Kolkata Court July 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.
Sashi Kumar Banerjee and ors. Vs. Mrs. D.J. Hill and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal316,54CWN926
G.N. Das, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the representatives of the deceased defendant in a suit tinder Section 36(1), Bengal Money-Lenders Act.2. The plaintiff Mrs. D. J. Hill borrowed two sums of money from the appellants' predecessor in the year 1933. The interest stipulated to be paid was 10 p. e. p. a. with quarterly rests. On 21-6-1939 a suit to enforce the said mortgages was instituted by the appellant's predecessor and a final decree was obtained for a sum of Rs. 20,580. In execution of that mortgage decree the mortgaged properties were brought to sale on 19-7-1940 and were purchased by the decree-holder for a sum of Rs. 43,300. Thereafter the decree-holder auction purchaser took possession on 9-9-1940. On 30-8-1941 the plaintiff instituted the present suit under Section 36(1), Be441ngal Money-Lenders Act, praying for the requisite reliefs conferred by that section. This suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge on 30-6-1942. One of the grounds on which the le...
Shyama Devi and ors. Vs. Ram Lal Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal282
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiffs for an injunction restraining the defendant from taking any steps in proceedings instituted by him before the Rent Controller, Calcutta for the fixation of standard rent being Case No. 978A of 1950 in the Court of the Rent Controller and also for an injunction rest-training the defendant from dismantling certain flxures or from selling or disposing of the same and further for restraining the defendant from assigning or subletting the premises let out to him and also for an injunction restraining the defendant from casing further damages to the walls or floor of the demised premises. the suit out of which this application arises was filed on the 12th of June, 1950 and is for a declaration that the defendant is the tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of certain rooms delineated in a plan marked as annexure 'A' to the plaint, on a monthly rent of Rs. 350/- and on terms and conditions contained in an agreement dated the 7th June, ...
Bajranglal Jhunjhunwalla Vs. Sm. Solaki Marwarini and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal564,54CWN933
Roxburgh, J.1. This is a rule against an order of the Munsiff of Asansol in relation to a proceeding under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil P. C. On 30th January 1950, he passed the following order : 'That the miscellaneous case be allowed on contest provisionally. The petitioners to pay Rs. 35 to the opposite party No. 1 by 10th February 1950 upon which the suit will be restored to file, In default, the miscellaneous case shall stand dismissed.' 2. On 10th February the petitioner in the miscellaneous case asked for further time to deposit the amount of Rs. 35. This was refused, the order being, 'the petitioner must pay the money to-day failing which the miscellaneous case stands dismissed. The petition is rejected.' Later on, on the same day the petitioner filed another petition asking for one day's time only to deposit the money. The order is, 'Heard pleader. The prayer is considered and time is allowed, 11th February 1950 for depositing the amount failing which the miscellaneous case shall st...
The Collector of Darjeeling Vs. C. Mackertich
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal307,54CWN853
G.N. Das, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the Collector of Darjeeling and arises out of certain proceedings before an Arbitrator appointed under Section 19, Defence of India Act. The dispute between the parties concerns the compensation payable in respect of the disputed premises known as Caroline Villa. On 1-11-1944, in pursuance of an order of requisition made under Rule 75A, Defence of India Rules, possession of the disputed premises was taken over by the Government. We have been informed by the learned advocates appearing on both sides that the said premises has been derequisitioned.2. The premises in question was in the occupation of one Mr. Hall who used to pay rent of Rs. 200 per month, but by virtue of certain proceedings taken under the Bengal House Rent Control Order the rent of the said premises was fixed at Rs. 256 from 1-5-1944. At the date of the taking of possession, therefore, the tenant was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 256 as the rent of the said premises. As the ...
Nalini Ranjan Bose Vs. MartIn and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal39
ORDERSarkar, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff for an order that the defendants do file a further and better affidavit of documents.2. The suit is for damages for breach of a contract for supply of cement by the defendants to the plaintiff. The defence, so far as is relevant for the present application is first that there was no contract between the parties. The second defence is that even if there was such a contract, cement being a controlled article the defendants were liable under the Control Order to supply cement to public bodies before supplying the plaintiff who was a private consumer and that it had not sufficient stock of cement to 'supply the plaintiff' after it had supplied the public bodies.3. It appears from the affidavit filed by the defendants in this application that they have certain stock books of cement. Admittedly these stock books are not relevant to the issue-whether there was a contract but are relevant to the issue whether the defendants had sufficie...
Safatulla Khan Vs. the Chief Secretary to the Government of West Benga ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal194,55CWN27
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition praying that the petitioner Janab Shafatullah Khan who is at present detained under Section 3, Preventive Detention Act of 1950, be released from such detention. In the petition allegations are made that the petitioner has been detained be cause of his work amongst the workers in the Calcutta district. He states that he as the General Secretary of the Bengal National Chamber of Labour had been organising the workers in West Bengal and particularly in the areas of Calcutta, 24 Parganas, Hooghly, and Howarh to secure better terms of employment and conditions of service through adjudication by Industrial Tribunals. He suggests that owing to these activities he has aroused the enmity of Government. Hence the order for detention.2. After the order for detention under Section 3, Preventive Detention Act of 1950, was made the Government served on the detenu the grounds for the order for detention as required by Section 7 of that Act. It will be convenient to...
Gopal Chandra Banerjee and ors. Vs. Sm. Sailabala Devi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal216
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The plaintiff respondent brought a suit for ejectment of the defendants who had been described as being licensees. The property originally belonged to Lalit Mohan Banerjee. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were his sons. The plaintiff Sailabala claimed to be the married wife of Lalit Mohan. The Courts below have however found on evidence that she was not the married wife of Lalit Mohan. Lalit Mohan had by a deed of gift dated the 13th of May 1943, transferred the title to the property now in suit to the present appellant. The plaintiff's case as made in the plaint was that after the execution of the deed of gift she had served a notice on the defendants in November 1944, terminating the licence under which the latter were residing in the premises. This allegation of service of notice has, however, not been proved and the Courts below have proceeded on the basis that such notice had not been served. Various defences were raised but in view of the limited point raised in this...
Sri Krishna Roy Jiew Deity and ors. Vs. Tinkari Adhicary and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal198
Das Gupta, J.1. The question that arises for decision in this case is whether the suit brought by the purchasers of a darputni for assessment of rent in respect of land recorded in the settlement operations as liable to rent but with respect to which the then landlord took no action for assessment and realisation of rent, after a decree in a suit under Section 30, Regulation II [2] of 1819, is barred by limitation. That suit was suit No. 369 of 1862 and the fact averred in the plaint which has been marked Ex. E was that the defendants were possessing certain lands on a false plea of niskhar. The prayer was that under Section 30, Regulation II [2] of 1819, this false plea of niskhar should be rejected and it should be found that these lands appertained to the mal assets of the plaintiffs. Nothing was said whether the lakheraj that was being wrongly claimed was alleged to have been granted since 1-12-1790, or prior to that date. The suit was decreed and the order was passed that these la...
Amrita Lal Chatterjee Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal543,54CWN823
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order made by a learned Presidency Magistrate convicting the petitioner under Section 21 (4), West Bengal Security Act, 1950 and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for one month and five days. 2. The petitioner was served with an externment order under Section 21 (1) (a), West Bengal Security Act, 1950 forbidding him to remain within the town of Calcutta. The order was served on him on 5th April 1950 and he was given 24 hours' time to leave the Calcutta area. According to the prosecution the petitioner was found at his residence at 5/1 Kashinath Bose Lane, Calcutta on 7th April 1950 and accordingly it was alleged that he had contravened the order externing him from the city of Calcutta. The order appears to have been signed by the Commissioner of Police and the service of the order was duly proved. The evidence that the petitioner was in Calcutta on 7th April 1950 was accepted and it has not been challenged. 3. The petitioner fil...
Kedarnath Agarwalla Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal303,54CWN829
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of orders made by a learned Magistrate and a learned Sessions Judge confiscating certain flour.2. It appears that a motor truck carrying flour was held up on the border of the district of Burdwan. It was suggested by the prosecution that a consignment was being imported into Bihar in contravention of the Bengal Food-grains Movement Control Order. Proceedings were commenced against two persons, namely, the person who claimed to be the owner of the flour and the driver of the motor truck in which the flour was found. The owner of the flour was discharged as no case whatsoever could be made out against him. The driver of the truck was tried and after a full hearing he was found not guilty and acquitted. It is, therefore, clear that the prosecution failed to establish any offence in connection with this flour. Though no offence had been established the learned Magistrate who tried the driver ordered the flour to be confiscated. The learned Se...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›