Kolkata Court January 1951 Judgments
Naresh Kumar Gupta Vs. Umraomal Agarwalla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal489,55CWN331
ORDER1. This Rule was issued on the opposite parties to show cause why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of the Ct. of the Addl. Chief Presidency Mag. of Calcutta for having printed & published certain leaflets containing remarks as regards the merits of a case pending in the Mag.'s Ct.2. The leaflets have been produced before us & quite clearly they contain a remark that the complaint filed by the petnr. in the Mag's. Ct. at Calcutta is false. On behalf of the opposite parties a point has been raised that as proceedings have already been instituted by one Biswanath Agarwalla Under Section 500, 501 & 109, I. P. C. with regard to the publication of the very leaflets which form the subject-matter of the present contempt proceedings, these proceedings for contempt do not lie before this Ct. in view of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 2, Contempt of Courts Act. The sub-section is in these words :'No H. C. shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been ...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Spinning Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. His Excellency Lt. General ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal355,[1952]22CompCas162(Cal)
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an Order of Mookerjee J. dated 22-9-1950, directing that an extraordinary general meeting of the Company should be held.2. The application was made to Mookerjee J. under Section 79(3), Companies Act. It was alleged that owing to disputes which had arisen between the share-holders and the directors of the company in question it was impracticable to hold an extraordinary general meeting and therefore application was made to the Court for the convening of such a meeting under the directions of the Court. The learned Judge having considered the whole of the matter came to the conclusion that it was impracticable to call a meeting of the company in any manner in which the meetings of that Company might be called in accordance with the Articles of the Companies Act.3. The paid up capital of this Company is Rs. 4,59,420/- of which the contesting respondents hold Rs. 3,66,000/-.4. The last annual general meeting of the Company was held on 23-12-1949 and t...
Tag this Judgment!Premraj Mundra Vs. Md. Maneck Gazi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal156
Sinha, J.1.This is an application under the provisions of Order 38, Rules 5 & 6, Civil P. C., for an order that the defts do furnish security for the pltf.'s claim, & in default, the properties set out in the schedule annexed to the petition, belonging to the defts., be attached before judgment. There is a further prayer for a Receiver, but this is not pressed.2. The suit is for goods sold & delivered by the pltf. to the defts. The sale is evidenced by a document described as a 'Chalan' in the petition, the actual document being headed as a 'Credit Memo.' A copy of this document has been annexed to the petition. This 'Credit Memo' states the name of the purchaser as Muhammad Maneck Gazi. It then gives the description of the goods, together with its rate & prices. It contains an endorsement at the bottom as follows: 'We certify the above prices is/are correct & no overcharge has been made.' It is signed by the purchaser namely Maneck Gazi. The document also contains the salesman's signa...
Tag this Judgment!Protap Chandra Koyal Vs. Kali Charan Acharjya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal32,55CWN557
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract of reconveyance in respect of the property described in the plaint.2. On the 23rd April, 1937, the plaintiff executed in favour of defendant No. 1 a conveyance in respect of the property in suit for a consideration of Rs. 300/- On the same date an agreement was executed as between the parties under which defendant No. 1 agreed to reconvey the self same property in favour of the plaintiff. It was stipulated that if Rs. 300/- be paid in one instalment within the month of Chaitra before the expiry of the Bengali year 1348, the contract would be specifically enforced.3. The plaintiff came to Court with the story that he had offered to make the payment on the 7th Palgoon, 1348, B.S., but that the defendant had refused to accept the same. On the 9th April, following, i.e., before the end of Chaitra 1348, B.S., the plff. served a registered letter upon defendant No. 1 through a la...
Tag this Judgment!Satyanarayan Prosad Vs. Diana Engineering Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal124,55CWN509
Banerjee, J. 1. This is an appeal by the landlord from an order made by Bachawat J. on May 24, 1950, allowing an application under Section 18 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950 made by the tenant who is the respondent in this appeal. That section is as follows:'Where any decree for recovery of possession of any premises has been made on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, but the possession of such premises has not been recovered from the tenant, the tenant may apply to the trial Court within sixty days of the coming into force of this Act for vacating the decree for ejectment against him and within such period no order for delivery of possession shall be made by any Court, nor if an application is made by the tenant under this subsection till the application has been dismissed under sub-section(4).'2. The facts of the case shortly are these: The plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Harbans Singh Chauhan Vs. Bawa Singh Chauhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal73
ORDERSinha, J.1. This is an application for recording certain terms of settlement arrived at between the plff. & deft. 1, on 22-7-1950, settling this suit as between them, on certain terms. The terms are contained in a document in writing signed by both the plff. & deft. 1.2. This suit was filed on or about 6-7-1950, for a declaration that the business mentioned in the plaint was a partnership business, for a declaration that the Yugoslavia Cement business & sole agency were partnership business, and/or carried on for the benefit of the partnership, for a declaration that the business carried on by the limited companies mentioned in the plaint were also partnership business and/or carried on for the benefit of the partnership, for dissolution of the partnership, accounts, injunction & for other reliefs.3. It appears that some time in May 1950, the deft. 1 instituted criminal proceedings against the plff. before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, under Section 420, Pe...
Tag this Judgment!Manna Lall Jhunjhunwalla Vs. Sm. Manbhouti Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal417
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The question for determination in this appeal is as to whether the transaction in question is in substance a loan as under Section 2(12), Bengal Money lenders Act or a deposit of money as under Sub-clause 'a' of Clause (12) of Section 2 of the same Act. The trial Ct. held in favour of the deft. treating the transaction as a loan. The learned Dist. J. interpreted the transaction as being a deposit.2. The transaction in question is evidenced by Ex. 1 described as a deed indicating the terms of a certain amount deposited with the deft. It appears that the pltf.-resp. has deposited with the deft. certain items of ornaments. In the presence of common friends the value of those ornaments was fixed at Rs. 2150. The deft. was to pay Rs. 15 per month as interest for the said amount. The said amount of interest was the only source of maintenance of the pltf. If the payment of interest be in default for six consecutive months the pltf. would be entitled to file a suit for the...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamapada Ganguly Vs. Abani Mohan Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal420,55CWN326
ORDERBose, J.1. This is as appln. under Article 226, Const. Ind., for a writ in the nature of Mandamus or in the nature of Quo Warranto or for such further or other order as to this Ct. may seem fit & proper.2. A Rule nisi was issued by B. K. Guha J. on 10-10-1950 & the matter has now come up before me for the hearing of that Rule.3. The facts are that in February 1950 eleven out of the 17 elected Comrs. of the Bally Municipality including the petnr. made a representation to the Secretary, Dept. of Local Self-Government, West Bengal, making serious allegations against the opposite party, the Chairman of the Municipality in relation to the management of the affairs of the Municipality. In the enquiry started by the Govt. as a result of such representation the majority of the charges brought against the opposite party were proved & the Govt. was of the opinion that the only course left was to remove the opposite party from the office of Chairman.4. One of the Comrs. having left for Pakis...
Tag this Judgment!Satyendra Chandra Sen and anr. Vs. S.B. Trading Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal514,55CWN309
Banerjee, J.1. This is an appln. by the tenants claiming relief Under Section 6, West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Amendment Act, 1950. That section is as follows:'Power of Ct. to rescind or vary decrees & orders in certain cases. Where at any time between the commencement of the said Act & of this Act, an order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises has been made or passed by any Ct. but possession of such premises has not been recovered in execution of such order or decree & the Ct. is of opinion that the order or decree would not have been made or passed if this Act had been in force when the order or decree was made or passed, the Ct. may, on appln. by the tenant within sixty days of the commencement of this Act, rescind or vary the order or decree on such terms & conditions as it deems necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Section 18 of the said Act as amended by this Act.'2. The 'said Act' in the section is the 'W...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadish Prosad Pannalal Vs. Member, Board of Revenue
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal154,55CWN244
Banerjee, J.1. This is a reference under Section 21 (1), Bengal Finance (Sales Tax.) Act, 1941. The section is analogous to Section 66, Income tax Act. The question formulated for our opinion is in these words.'Whether on the facts of the case the respective assessments by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes so far as the same has not been modified in appeal & by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in appeal after allowing the deduction have been made to the best of their respective judgments ?'2. The applicants before us are registered dealers & are required to file returns quarterly. A registered dealer has to file a return under Section 10 of the Act. The applicants maintain their accounts according to the Marwari Dewali year. They did not file their returns for the two quarters ended Kartic Badi, 15, 2002 (corresponding with the period 13-4-1945 to 4-11-1945). The assessing authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Calcutta, (Central), issued a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »