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.
Samarendra Prosad Chakravarty and anr. Vs. the University of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal172,55CWN443
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an order directing the respondent to withdraw or recall its decision that only such students of Class X of the Chakraberia H.E. School who pass the Test Examination conducted by one Subal Chandra Pal, officiating Head Master of the School and are sent up for the Matriculation Examination in 1951 by him will be admitted to the examination by the University and also for an order on the respondent calling upon it to issue the necessary forms and take other necessary steps for the admission of the petitioners to the ensuing Matriculation Examination.2. The petitioners are two out of 100 students of Class X of a well-known school in South Calcutta known as Chakraberia High English School now located at 93, Bakul Bagan Row and 23/1, Chakraberia Road South. The said school was originally started in 1857 and was run as a Middle English School until the year 1938 when it was converted into a High English School and...
Gorachand Mullick Vs. Shaik Kallo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal557,55CWN503
ORDERSinha, J.1. This is an appln. for an order that the deft., his servants & agents, be restrained by an injunction from taking any steps or proceedings in respect of the appln. now pending before the Rent Controller, Calcutta, being appln. No. 590 of 1951. The facts are briefly as follows :2. The ptlf. is the owner of premises No. 112 A, Harrison Road. The deft. is the tenant of a bare plot of land or a plot of land with a hut, which is a matter of dispute. On the footing that the tenancy relates to a bare plot of land, the pltf. has instituted this suit against the deft. for ejectment. The deft. claims that there is a hut on the laud & has sought protection under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950. There can be no doubt that in this suit, the nature of the tenancy will have to be decided, since upon such finding will depend the question as to whether the pltf. can get a decree for possession at all. The pltf. relies on a letter, said to be written by ...
Bank of Calcutta Ltd. Vs. Dhirendra Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal325,56CWN517
ORDERBachawat, J.1. On 17-7-1933 there was a mortgage of various valuable immovable properties, by the defendant in favour of Jessore Loan Company Ltd. In 1938 Jessore Loan Company Ltd. instituted this suit to enforce the mortgage. On 4-2-1946 the Jessore Loan Company Ltd. was amalgamated with the Bank of Calcutta Ltd. The Bank of Calcutta Ltd. became entitled to all the assets of Jessore Loan Company Ltd. and was substituted in its place as the plaintiff in this suit. On 15-11-1946 by consent of all parties preliminary mortgage decree for sale was passed in the suit.2. The Bank of Calcutta fell into difficulties and on 26-11-1946 there was an interim order granting moratorium upon the undertaking of the Directors of the Bank not to pay more than 25 per cent. to the creditors. This undertaking was modified from time to time. On 8-12-1946 the Directors were given liberty to pay in full the deposits made after 26-11-1946. On 17-3-1947 the Directors were given liberty to pay up to 60 per ...
Jhabermal Dudhwalla and ors. Vs. Govindram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal121
1. This Rule was issued on the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why the proceedings pending against the petitioners under Section 41, West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, should not be quashed.2. According to the petition of complaint on which these proceedings were started a flat in Premises No. 20, Baranashi Ghose Street, Calcutta, which was let out to the petitioner belongs to the accused No. 1 Jhabarmal Dudhwalla and that he had stopped the essential supply of filtered water supplied from the electric pump and when certain persons went to fetch water from the tap from the ground floor they were assaulted by Sukdeb and Kaloo Singh at the instigation of Jhabarmal Dudhwalla. All the accused persons were summoned by the Magistrate under Section 41, West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950.3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the accused No. 1 Jhabarmal Dudhwalla is not the landlord within the meaning of Section 41, West Bengal Rent Contro...
The State of Bombay Vs. Adamjee Hajee Dawood and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal147
Banerjee, J.1 This is an appeal from a decree made by Sarkar J. on 22-8-1950, dismissing a suit on a preliminary issue. That issue is as to whether the suit is maintainable in view of Section 32, Arbitration Act, 1940. Section 32 is as follows:'Notwithstanding any law for the time being in force, no suit shall lie on any ground whatsoever for a decision upon the existence, effect or validity of an arbitration agreement or award, nor shall any arbitration agreement or award be set aside, amended, modified or in any way affected otherwise than as provided in this Act.'2. The facts are as follows. The plff. it appears from the plaint, claims a declaration that a certain contract was not made between the parties & is not binding on it. The plff. claims a further declaration that the deft. is not entitled to make any claim in respect of the said contract & asks that the contract be adjudged void & delivered up to be cancelled. There is a prayer for an injunction to restrain the deft., its s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›