Kolkata Court March 1951 Judgments
Abdul Aziz Biswas Vs. Abinash Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal64
Lahiri, J.1. This is an appeal by the pltf. under Clasue 15 of the Letters Patent & is directed against a judgment of our learned brother R.P. Mookerjee J., in S. A. 504/1950.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the pltf. for a declaration that the election of the deft. as President of the Shekhalipur Union Board at a meeting held as 8-2-1948 was illegal & ultra vires & for a permanent injunction restraining the deft. from taking over charge of the office from the pltf. The facts of the case which are undisputed, are that the pltf. was an elected member of the Shekhalipur Union Board & was duly elected President of the said Board prior to the partition of Bengal under the Village Self-Government Act (Bengal Act V [5] of 1919) & the Rules framed thereunder. After the partition of Bengal the West Bengal Legislature passed an Act, viz., the West Bengal Act X [10] of 1947 by which the oppointed or nominated members of the Board were to vacate their offices on the c...
Tag this Judgment!Subodh Gopal Bose Vs. Behari Lal Dolui and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal85,55CWN433
Banerjee, J.1. The question raised in this reference is as to whether Section 7, West Bengal Act VII [7] of 1950 or any part of it, is ultra vires the Const. Ind.2. The appeal was pending in the Ct. of the Addl. Dist. J. of 24-Parganas when on an appln. made by the pltf who is the resp. in the appeal, we, under Article 228, Const. Ind. transferred the appeal to this Ct. for decision of the constitutional point involved in it.3. The facts, in so far as they are material to this judgment, are as follows: The petnr. purchased the entire Touzi being No. 341 of the 24 Parganas Collectorate at a revenue sale held on 9-1-1942. After purchase the purchaser annulled the under-tenures & tenancies which he was entitled to avoid & annul Under Section 87, Act XI [11] of 1859, as it stood at the date of the sale (9-1-1942) & at the date of the institution of the suit.4. On 18-3 1946, the pltf. instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises, in the Ct. of the Fourth Subordinate Judge, 24-Pargana...
Tag this Judgment!The West Bengal Settlement Kanungoe Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal111
Harries, C.J.1. In these two cases, Rules were issued on the parties to show cause why two suits pending before a learned Subordinate Judge at Alipore should not be transferred to this Ct. under Article 228 of the Constitution. The suits it was said involved difficult constitutional points, and after hearing the parties this Ct. came to the conclusion that points of importance and difficulty arose in the cases which Article 228 of the Constitution required the H. C to decide.2. We have now heard the parties upon the constitutional question involved and as the points are common to both the suits it will be convenient to dispose of both the matters in one judgment.3. The suits were brought by persons who had been called upon to vacate certain lands said to have been acquired under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act 1948 (Act XXI [21] of 1948). In the suits it was prayed that the notfn. Under Section 4 and the declaration Under Section 6 of Act XXI [21] of 1948 be declared ...
Tag this Judgment!Elahi Bux Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal471
Sinha, J.1. This is a suit which was filed by the plaintiff against the Governor-General-in-Council, in or about 11-8-1947, for a decree for Rs. 62,562/- and other reliefs. The plaintiff is a military contractor and entered into a contract with the military authorities on or, about 12-11-1943, for the construction of various works at Comilla, including latrines for the use of the military forces. The plaintiff executed the said contract. It is stated in the plaint that the bill was duly submitted to the Commander Royal Engineers at Ghittagong on 15-12-1945. This bill has not been paid. The suit was originally filed against the Governor-General-in-Council. On 15-3-1950, the plaintiff made an application for amending the cause-title & body of the plaint by substituting the 'Union of India' in the place & stead of the Governor-General-in-Council. On 27-4-1950, an order was made by Bachawat, J. ordering substitution & further directing as follows: 'That this suit be placed on the peremptor...
Tag this Judgment!Bholanath Roy Vs. Ranigunj Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Cal351
ORDERChunder, J.1. This Rule was issued at the Instance of the petitioner who has been convicted and fined by a First Class Magistrate under Section 503, Bengal Municipal Act read with bye-law 25 framed under the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act. The definition of Magistrate in Section 3(54), Bengal Municipal Act is 'the District Magistrate, the Magistrate in charge of a Division of the District in which Division a municipality is constituted and every Magistrate of the First Class, subordinate to the District Magistrate to whom the District Magistrate may have made over any duties under this Act'. It is not disputed that the Magistrate who tried this case had not been specially empowered by the District Magistrate with the duties of trying cases under the Bengal Municipal Act or this particular case under Section 5(2), Criminal P. C., special definition of Magistrate will be attracted to the class of court which will try offences under the Bengal Municipal Act under the 2nd Sche...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirendra Nath Das Vs. Hrishikesh Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal93,55CWN594
Harries, C.J.1. This is a reference to a F. B. made by a Bench of this Ct. in a matter arising out of proceedings Under Section 147, Cr. P. C.2. The facts giving rise to these proceedings can be shortly stated as follows.3. In Chandernagore there is a deity named Sri Sri Govinda Jiu popularly known as Gopalji Thakur. The present petnr. claims to be the shebait of the said deity and according to him the deity is a family deity. The opposite parties who were religiously minded Hindus of the Districts contend that Gopalji Thakur is a public deity and that the temple in which the deity is housed and the adjoining lands form a public debutter and that from time immemorial the Hindus of the locality used to worship the said deity in the temple and offer puja to it. The opposite parties alleged that the petnr. had in recent times attempted to obstruct the public in the worship of this deity by keeping the door of the temple closed and refusing would-be worshippers access thereto. As a result ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Kanchanmala Dassi Vs. Sm. Lilabati Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal164
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a suit for the recovery of premises No. 8 Latu Mullick Lane, Calcutta. The ground on which the ejectment is asked is, first, that the deft. has been using or allowing the premises to be used as a brothel & thereby has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to the occupiers of the neighbouring premises, & secondly, service of notice dated 9-7-1949 by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta under the Bengal Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act. The notice to quit is pleaded as having been served on the deft. & is dated 13-7-1949, asking the deft. to vacate on the expiry of July 1949. The written statement of the deft. denies that the premises are being used as brothel or that it is a nuisance or annoyance to occupiers of the adjoining or neighbouring premises. There is also denial of the service of notice by the Commissioner of police.2. Mr. Banerjee appeared for the pltf. & Mr. Robi Roy for the deft. On behalf of the deft., the following issues we...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Safi Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal97,55CWN463
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an appln. under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the resps. to cancel or recall notfns. NOS. 3642 L. Dev. & 3644 L. Dev. both dated 4-4-1950 issued under the West Bengal Land Development & Planning Act, 1948 & also to forbear from giving effect to the said notfns.2. The petnr. is the owner of certain lands appertaining to Cadastral Survey Plot NOS. 389, 390, 391 & 966 at Mouza Manirampur & Thana Barrackpore in the District of 24 Parganas. The petnr. cultivates the said lands & grows various kinds of vegetables thereon & sells the same at the Sadar Bazar, Barrackpore & the sale proceeds of these vegetables are alleged to be the only means of livelihood of the petnr. & his family. The lands in question have been used for the last forty years for growing high class vegetables. The petnr. has also erected a building on the said lands consisting of six rooms out-of which four rooms are let out to tenants & two rooms are o...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Kinkar Roy Vs. Nikhil Chandra Jyotishopadhaya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal101,55CWN627
Harries, C.J.1. This is a reference made to a F. B. by a Bench of this Ct. in a criminal matter.2. In order to appreciate the points involved it will be necessary shortly to set out the facts giving rise to the proceedings culminating in this reference.3. The opposite party was a tenant of the petnr. On 11-8-1949 the petnr. gave a receipt for Rs. 101 which sum, it is alleged, was paid by the opposite party as rent in advance. On 13-1-1950 the petnr. through a pleader, gave to the opposite party a notice to quit alleging that there had been default in the payment of rent for three consecutive months, namely, from September to November 1949. On 6-2-1950 the opposite party, through his pleader, wrote stating that the rent in question was not in arrear and that it had actually been paid in advance. On 7-2-1950 the petnr. filed a complaint in the Ct. of the Presidency Mag. Under Sections 468 and 471, Penal Code. It was alleged that the opposite party had altered the receipt for Rs. 101 paid...
Tag this Judgment!Mangru Meya and ors. Vs. Commissioners of the Budge Budge Municipality ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal333
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel or withdraw the notice dated 27-2-1950 served on the petitioners and also for an order for cancellation of the resolution dated 24-2-1950 passed by the respondents and for direction calling upon the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the said resolution and/or the said notice.2. The petitioners are the owners of two beef shops in Ward No. 4 Charial, Budge Budge, to the District of 24-Parganas. The petitioner 3 is the nephew of the petitioners 1 and 2 and one of the said beef shops is stated to have come into existence 100 years ago. The area in which the shops are situated is an industrial area and it is stated that it is inhabited predominantly by Mahomedans. It is alleged that beef is one of the staple food of Mahomedans particularly the poorer section of that community and due to the persistent demands of the local people two...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »