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.
Abinash Chandra Vs. Madhusudan Majumdar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal673
Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant, Abinash Chandra Chowdhury and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21st December 1949 passed by Mr. M. M. Bhattacharjee, 1st Extra Additional District Judge, Alipore, District 24-Pergunnahs in Title Suit No. 65 of 1945.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises, was for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from passing off the batteries of plaintiff No. 1 as the defendant's batteries by the use of the trade mark 'Sakti' and by issuing handbills advertisements etc., claiming a right to the said mark, for delivery up to the plaintiff for destruction of all stocks, signboard, cards, handbills etc., bearing the mark Sakti or in the alternative for an order on the defendant to efface such marks and for accounts of illegal profits made by the defendant from the commencement of his sales of batteries with the mark Sakti.3. The defendant contested the suit. The substance of the pleadings has been set in the judgment under ...
GoodwIn Vs. Brewster (H.M. Inspector of Taxes).
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1951
Reported in: [1952]22ITR31(Cal)
DANCKWERTS, J., - This is an appeal by Mr. J. A. Goodwin from a decision of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax upholding assessments made upon him under Schedule E of the Income Tax Act, 1918, for each of the years 1941-42, 1942-43 and 1943-44, the total amount of the assessments in each year being pound 3,200, but the material sum for the present purpose being the sum of pound 3,000 in respect of each of those years.The provisions of the Income Tax Act under which Mr. Goodwin was assessed under Schedule E are these : 'Tax under Schedule E shall be charged in respect of every public office or employment of profit...' and so on '......for every public office or employment of profit..' and so on '.. for every twenty shilling of the annual amount thereof' Then Rule I of the Rules applicable to Schedule E says, 'Tax under this Schedule shall be annually charged on every person having or exercising an office or employment of profit mentioned in this Schedule..' Rule 6 says, 'the tax sh...
S. Ghosh and ors. Vs. Jitendra Nath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal45
G.N. Das, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of deft. 1. It arises out of a suit instituted by the pltf. in the 1st Ct. of the Munsif, Howrah for a declaration of his nishkar (rent free) right in the disputed land, for correction of the entry in the record of rights to the effect that the land is liable to assessment of rent, & for a further declaration that the ex parte order in a proceeding under Section 103, Bengal Tenancy Act, is not binding on the pltf. & for a permanent injunction restraining the deft. 1 from proceeding with a suit instituted by the latter for recovery of rent in respect of the disputed land.2. The deft. 1 filed a written statement alleging that the disputed land was not nishkar & that the order under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, was binding on the pltf. & precluded the latter from setting up a nishkar right.3. The munsif dismissed the suit on the finding that the land was not nishkar & that the order under Section 105 was cogent evidence in proof of that fa...
Gagan Chandra Hazara and anr. Vs. Surendra Nath Khamrai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal410
K.C. Chunder, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of two defts, deft 24 & deft 25, in a suit for partition in a matter relating to court-fees payable. The pltf brought the suit on the allegation, among other things, that with regard to some of the properties deft 1, who is a member of the joint family had purchased the same in the name of defts 24 & 25 who were strangers to the family. Had these strangers not been made parties the present question would not have arisen. The pltf wanted a decree for partition in the presence of these two defts who were alleged to be the ostensible or apparent owners of the properties in dispute but who were not according to the pltf the real owners. Therefore till the declaration was made that they were not the real owners but the joint family was the real owner, no partition as far as these properties were concerned could be asked for. The very prayer of the partition of the properties in the presence of these defts involved a prayer for declarat...
Chandubhai Fulabhai Patel and ors. Vs. River Steam Navigation Co., Ltd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal547,57CWN192
Chunder, J. 1. These six Rules were issuedat the instance of plaintiffs in six applications filed in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, under Section 38, Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, against R. S. N. Company in five cases and the I. G. N. and R. S. N. Companies in the sixth. 2. The facts in issue and the point in dispute are alike. The plaintiffs in all the six cases sent consignments of goods through the steamer company to East Bengal, now Eastern Pakistan. In each of the cases there was a forwarding note which was the basis of the contract and Clause II is as follows: 'The company undertake to carry goods over their own transport system only. Where goods are accepted by the company for carrying beyond their own transport system, and where goods are either wholly or partly carried by the other carrying administrations, in the matter of carrying beyond the company's ' own transport system, the company act merely as agents for such other carrying administration. The contract of...
Susamabala Manna Vs. Sm. Profullamoyee Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal402
ORDERGuha, J.1. This Rule by the auction-purchaser arises out of an appln under Section 174 (3), Bengal Tenancy Act, for setting aside a Ct sale on the usual ground of fraud & material irregularity in publishing & conducting the sale resulting in gross inadequacy of price fetched by the sale. The appln was dismissed by the trial Ct which found in favour of the auction-purchaser upon all the material points. Against that decision an appeal was preferred by the judgment-debtor & in appeal the learned Subordinate Judge has reversed the decision of the trial Ct holding inter alia that the sale was brought about by fraud & material irregularity & that the price fetched by the sale was grossly inadequate.2. The impugned sale was held on 15-5-1946 & the present appln for setting aside the sale was filed on 23-6-1948. Apparenty, therefore, the appln was time-barred but limitation was sought to be saved by invoking the aid of Section 18, Limitation Act.3. Various points have been canvassed befo...
Radha Films Ltd. Vs. West Bengal Board of Censors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal653
Bose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 45 of the Specific Relief, Act for cancellation of an order of suspension of the Censor Certificate of the film entitled 'Section 109', alleged to have been passed by the Respondent West Bengal Board of Censors constituted under the Cinematograph Act 1918 and having its office at 1 Lal Bazar Street, Calcutta.2. On the 12th June 1950 the petitioner produced a movie picture entitled 'Section 109', and on the 20th June 1950 applied for a Censor Certificate in respect of the same. On the 26th June 1950 the film was exhibited before two Inspectors of the Censor department but apparently they were not favourably impressed with the film & so the film was exhibited before the full board of Censors consisting of 12 members for their examination, on the 11th July 1950. The full board of Censors passed the film, but as according to the petitioner there was delay in issuing the certificate, the Managing Director of...
In Re: Estate of Sambhunath Roy and Vs. Gostho Behary Sil and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal426
ORDERBanerjee, J.1. The questions the Ct. has been asked to answer on the summons involve the construction of the will dated 21-6-1916, made by one Sambhunath. Roy who in his life time was a Hindu governed by the Dayabhag & died on or about 25-6-1916.2. The questions are as follows :'(a) On a true construction of the will of the testator, who on the death of Smi. Annabati Dassi, are entitled to the testator's estate, viz., (i) 55 equal parts or shares in the testator's portion of the family dwelling house; & (ii) 35 equal parts or shares in the rest & residue ?(b) What are the rights (if any) of the parties named In paras. 18 (a) to (e) of the affidavit of Gagan Chandra Roy affirmed on 12-12-1949 ?(c) What is the true line of succession to the estate of the deceased ?(d) What is the period of distribution ?(e) To whom is the income of the estate to be paid at present & in future, & from when ?3. The testator left a son Rakhaldas Roy, his wife Annabati Dassi & their son, Tarakdas & othe...
Champalal Lunia Vs. Sm. Gulab Devi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal348
ORDERLahiri, J. 1. This is a Rule under Section 115, Civil P. C. and it is 'directed against two orders made by the Presidency Small Cause Court Judge, dated 15-6-1950 and 7-8-1950. 2. It seems that opposite parties 1 and 2 started a proceeding for recovery of possession against opposite party 3 under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act in respect of one room in the first floor of premises No. 3, Baisakh Street, Calcutta, and this proceeding was registered as Suit No. 12910 of 1949. On 15-8-1950, when the suit was taken up for hearing, the petitioner filed an application to the Court alleging that the plaintiffs and the defendant of the aforesaid suit were colluding with each for the purpose of evicting the petitioner who, according to his allegation, was a sub-tenant under opposite party 3. The Court rejected this application on the ground that it was premature, and the Court observed that the point raised by the petitioner would arise and the petitioner might apply for reli...
B.N. Elias and Co. Ltd. Vs. Banku Behari Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal247,56CWN34
Harries, C.J.1. This is a Reference made to a Full Bench by a Bench of this Court in a Second Appeal.2. The facts giving rise to the litigation may be shortly stated as follows. On March 13, 1931, one Sarkar purchased a hundred bighas of land from one Karuna Nidhan Singha. Apparently there were errors in the deed of sale and on October 13, 193.1, a deed of rectification was entered into between the parties in which these errors were corrected.3. On September 5, 1932, Sarkar executed an agreement for the sale of this land to the plaintiff appellants, Messrs. B. N. Elias & Co. Ltd., for a sum of Rs. 17,500/-. A sum of Rs. 8,500/- was paid in advance as part payment of the purchase price.4. From this agreement it is clear that Messrs. B. N. Elias & Co. wanted vacant possession, but it appears that Sarkar could not give them vacant possession. As a result the parties entered into another agreement on August 1, 1938 which is referred to as a deed of covenant. This deed recites that Sarkar w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »