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.
Bhuramull Maskara and anr. Vs. Ram Kumar Maskara and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal105
Das Gupta, J.1. This is an appln. by the deft. Ram Kumar Maskara for an order that the leave granted under cl. XII of the Charter prior to the institution of the suit be revoked, and alternatively, that the time to file the written statement be extended. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appct. is that the leave granted under cl. XII of the Charter should be revoked.2. This suit which was instituted on 5-8-1950 is a suit for a declaration of the shares of the parties in the joint properties and for partition and for accounts. There are two pltfs. in this suit, one is Bhuramull Maskara and the other is Hiralal Maskara. There are four defts. deft. 1 being Ram-kumar Maskara, deft. 2 being Jawharlal Maskara, deft. 3 being Motilal Maskara and deft. 4 being Sm. Jari Devi. Of the four defts., deft. 1 Ram Kumar Maskara and deft. 4 Sm. Jari Devi are alleged in the said cause title to be residing at Nalhati outside the jurisdiction of this Ct. In para. 3 of th...
Debendra Nath Sarkar Vs. Sm. Parul Bala Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal233
ORDERRoxburgh, J. 1. This Rule raises the question of the procedure to be adopted in the Calcutta Court of Small Causes in cases where landlords have obtained orders for recovery of possession of premises from their tenants and on seeking to carry out the orders are opposed by subtenants alleging that he had some right under the new West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act. 2. In previous cases disposed of by me the facts were that the tenants had applied to the Court even before the landlord had sought through Court to obtain possession of the premises, and I have pointed out that such applications are premature. I have also pointed out that in my opinion the sub-tenant has a remedy under the provisions of Order 21, Rules 97 to 100, Civil P.C. which are made applicable to these proceedings of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes under Section 49 (sic), Calcutta Small Causes Court Act. 3. In the present case, the landlord had obtained possession of some of the premise...
Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, West Bengal Vs. Adair Dutta and Co ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1951
Reported in: [1951]20ITR267(Cal)
BANERJEE, J. - This is a reference under Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, read with Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, made at the instance of the Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, West Bengal, for our opinion on the following question :-'Whether in computing the profits for the standard period under Schedule I of the Excess Profits Tax Act, the London profits (Rs. 66,386) for 1936-37 income-tax assessment were rightly included by the Tribunal ?'There were five appeals to the Tribunal covering five chargeable accounting periods, viz., ended 31st March, 1940, to 31st March, 1944, respectively, which were disposed of by one order as the point involved in all the appeals was the same.Five applications were made to the Tribunal for reference to the High Court questions of law arising out of the order. The applications were consolidated and one reference has been made. In that reference the question has been asked as stated above.The assessee (respondent before us) is a l...
Mrs. Kathleen Dias Vs. H.M. Coria and Sons
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal513,55CWN698,(1951)IILLJ192Cal
Banerjee, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made on 10-1-1950 by the Comr. for Workmen's Compensation. It arises out of the following facts.2. One Donald A. Dias was a workman employed by the resp. as a foreman. On 27-11-1948, he received injuries. He died on the same day from the injuries. On 8 12-1948, the widow & other relations of the deceased received Rs. 3000 from the resp. & gave a receipt. In that receipt they stated that they never had any claim by way of compensation or otherwise against the resp. for the accidental death of the deceased or for any arrear of salary or other remunerations payable to trim & they acknowledged having received from the resp. a cheque for Rs. 3000 as an ex gratia payment. Thereafter the widow made a claim before the Comr. The Comr. made a decree for Rs. 475 in favour of the widow. The Comr. has found that the injury arose out of & in the course of the employment. There is no cross objection or cross appeal challenging this finding. The Comr. tho...
Monoranjan Roy Vs. the Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal753
ORDERBose, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 45. Specific Relief Act for an order on the respondent to cancel or withdraw the order dated 7-8-1950 made by the respondent imposing a penalty of Rs. 3300/- in respect of a consignment of goads imported by the petitioner without the requisite licence and also for an order for refund of the said sum of Rs. 3300/- paid by the petitioner pursuant to the said order of the respondent.2. The petitioner carries on business as dealer in paper of various kinds and is one of the largest importers of single faced corrugated paper in this country. The single faced corrugated paper is known in this country as also in the countries from which they are imported as 'paper1' as opposed to 'board'. Between May 1945 and June 1947 paper could be imported from the United Kingdom by importers of this country under Open General Licence No. VII and no restrictions were imposed by the Government upon the import of single...
Soorajmull Nagarmull Vs. the Asst. Controller of Customs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal103,55CWN528
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and under Clauses 4 and 21 of the Charter for Writs in the nature of Mandamus, Prohibition and Certiorari and also under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act for a direction on the Respondents prohibiting them from exercising jurisdiction to call upon the production of an import licence other than the licence already produced and from taking steps in enforcing the bond dated the 28th of March 1950 or from recovering a sum of Rs. 4,65,473/12/- and also for a. direction for withdrawal of the illegal demand and for refund of a sum of Rs. 75,925,/14/- illegally realised by way of extra duty and for certain other directions.2. On the 30th December 1949 the petitioner bought from Tiona Petroleum Co. of Philadelphia, U. Section A., 7215 drums of pale spindle oil which is a lubricating oil and is used for lubrication alone. The said drums were imported into India by the petitioner under two invoices both dated the 30...
Dhirendra Nath Majumdar Vs. Haripada Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal42
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This is a Rule against an order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barrack-pore, rescinding an order of summoning certain accused Under Sections. 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, the reason being that after the order for issue of summons had been passed but before summons was issued, the learned, Sub-Divisional Magistrate thought that there had been some error on his part in interpreting the police report and that the matter, therefore, required further enquiry.2. The facts in this case are very similar to those considered by Lodge J. in the case of Ramdahin Singh v. P. Metharam, : AIR1948Cal342 . I agree entirely with the views expressed therein. The procedure adopted is irregular bat no injustice I think has been done. The more correct procedure in such a case in my opinion would be for the Magistrate to move the District Judge to refer the case to this Court for an order cancelling the order of issuing summons. Had the ease come before me, in that way...
Rakhaldas Mukherjee Vs. S.P. Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal171
ORDERSinha, J.1. This is a rule upon the respondent, the Second Additional Rent Controller, Calcutta, directing him to show cause why his orders dated February 23, 1950, and March 22, 1950, as mentioned in the rule, should not be set aside and/or why a writ of certiorari should not issue for quashing the same. As the application, with regard to the last named order has been abandoned, I am only concerned with the order dated February 23, 1950.2. The facts are shortly as follows: Premises Nos. 116A and 118A, Mechua Bazar Street, were requisitioned by the Government for a 'public purpose'. The petitioner describes himself as the 'Secretary of the Calcutta Sub-Committee of the Khulna District Congress Committee', and Secretary, 'Khulna Nibas' Boarding Establishment', and he says that me Government made over the premises to him for the purppses of starting educational institutions, residential boarding house for (evacuees and for affording accommodation facilities to-displaced business men...
Dungarmull Kissenlal Vs. Sambhu Charan Pandey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal55
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment & decree of Bose J. sitting on the Original Side, dated 6-4-1950, by which he dismissed a suit for the recovery of money said to be due under a promissory note.2. The pltf. brought the suit giving rise to this appeal for the recovery of Rs. 2057-8-0 being principal & interest due under a promissory note made by deft. 2 in favour of deft. 1 & endorsed by the latter in favour of the pltf. The suit was filed under Order 37, Civil P. C., on 8-7-1946. Deft. 1 took no steps to defend the suit but deft. 2 applied for & obtained leave to defend the suit & the only matter before Bose J. was as to whether deft. 2 as the maker of the note was liable to the pltf. to whom the note had been endorsed by deft. 1, the promisee.3. In the plaint the pltf. was described as a firm registered under the Partnership Act & as such was entitled to bring the suit in the name of the firm. In the plaint it is pleaded that deft. 2 executed the promissory note in fav...
Manindra Kumar Bose Vs. Santi Rani Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal518,55CWN306
Sen, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the pltf. of Title Suit No. 39 of 1944 of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia.2. The facts briefly are these : The suit was instituted on 10-7-1944 against one Surendra Nath Biswas. On 15-9-1944 all proceedings in the suit were stayed Under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. On 22-10-1946 Surendra died leaving behind him as his heirs his three sons Sudhansu, Himanshu & Biranshu. On 27-7-1949 the stay order under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, was vacated & prior to that on 4-9-1947 an appln. was made by the petnr. for substituting the heirs of Surendra, namely, Sudhansu, Himansu & Biransu in the place of Surendra. That appln. remained pending. On 27-10-1947 Biranshu died leaving behind him as his heir his widow Santirani. On 27-10 1949 the petnr. filed an appln. for substitution of Santirani as legal representative of Biransu & for the amendment of the plaint after such substitution. To this appln. an objection was filed by t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »