Kolkata Court June 1950 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ashutosh Bhattacharjee Vs. Mahendra Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal391,54CWN813
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for ejectment on the ground that he required the premises for his own use and occupation. This suit was filed on 10-5-1944 without obtaining any permission from the Bent Controller as no such permission was on that day required to be taken under the then provisions of the Calcutta House Rent Control Order, 1943. During the pendency of the suit Para 9A was added by an order dated 19-5-1944, to the Calcutta House Rent Control Order. Paragraph 9A provided for suits to be filed after the promulgation of this new provision as also for pending suits. It was provided that after 19-5-1944, no new suit could be entertained by a Court unless the requisite permission had been obtained from the Rent Controller.'Where any such suit or proceeding by a landlord is pending in any Ct on the twenty second day of May 1944, no decree or order for the recovery of possession of the house in respect of which such suit or proceeding is pending shall be...
Shew Narayan Singh Vs. Brahmanand Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal479
Sen, J.1. The facts giving rise to this rule briefly ate as follows : The present plaintiffs are the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff Bishwanath Singh. For the sake of brevity and convenience I shall deal with this rule as if Bishwanath Singh is still alive and shall describe him as the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff instituted a suit in the Court of the Second Subordinate Judge, Hooghly against Ram Narain Singh for damages for breach of contract, alleging that Ram Narain Singh had entered into a contract with him agreeing to supply him with 10 lakhs of manufactured bricks in return for 250 tons of coal which the plaintiff would supply to him. The plaintiff carried out his part of the contract but Ram Narain Singh in collusion with one Bindeswari Singh removed a large number of bricks which were manufactured by Ram Narain Singh for the purposes of the contract. In spite of repeated demands Ram Narain Singh refusel to perform his part of the contract and the plainti...
Chief Accounts Officer, E.i. Railway Vs. Indra Lull and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal315
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This is a Rule against an extraordinary order by the Munsif, First Court, Asansol, directing that a sum of Rs. 92-12-0 be attached from the pay of the Chief accounts officer, East Indian Railway, falling due on 1-3-1950, and thereafter from month to month until the final liquidation of the claim in the execution case before him. The execution case was being carried on against a judgment-debtor, E. W. Adams, an employee of the Railway. The learned Munsif holding that his orders under Order 21, Rule 48, C. P. C., were not being complied with thought that he could apply the necessary screw on the Chief Accounts Officer by directly attaching that officer's pay. Obviously, the learned Munsif has no such power. A faint suggestion was made before me that under Order 21, Rule 46 (b),C. P. C., the learned Munsif had such power but even assuming that the rule applied, the garnishee in that case would not be the Chief Accounts Officer but the Government the employer of the jud...
Municipal Commissioner of the Budge Budge Municipality Vs. P.R. Mukher ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal457,54CWN784
Harries, C.J. 1. These are two Rules which have been issued in connection with an award made by an Industrial Tribunal. An application was made for the issue of a writ of certiorari or prohibition on the adjudicator concerning an award which be had made. In the application it was prayed that a writ of certiorari should issue for removing the proceedings to this-Court and quashing the same. In the alternative it was prayed that an order, restraining the adjudicator from giving effect to the said award or from taking any steps in pursuance thereof, should be made.2. Another application was made for a Rule to issue under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in that application similar prayars were made.3. The application for a writ of certiorari was heard by Bachawat J. sitting on the original side. He had jurisdiction to deal with that matter, but he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application made under Article 227 of the Constitution. He therefore referred both the matters...
Satya Kishore Banerjee and ors. Vs. Province of Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal467
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below. 2. It will be necessary to state a few facts for the proper understanding of the matter which is before us for decision. Touzi No. 399 of Mahal Nawapara of the Nadia Collectorate is owned by the plaintiffs and defendants 2-11. Defendant 1 is the State of West Bengal. It is unnecessary to state the different shares held by the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 11 in this Touzi, There was an accretion to this Touzi and that became Touzi No. 2645 Char Nawapara which was settled temporarily, that is, for a period of 15 years with the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 11 in accordance with the provisions of Bengal Alluvion and Diluvian Act (Act IX [9] of 1847). Just before the term was coming to an end, the Collector of Nadia addressed the proprietors of the accreted Touzi asking them to take a fresh settlement. The plaintiffs refused to take fresh settlement. Thereupon the Collector farmed out t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›