916
Das Gupta, J.1. This rule was obtained by the petitioner against his conviction under Section 41. West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948.2. The prosecution case was that the complainant Keshardas Chowdhury was a sub-tenant under this petitioner, and that the petitioner without just and sufficient cause disconnected; the electric line from which Keshardas gets his supply of electricity.3. Mr. Taluqdar has drawn our attention to the fact that in what has been treated as the petition of complaint under Section 41, West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948, there was really no prayer for any action against this petitioner from which it could be said that this was a petition of complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this petition Keshardas describing himself as the complainant stated that he was a subtenant under the accused, mentioned some disputes between him and the present petitioner as regards rent, stated that in August, 1949, this petitioner once disconnected the l...
Tag this Judgment!Faguniswari Dasi Vs. Dhum Lal Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal269
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The property is suit originally belonged to one Kanto Pal. He died leaving a widow Pano Bewa and an only son, Koka. After Kanto's death Pano remarried Jadu Pal. Koka died thereafter without any issue and the property came to be in possession of his mother Pano. After Jadu's death Pano took a third husband Indra Mohan Pal. Pano gave away the property by a deed of gift to the plaintiff Dhumlal who 13 the son of the daughter of Pano by the second husband Jadu.2. The only question in issue in this appeal is whether Pano Bewa had forfeited her right to the land in suit which came to her as heir to her son Koka.3. It is now well settled that a widow even after remarriage is not disentitled thereby to succeed to the property left by her son by the first marriage. In Akorah Sook v Boreanee, 11 W. R. 82 : (2 Beng. L. R. A. C. 199) it was held that a widow would under Section 2, Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act (XV [15] of 1856) lose only such rights as she had at the time of th...
Tag this Judgment!Prafulla Kumar Dutta Vs. Guiram Tat
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal544,54CWN624
Roxburgh, J.1. This Rule arises out of a suit for ejectment filed on 7th May 1946. It was thus filed under the Calcutta House Rent Control Order, before the Calcutta Rent Ordinance came into force, and after the amendment by which Section 9A was inserted in that order on 19th May 1944, and also after the amendment by the insertion of Section 9B was made on 28th August 1945. The grounds for ejectment were (1) default; (ii) waste to the premises (under Section 9-B and (iii)) khas possession (under Section 9C). 2. The learned Munsif held that the suit is maintainable. The tenant defendant has obtain-ed this Rule against his order. 3. Sections 9A and 9B are in substantially identical terms, the former being enacted to require permission of the Controller for institution of suits based on ground under Section 9 (1) (v) (bona fide requirements) and the latter requiring similar permission in the case of suits based on the ground of default. No permission by the Controller had been obtained. 4...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Sm. Hira Debi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal25,54CWN840
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal by the Union of India against an order of Banerjee J., dated 19-12-1949, dismissing an application made pro interesse suo on behalf of the Dominion of India. The only question involved in this appeal is whether a Receiver can be appointed by way of equitable execution in respect of money standing to the credit of a subscriber to a provident fund. The answer to the question depends on the construction of Section 3, Provident Funds Act, 1925 (XIX [19] of 1925). Banerjee J. held that a Receiver can be appointed in a suitable case over provident fund money.2. The facts out of which this appeal arises may be shortly stated. On 30-7-1948, a decree was made by this Court in this suit in favour of Hira Debi for Rs. 3,317 with interest and costs. On 17-12-1948, the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree by appointment of a Receiver of the amount lying to the credit of the provident fund of the judgment-debtor, Ram Garhit Singh, with the Post Master Gener...
Tag this Judgment!Kalipada Nandi Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal427
Das Gupta, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of conviction and sentence, under Section 7 of Act XXIV [24] of 1946, passed by a Magistrate, at Arambagh, and confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Hooghly. 2. The prosecution case was that on 26th June 1949, 130 mauuds of paddy and 4 maunds and 10 seers of rice were found in a boat moving down stream near the Ghat at Chak Bashia. It is said that the accused Kalipada Nandi was in that boat. Admittedly, he had no license for taking these goods away in the boat. The charge framed against this Kalipada Nandi was that he had contravened the provisions of Section 3(1), Bengal Food Grains Control Order, 1945, by engaging in an undertaking involving storage for sale of this paddy and rice without any license, Section 3(1) of that Order prohibits any dealer or large producer from engaging in any undertaking which involves the purchase, sale or storage for sale in wholesale quantities of any food grain. 3. The first question for decis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »