Kolkata Court July 1950 Judgments
Sm. Anurupa Debi Vs. Ramlal Rajghoria and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal395,55CWN161
Das Gupta, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Alipore, dated 24-6-1950, by which he rejected ,an application of the petitioner Anurupa Debi, praying that she might be allowed, under Section 495, Criminal P. C, to conduct the prosecution of the case instituted by her through her own lawyers, & directed that the State must be represented by the Court, Inspector, in the prosecution of the case, unless the District Magistrate appointed a separate Public Prosecutor, & that the complainant be allowed to engage her own lawyers, provided they agreed to act in a subordinate role in relation to the Public Prosecutor, allowed to work on behalf of the State, including the Court Inspector.2. The petitioner is the widow of Subodh Chandra Sarkar, an employee of the Texmaco Factory, who was killed by firing, on 12-8-1949. On 15-9-1945, she filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Barrackpore, in which she alleged among other things, that u...
Tag this Judgment!Kalipada Das Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal207
Harries, C.J.1. These are two connected revisions which can be disposed of by this judgment.2. Criminal Revision No. 425 of 1950 is a petition for revision of an order directing the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 188, Penal Code, for breach of an order made by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Uluberia under Section 144 Criminal P. C.3. Criminal Revision 493 of 1950 is a petition for revision of an order directing the prosecution of the petitioner and three others on a charge of theft.4. It appears that in the year 1940, the petitioner and his brothers leased from the Burdwan Raj the right to remove sand from sand banks in the Rupnarayan River. This lease gave them a right to remove sand at three points within the area of Police Station Daspur in the district of Midnapore. The lease was originally for three years, but has been renewed from time to time.5. It seems that one Nalini Mohan Biswas leased the right to take sand from the Rupnarayan River (from?) the Collector of Howr...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Roy Vs. Mritunjoy Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal202
G.N. Das, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff in a suit for redemption. The facts are that on 30-8-1918 the plaintiff's father Annada Charan Roy Mahapatra borrowed money on a mortgage from the defendants father Gaya Prosad Das. The sum borrowed was Rs. 2,500 and carried interest at the rate of 2 per cent per month. Out of this sum, a sum of Rs. 1,600 was paid in satisfaction of the previous loan of the mortgagee and of one Trailokhya Mashani. The balance of Rs. 900 was retained by the mortgagee for payment of a contingent liability in favour of one Kripa Sindhu Paramanik. The property mortgaged consisted of two items of property, (1) three annas share of separate accounts Nos. 1 and 2 in mouzas Nij Menakapore and Uttar Arbala appertaining to touzi No. 2661 of the Midnapore Collectorate and (2) three annas share of a Khudra Niskar known as Rani Patni. These properties are set out Schedule Kha of the plaint. The terms of the mortgage bond which was for a period from 13th...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent and Legal Affairs, on Behalf of the State of West Benga ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal573
Harries C.J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs on behalf of the State of West Bengal from an order of a learned Sessions Judge allowing an appeal from a learned Magistrate of the 1st Class who had convicted the respondent of an offence under Section 7, Essential Supplies Act, read with the Bengal Foodgrains Control Order, 1945. The appellants contend that the view of the learned Sessions Judge as to the meaning of the word 'foodgrain' in the- Bengal Foodgrains Control Order, 1946, is erroneous and, therefore, the order of acquittal should be set aside.2. The facts of the case can be very shortly stated as follows : In the very early morning of 29th April 1949, the respondent and others were seen loading a lorry in the village of Borhat near the town of Burdwan, A constables interfered and eventually the produce which was being loaded on to the lorry was seized and it is said that a very large quantity of rice flour and broken rice was...
Tag this Judgment!Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd. Vs. Comr. of I.T.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal403,[1951]19ITR451(Cal)
Sen, J.1. There are six references by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, made under Section 66 (1) Income Tax Act. Two of them relate to the levy of Income Tax & four to the levy of Excess Profits Tax.2. The relevant facts briefly are as follows:-The Port Said Salt Association Limited are a Company incorporated in the United Kingdom & registered therein. They carry on business at Port Said in Egypt & have their head offices at Alexandria. They do not pay British Income Tax on their profits as they are not resident in the United Kingdom. They are also nonresident in India & Messrs. Turner Morrison & Company Limited, Calcutta have been appointed statutory agents of the Port Said Association by the Income Tax/Excess Profits Tax officer under Section 43 of the Income Tax Act.3. The Port Said Association Limited obtain and manufacture salt in Egypt. They assign this salt to Messrs. Turner Morrison & Company Limited for sale at the best price obtainable at or above the prices...
Tag this Judgment!Kalipada Jotedar Vs. Bimal Kumar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1953Cal312,55CWN17
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. The principal question in this appeal is whether the tenancy for which a kabuliat was executed in 13-7-1920, remained after the amendment of Section 191, Bengal Tenancy Act in 1928 a raiyati at a fixed rent or fixed rate of rent. The kabuliat was executed by Nara Mandal, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant, in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. There was a clause therein that if there was a sale of the land comprised in the kabuliat or any part thereof, the lessor would be entitled to a quarter of the consideration money and if that money was not paid by the purchaser, the lessor would be entitled to refuse to recognise the purchaser as a tenant and also to take khas possession of the land without notice. Nara Mandal sold the disputed land to defendant 8 on 13-9-1941 for a sum of Rs. 1500/-. It appears that thereafter the plaintiffs' father instituted a suit for his share of the chouth and the suit was decreed on contest. On 14-12...
Tag this Judgment!Fazal Elahi Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal41
Lahiri, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of demolition made by a Municipal Mag. at the instance of the Corporation of Calcutta Under Section 363, Calcutta Municipal Act.2. The case of the Corporation is that the petnr. built three structures in premises 28B, Eden Hospital Road without the sanction of the Corporation in violation of building rules framed by the Corporation under the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act. The defence of the petnr. was that he had not been served with the notice Under Section 363 & that the proceeding was barred by limitation. The learned Mag. found that the notice Under Section 363 had been duly served. With regard to two of the structures the learned Mag. refused to make an order of demolition on the ground that there was no evidence that they were built within five years from the commencement of the proceeding, but with regard to one structure which consists of cement asbestos rooms & varandas with masonry walls in the third storey the le...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Singh Dudhoria and ors. Vs. the Midnapore Zemindary Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal300
Harries, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from a decree of an appellate Bench of this Court dated 22-11-1949. It would appear that the amount involved far exceed Rs. 20,090. But in my view we cannot grant leave to appeal in this case because the order is not a final order and it is not a case in which we could grant a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal.2. The litigation has had a long history. A suit was originally brought by the proposed respondents Midnapore Zemindary Co. Ltd., as far back as the year 1930 claiming possession of five thousand bighas of land which was said to have emerged from the river Padma sometime before the year 1927. The claim was dismissed by the trial Court, but on appeal a Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that these lands were accretions to lands of the proposed respondents and therefore that the proposed respondents were entitled to recover possession of the lands in suit and made a decree for p...
Tag this Judgment!Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee and anr. Vs. Biswanath Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal390
Roxburgh, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia modifying a decree of the Munsif of Ranaghat.2. The pltfs' case was that the defts were Utbandi tenants in respect of 9 bighas odd of land which had been let at a rate of Rs. 1/4/-per bigha. The defts' case was first that they had acquired a right of occupancy, and secondly that the rental of the lands was Rs. 4/-. The trial Ct found that the tenants had not acquired the right of occupancy; that the receipts produced by them to show the rental as being Rs. 4/- were not genuine or not believable and finally that the rate of Rs. 1/4/-per annum (sic) and consequently the rate claimed by the pltfs was not unfair or inequitable. It decreed the pltfs' suit at the rate claimed. The learned Subordinate Judge relying on the case of 'Nafar Chandra v. Jatindra Nath : AIR1929Cal614 held that the trial Ct should not have allowed evidence to be given of the prevailing rate of rent & that if the pltfs wanted the rent ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramlal Rajghoria and anr. Vs. Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal545
Harries, C.J.1. Notice was given to the opposite party who is the Judicial Secretary and Legal Remembrancer of the Government of the State of West Bengal to show cause why he should not be found guilty of contempt of Court and punished. This Court had been moved to issue such a Rule on the ground that the Judicial Secretary and Legal Remembrancer in his official capacity had written a letter dated 7th July 1950, to the Additional District Magistrate of 24 Parganas which, it was said, was a deliberate attempt to interfere with the due course of justice. The learned Advocate-General has appeared on behalf of the opposite party and Mr. A. K.. Basu has appeared on behalf of the petitioners who moved the Court.2. The petitioners Ramlal Rajghoria and Gorak Singh have been charged with the offence of murder. It is said that they murdered one Subodh Kumar Sarkar. It seems that there was a prolonged enquiry into the causes of the death of this man, Subodh Kumar Sarkar and at first the authoriti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »