Kolkata Court August 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.
Anarali Tarafdar Vs. Omar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal7,55CWN33
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The property in suit originally belonged to one Meher Ali Tarafdar. Before his death he bad executed a will on 15-10-1911. Although Meherali died in November following, probate was not obtained by his widow, Gour Bibi until 27-6-1935. By the will Meherali purported to create a life interest in favour of his widow Gour Bibi and after the determination of that life estate the property was to descend to all his legal heirs under the Mahomedan law. After having obtained probate Gour Bibi as executrix obtained permission from the Probate Court for sale of one of the properties which had been bequeathed by Meher Ali. After having obtained permission, Gour Bibi sold this particular plot to Wahed Hossain. The interest of Wahed Hossain was sold on 15-5-1940 in execution of a money decree obtained against him. The plaintiff Omar Ali was the purchaser and it is stated that he had obtained possession on 25-6-1941, through Court but as he could not get actual possession the pre...
Jogendra Nath Mondal and ors. Vs. Adhar Chandra Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal412,55CWN289
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal on behalf of the deft. arises out of a suit filed by the pltf. resp. for permanently restraining the deft. from taking joint possession of the homestead.2. The property originally belonged to the members of a family & the relationship amongst the parties 'will appear from the following genealogical table: NILMONI | _________________________________________________________________ | | | | Dinanath Troilokya Baikuntha=Giribala Rameswar | | Siddhesar=Narayani ________________ | | | Daughter Adhar Pashupati | Pltf. _______________ | | Jaladhar Sasadhar3. The deft. Jogendra Nath had purchased the share which originally belonged to Siddheswar from his widow Narayani & his grandsons Jaladhar & Sasadhar. The case of the pltf. Adhar is that Jogendra on the strength of the said conveyance, is making preparation to take joint possession of the homestead which had been in the possession of Narayani. The pltf. has accordingly filed the present suit for declaration t...
K.D. Bose Vs. Upendra Krishna Chatterjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal380
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Magistrate vacating an earlier order which he had made directing certain evidence to be taken on commission.2. The petitioner was charged with the offence of cheating. It was alleged that the cheating took place in this city on December 4, 1949. The defence was that the allegations were wholly false because the petitioner was not in Calcutta on the day in question, but was at Delhi where he resided from November 25, 1949 to December 30, 1949. If this allegation of the petitioner could be established, then quite obviously he had a complete defence to the charge of cheating.3. The petitioner desired to examine witnesses in his defence and he informed the Court that he wished to examine the Manager of the Grand Hotel at which he alleged he stayed during his visit at Delhi. He also wanted to put in the Hotel register as evidence. Two other witnesses were also required by the petitioner, namely, a servant in the hotel ...
Central Hardware Mart Vs. Corporation of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal39
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order made by Shri A.N. Mukherjee, Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta dated April 19, 1950 directing that a corrugated iron shed in the occupation of the petitioner be demolished.2. The petitioner claimed to be a tenant of the lessee of certain premises known as Nos. 137 and 137A Canning Street in this city. The lessee of the premises was a man called Tapuria. It seems that on June 14, 1949 an application was made to the learned Municipal Magistrate under Section 363 of the Calcutta Municipal Act and upon that application a summons was issued. The corporation's case was that certain unauthorised structures had been made on these premises namely, the addition of a fifth storey and a staircase and the erection of a corrugated iron shed. The order-sheet shows that on November 1, 1949, a general notice was served. On April 19, 1950 there was a consent order made, the lessee Tapuria consenting. The petitioner who was, as I have said, a sub...
Khudi Prosad Bhakat Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal798,55CWN45
ORDERSinha, J.1. This is an application on behalf of one Khudi Prosad Bhakat alias Teli, under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari upon the District Magistrate of Birbhum directing him to withdraw the order of externment dated 22-5-1950, passed on the applicant and for such other order as to the Court seem fit and proper. On this application, a Rule was issued on the District Magistrate to show cause why such a writ should not be issued upon him and why such further or other order should not be made as the Court thinks fit and proper.2. Before I deal with the merits of the application I must refer to the procedure adopted by the respondents for showing cause. What has been done is that the District Magistrate Birbhum has addressed a letter to the Assistant Registrar of the High Court in its Appellate Side, in which he has stated certain facts and has further asked that the order of externment being of administrative importanc...
Mohammad Illias Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal212
Harries, C.J.1. The appellant in this case was tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge sitting with a jury upon two charges of murder. The jury found the appellant guilty on both the charges by a majority. Five of the jurors found the appellant guilty under Section 302, Penal Code, on both the charges: two found the appellant guilty not under Section 302, Penal Code, but under Section 304 on both the charges, whereas the remaining two jurors found the appellant not guilty on both the charges. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the majority verdict of guilty under Section 302, Penal Code, and sentenced the appellant to transportation for life in respect of the charge of murdering one Golam Hossain. He did not think it was necessary to sentence the appellant in respect of the other charge of murder upon which the jury by a majority had found the appellant guilty.2. The case for the prosecution was that the appellant had murdered two persons, namely, Golam Hossain and Saf...
Province of Bengal Vs. Radha Gobinda and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal43,55CWN110
G.N. Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the Province of Bengal & concerns the compensation to be paid in respect of certain lands acquired by the Province of Bengal. The property acquired consisted of a plot of danga (high) land recorded in C. S. Dag No. 1855 & certain arable lands recorded in C. S. Dags Nos. 1870, 1409, 1463, 1472/4500. The property acquired belonged to four brothers, Prangobinda Thakur, Radhagobinda Thakur, Gatigobinda Thakur & Satya Narayan Thakur. The Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 90 per bigha for the danga lands & Rs. 25 per bigha for the arable lands. Being dissatisfied by the award all the four claimants made a petn. for reference under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act. They claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 500 per bigha for the danga lands & Rs. 150 per bigha for the arable lands. This reference petn. also concerned a plot of land in which Prangobinda was alone interested. For reasons unexplained, one petn. of reference was made covering ...
Kanai Lal Dutta Vs. the State on the Complaint of Sisir Kumar De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal206
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order made by a Presidency Magistrate convicting the petitioner of an offence under Section 406, Penal Code, and sentencing him to three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The case against the petitioner was that the complainant had instructed the petitioner who was a jeweller to make a neck chain which was to be delivered on 20-9-1949 and had handed to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 308 which was the cost of the gold necessary for a chur and the cost of making it. According to the complainant, the petitioner never delivered the chur and never returned the sum of Rs. 308. Accordingly it is said that he was guilty of an offence under Section 406, Penal Code.3. Section 406 provides that whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Criminal breach of trust is defined in Section 405, Penal Code, in these terms:'Whoeve...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›