Kolkata Court February 1951 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.
Kalidas Roy and ors. Vs. University of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal129,55CWN333
ORDERSinha, J.1. This is a rule issued by me on the pltfs. in a suit instituted by them & now pending before the fourth Ct. of the Munsiff at Alipore to show cause why the suit should not be removed from that Ct. to the H. C., under the provisions of Clause 13, Letters Patent, & there tried in its extraordinary Original Jurisdiction.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: There is a School in southern Calcutta, known as the Chakrabere H. E. School. It is located, partly in premises No. 23/1 Chakrabere Road & partly in premises No. 93 Bakul Began Road, in Bhawanipore. Several hundred students are on the roll, so that it is an institution of no mean dimensions. To cater for the intellectual needs of so many Juvenile persons of tender years, one would have thought that there existed an atmosphere of calm tranquillity, with the gentle pursuit of knowledge, which is the characteristic of all true seats of learning. But in the case of this most unfortunate Institution this is not to...
Atula Bala Dasi and ors. Vs. Nirupama Devi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal561
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of the D. Hs. against an order passed by the Dist. J. of Birbhum staying the sale in Title Execution Case No. 7 of 1950. The opposite parties are the applicants for the grant of letters of administration in respect of a will left by one Saradindu Roy. The D. Hs. who are the petitioners before this Court, had obtained a decree against Amal, one of the sons of Saradindu. They had proceeded to execute the decree against Amal & had prayed for the sale of certain properties which had been inherited by Amal from Saradindu. Claims were filed by the wife & the daughter of Amal as also by the brother's son Amal contending that the properties which were about to be put upto sale did not belong to Amal. The claims as made were dismissed. No suit, it is stated, has yet been filed under Order XXI, Rule 63, Civil P. C. Near about the time when the claim petitions were dismissed, an application was filed by the wife & the daughter of A...
Bhuban Mohan Das Vs. Surendra Mohan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal69,55CWN541
Harries, C.J.1. This is a Reference to a F. B. made by a Bench of this Court in a criminal matter.2. A petn. in revn. was heard by the Bench which has referred this case in which the petnr. prayed that certain proceedings instituted against him under Section 406, Penal Code, and which were then pending in the Court of a Magistrate at Howrah should be quashed.3. The petnr. and the opposite party who preferred the complaint were partners and it is said that they carried on business at a shop situate at No. 34 Bellillios Road, Howrah. The business was a business of selling ghee, butter and stationery articles. On 12-2-1950 communal disturbances took place in Howrah and according to the complainant the petnr. proposed to him that all the articles in the shop should be removed to the petnr.'s house at 29/2 Beniatolla Lane, Calcutta which was outside the danger zone. The complainant stated that he agreed whereupon the petnr. procured a taxi cab and loaded it with articles which were in the s...
Ladhuram Taparia Vs. B. K. Bagchi.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1951
Reported in: [1951]20ITR51(Cal)
This is an application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act and also under Constitution of India for writs in the nature of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari for an order cancelling the notice of demand issued by the respondent under Section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act and calling upon him to forbear from taking further steps in respect of the said notice of demand and for quashing of the assessment proceedings.The petitioners started carrying on business in co-partnership under the name and style of Ladhuram Taparia on the 28th of February, 1941, and entered into a written agreement of partnership on the 16th of October, 1941. The firm of the petitioners was duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act on the 19th July, 1943. The petitioner Ladhuram had 8 as share and the petitioners Ganpat Rai and Bhairodan had 4 as share each in the said firm. The firm was first assessed to income-tax in respect of the year of assessment 1942-43 and for that purpose it was register...
Sri Mahadeb Jiew and anr. Vs. Dr. B.B. Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal563,55CWN453
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application for security for costs against pltf. Ratanbala Dasi in the suit.2. There are two pltfs. in this suit. One is Sri Sri Mahadeb Jiew, a deity who is suing through Ratanbala as his trustee or as shebait. The other pltf. is Ratanbala Dasi herself.3. Mr. R. Goho, who argued in support of this application, has put forward two main grounds: (1) Pltf. Ratanbala is a woman & therefore under Order 25 Rule 1 (3) I have the jurisdiction to order security for costs against the woman pltf., if I am otherwise satisfied. (2) Pltf. Ratanbala is merely a puppet in this suit & she is not the real litigant & therefore I should direct security for costs as against her. This power, Mr. Goho argues, is within the inherent powers and jurisdiction of this Court.4. I will first deal with the ground put forward by Mr. Goho on the basis of Order 25 Rule 1, Civil P. C. In my opinion, before an order can be made under this provision of the Code, the applicant has to sa...
In Re: the Pioneer Bank Ltd. and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal519
Baghawat, J.1. This is appln. by Sm. Annapurna Badrinarain Banerji for an order directing the Official Liquidator of the Pioneer Bank to set off the debt due to Badrinarain from the Bank under six fixed deposit receipts against a debt due to the Bank from the appcts. No objection is taken to the form of the prayer or to the maintainability of the petn. & I have been expressly invited by Mr. T. Banerjee who appeared on behalf of the Bank to adjudicate on the question of set off on this appln.2. It is common case that Annapurna borrowed large sums of money from the Bank on an overdraft account & is indebted to the Bank personally. Badrinarain is a guarantor The petn. contains conflicting statements with regard to the nature of the guarantee. Mr. Lahiri appearing on behalf of the appct. has however formally admitted & it is now common case that Badrinarain guaranteed personally the entire amount of the debt due from Annapurna & as further security for the debt endorsed a Life Insurance Po...
Jethmull Sethia Vs. Aloke Ganguly
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal126,55CWN563
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This is a Rule against an order of the Judge of Calcutta Court of Small Causes, passed under Section 18 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act (XVII of 1950). The proceeding in question was started when the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1946, was in force. The order was eventually passed on November 1, 1949. On October 31 the learned Judge passed an order, and considering the question whether the defendant was a defaulter, has remarked :'With regard to the default point, the defendant ought to have cleared off all arrears of rent by the 31st of December, 1948. He having failed to do that I find that the defendant is a defaulter.'2. The first point argued before me is that the provisions of Section 18 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act are only applicable where decree for recovery of possession of a premises has been made under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948. It is contended that the order h...
Mahadeo Lal Agarwala and anr. Vs. the New Darjeeling Union Tea Co. Ltd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal58,55CWN408
Lahiri, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for declaration of title of the plaintiffs' 7/8th share in respect of two hundred shares of the New Darjeeling Union Tea Co., Limited, (defendant No. 1) and for mutation of the plaintiffs' names in the share register of the said company, for recovery of the dividends and for a permanent injunction restraining the said company from paying any dividend to defendants Nos. 2 and 3.2. The plaintiffs' case is that in Money Suit No. 36/31 the plaintiffs obtained a decree against one Kazi Md. Ismail and 9 others and in execution of that decree (which was Money Ex. Case No. 29/ 32) auction purchased 7/8th share of shares Nos. 4818 to 5017 of the defendant company on 28-3-32. Thereafter the plaintiffs obtained a share transfer deed executed by the Court in terms of Order 21, Rule 80, and wrote to the defendant no. 1 in 1940 asking lor information as to what should be done to get their names mutated. As there was no reply to that let...
Major Soap Co. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commr. of Commercial Taxes, Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal712
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for Writs in the nature of Mandamus, Prohibition or Certiorari for cancelling or quashing a requisition calling upon the petitioner to produce books of accounts and records for the purpose of assessment of sales tax in respect of certain periods mentioned in the petition.2. The petitioner is a company having its registered office at 25 Zakaria Street, Calcutta. The company was registered on 28-5-1948 and obtained Certificate of Commencement of its business on 31-5-1948 and got itself registered as a dealer under the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act 1941 on 21-7-1948. The petitioner has acquired and taken over as a going concern the business of Major Soap Company which was a proprietary concern including the stock in trade, machinery, furniture and goodwill, etc., but neither the assets nor the liabilities and states that it is not a 'transferee' within the meaning of Section 17, Bengal Sales Tax Act. nor is it a '...
Amulya Chandra Roy and ors. Vs. Pashupati Nath and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal48,55CWN385
G.N. Das, J.1. This Reference to a F. B. has arisen out of a proceeding in execution of a decree passed in a suit for arrears of rent of a tenure which were initiated & continued in accordance with the provisions of chap. XIII, Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The decree for rent was passed in 1936. This decree was executed by the applts. by the arrest of judgment-debtors. The judgment-debtors filed a petn. of objection under Section 47, C. P. C. on the ground that they are not liable to arrest as they are not possessed of sufficient means to pay the amount of the decree. The Subordinate Judge, Asansol, overruled the objection filed by the judgment-debtors & directed the judgment-debtors to pay the dues of the decree-holders within two weeks failing which a writ for arrest was directed to be issued. The judgment, debtors preferred an appeal to the Ct. of the Dist. J. The appeal was allowed & the prayer for arrest of the judgment-debtors was refused. Against the order of the Dist. J. the decree-ho...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »