Kolkata Court March 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.
Nanda Dulal Dey Vs. Bisseswar Chakravarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal177,57CWN550
Mookerjee, J.1. This Rule was obtained on behalf of the tenant and is directed against an order passed by the Court of Small Causes under Section 32 (4) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. The learned opposite party made an application before the Rent Controller, Calcutta for fixing the standard rent in respect of the premises in question under the provisions of Section 9 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, and claimed Rs. 250/- per month as the fair rent of the premises. The Rent Controller had the premises inspected by an Inspector under Section 31 of the said Act, read with Rule 9 framed under Section 47 of the said Act. After the submission of the inspection report the Additional Rent Controller personally inspected the premises, but he did not himself take any measurement or make any record of the result of his inspection. The Additional Rent Controller assessed the standard rent at Rs. 126/8 as per mont...
Sarkar and Brothers (Properties) Ltd. Vs. Anil Kumar Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal56
Bose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ in the nature of Certiorari and for other Writs mentioned in the petition, for cancellation or quashing of certain orders passed by the Judge, 4th Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, and by the Rent Controller, Calcutta, dated the 4th of August 1950 and 13th of January 1950 respectively and also for direction calling upon them and the other-respondents to forbear from taking steps or from, executing or giving effect to the said orders.2. On the 13th of January 1948, the respondent No. 1, Anil Kumar Dutta became a lessee under Messrs. Sarkar & Bros, a firm, under an indenture of lease in respect of a shop room situated at premises No. 2, Maharshi Debendra Road, in Calcutta. Under a similar indenture of lease of the same date the respondent Girish Chandra Daw & Sons also became a lessee under the said Messrs. Sarkar & Bros, in respect of another shop room situated in the said premises. Both the l...
Dharani Mohun Roy Vs. Prafulla Kumar Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal281,55CWN742
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit in the Presidency Small Cause Court against the defendant who was a bustee sarkar under the former for realising rents and depositing the same with the plaintiff. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant had not deposited the amounts realised by him in respect of various bills and in particular, in respect of 20 bills which had been realised by the defendant, but had not been duly credited in the office of the plaintiff. The plaintiff estimated that the total amount so misappropriated was Rs. 1170/3/. Giving up portions of the claim, Rs. 500/- only was claimed. The defendant denied his liability and the various allegations made in the plaint. He, on the other hand, alleged that arrears of salaries were due to the defendant, and the-latter was also entitled to compensation for wrongful dismissal. The learned Judge, however, returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, as in his view, the claim in suit fel...
W.L. Faria Vs. Anita Merlene Faria and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal66
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. In this Rule the petnr. has challenged an order passed by the Chief Presidency Mag. of Calcutta under Section 488, Criminal P. C. directing the petnr. to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50 per month to his daughter Anita Merlene Faria. The petnr. is the husband, opposite party no. 2 Mrs. Mevis Faria is the wife, & opposite party No. 1 Anita Merlene Faria is the daughter. The appln. under Section 488, Criminal P. C. was made by opposite party no. 2 on behalf of heraelf & the daugther Anita Merlene Faria. The Chief Presidency Mag. dismissed, the appln. so far as the wife was concerned on the finding that she had separated from her husband by mutual consent & had agreed not to claim any maintenance from him. The appln. made by the wife on behalf of the daughter was allowed & upon his finding that the petnr.'s income was roughly Rs. 200 per month, the learned Mag. on a consideration of all the circumstances, fixed the amount of maintenance at Rs. 50 per month.2. Thr...
Narendra Gopal Das Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal505
ORDER1. In this rule the petnr. has challenged his conviction & sentence Under Section I7(l), Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, & S. 11 (3), West Bengal Security Act, 1950,2. The petnr. was originally charged also Under Section 143, Penal Code, & Section 17 (2), Criminal Law Amendment Act. Under Section 17 (2), Cr. L. A. Act the petnr. was acquitted but Under Section 143, Penal Code, he was convicted by the trying Mag. The trying Mag. sentenced the petnr. to six months R. I. on each of the counts Under Section 17 (1), Cr.L.A. Act, Section 143, Penal Code, & Section 11 (3), W. B. S. A. the sentences being ordered to run consecutively. On appeal however, the petnr. was acquitted so far as the alleged offence Section 143, Penal Code, was concerned & the sentence Under Section 17 (l), Cr. L. A. Act was also reduced to two months R. I. There remains now this conviction & sentence Under Section 17 (l), Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 & Section 11 (3), West Bengal Security Act, 1950, as pass...
Prasanta Kumar Mukerjee Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal91,55CWN619
ORDER1. The petitioner was tried along with several other persons on a charge under Section 147, I. P. C. The trial took place inside the Hooghly Jail, and was by a Magistrate who was posted at Serampore. On the 23rd of August, 1950, after examining 5 prosecution witnesses inside the jail, the learned Magistrate framed a charge under Section 147, I. P. C. The Magistrate without fixing a fresh date for the cross-examination of the witnesses called upon the accused to cross-examine the witnesses then and there and accordingly when the witnesses had been cross-examined, the accused was examined under Section 342, Cr. P. C. No defence was adduced and after hearing the argument, 6-9-50 was fixed for judgment, and was delivered on that date convicting the accused and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. An appeal against this order was dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Hooghly but the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The first contention rai...
Narendra Krishna Vs. Gour Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal500
Sen, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the landlord. The tenant applied for fixation of standard rent before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller fixed the rent and the tenant appealed. The appeal of the tenant was successful and the landlord has now obtained this Rule against the order passed on appeal.2. The proceedings for standardisation were under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, and the Rent Controller passed his order under that Act. When the appeal was filed, the new Act of 1950 came into force. The appeal was filed before the Chief Judge of the Presidency Court of Small Causes and he acting in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 (1) (a) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, transferred the case for hearing to another Judge at Calcutta, Court of Small Causes. The Judge decided the appeal.3. It is argued on behalf of the landlord that the Court had no jurisdiction whatsoe...
Abed Ali Vs. Prafulla Kumar Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal544
Harries, C.J.1. This is a Reference made to a Full Bench by a Bench of this Court in an appeal from an order of a single Judge sitting on the Original Side. The Bench referring the case pointed out that there was a conflict of authority and that' however the case was decided, another Bench decision of this Court would have to be, dissented from. That being so the referring Bench was of opinion that it had no alternative but to refer the case to a Full Bench.2. To appreciate, the points involved it will be necessary shortly to set out the facts which gave rise to this litigation.3. The defendant-appellant resides in a village called Kulgachia in the District of Howrah, the village being about twenty-eight miles away from Calcutta. He carried on the business of manufacturing mosquito netting and eventually one Maniruddin who had purchased, netting from the defendant-appellant introduced the latter to the plaintiff Prafulla Kumar Sen Gupta. The , plaintiff ordered quantities of. mosquito ...
Sri Lal, D.H. Vs. W.C. Irving, J.D. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal506
K.C. Chunder, J.1. These three rules were issued against three orders of the Munsif of Burdwan. It appears that the petnr. in all these three applns. was the D. H. & the J. Ds. were rly. servants. The petnr. had originally prayed for the appointment of a Receiver & an order on the Chief Accounts Officer & the Divisional Accounts Officer of the East Indian Rly. for making over the provident fund money of these rly. servants to the Receiver. The Munsif had appointed a Receiver & directed the Chief Accounts Officer & the Divisional Accounts Officer to make over such provident fund money to the Receiver. The Rly. Officials came up to this Ct. & a single Judge of this Ct. in three revn. cases Nos. 1999 to 2001 of 1949, decided that there was nothing in law to prevent the appointment of a Receiver in execution but the provident fund money could not be made over, under the statute, to any one except the depositor himself. When the case went back the petnr. further prayed to the Munsif that th...
Rash Behari Ghosh Vs. Sibendra Nath Bose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal146,55CWN469
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This Rule is against the order of a Judge of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes allowing an application under Section 18(1) of Act XVII (17) of 1950. The only point urged here now in view of the amendment of Act XVII (17) of 1950 by the later Act LXII (62) of 1950 is that the order in question having been made by consent the provisions of Section 18 (1) are not applicable. Reliance for this is placed on the decision of 'Manick Chandra Pal v. Haripada', 52 Cal W N 230; Actually, in my opinion, it does not support the contention on the facts of this case. There was some discussion there of the question of the effect of a consent decree in regard to a similar provision in Section 9B(3) of the Calcutta House Rent Control Order. Finally, it was assumed for the present purposes in that case that a consent decree did come within those provisions. It was then pointed out however that the suit in question was one based purely on a notice to quit and that there was nothing to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »