Kolkata Court April 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.
Mahammad Ibrahim Vs. Bani Madhab Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal196,55CWN518
Banerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment of P. B. Mu-kharjee, J., which was passed on 10th July, 1950, decreeing the landlords' suit for possession.2. The point involved in the appeal is a short one, namely, whether the defendants come within the mischief of Section 11 (1) (b) of the Rent Control Act of 1948 (hereinafter for the sake of convenience referred to as 'unlawful subletting). It. is admitted on behalf of the parties by their counsel that the Act of 1948 governs the rights of the parties in this case.3. That section (inter alia) provides that a tenant is deprived of the protection of the Act where he 'has sublet, or otherwise transferred his interests in the premises for more than six consecutive months and to the extent either of the whole or a major portion of the premises, in the absence of any contract or other authority in writing expressly permitting such subletting or transfer.'4. The facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiffs (landlords)...
Pratap Singh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal90,55CWN470
1. Of the present petitioners, one was put up on trial for an offence under Section 3 (1) and the other two for offence under Section 3 (1) read with Section 6, West Bengal Black Marketing Act, 1948. They were all acquitted of the charges. The Special Tribunal, however, passed an order direct, ing forfeiture by the Government of Umbrella Cloth Exs. II to VI in respect of which the offence under the Black Marketing Act was alleged to have been committed. This rule was directed against that order of forfeiture.2. Mr. Das appearing in support of the rule has contended firstly that the order of forfeitures cannot clearly be made under the provisions of the Black Marketing Act and secondly, that no such order can be passed under the General provisions of Section 517, Criminal P. C. Section 3, Black Marketing Act which provides for the punishment for the offence of black marketing provides further that in addition to any other punishment, the Court before which a person is convicted of the o...
Marzia Khatun Saheba Vs. Srimanta Kumar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal315,56CWN95
ORDERRoxburgh, J. 1. This is a Rule against an order passed in appeal by the District Judge of Burdwan in a matter for fixation of standard rent under the Rent Control Acts. The original application was dealt with by the Rent Controller under the Act of 1948. The appeal was disposed of on 6-6-1950, after Act 17 of 1950 came into force. Under the provisions of Section 17 (3) of the later Act, the standard rent was to be fixed in accordance with the provisions of that Act. It is quite clear from the judgment of the learned District Judge that he never considered the effect of the provisions of the new Act, and dealt with the matter as though it was entirely to be disposed of under Section 9 (a) or 9 (g) of the Act of 1948.2. It is therefore necessary to set aside the order of the learned Judge and direct him to re-hear the matter.3. I have already decided in the case of --'Charu Bala Dassi v. Satyaranjan Mukherjee', Civil Revn. Case No. 954 of 1950 (Cal), andin subsequent cases, that, th...
Anumathi Sadhukhan Vs. A.K. Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal90
ORDERBose, J.1. This is a petn. under Article 226 of the Constitution for an order on the opposite party to revoke or cancel the order, dated 7-12-1950, issued under his signature, notifying & directing that husking mill owners were authorised to husk half of their previous permitted quantities upto 14-12-1950 & no husking mill should be run after that date without obtaining further orders, & also for issue of permits for running such husking machines without imposing restrictions on the quantities to foe husked, & for issue of licenses to run the husking machines for husking paddy of the local consumers.2. The petnr. is the license-holder of three husking mills situate at Duttapukur, Beliaghatta & Changdana in the Barasat Sub-Division within the District of 24 Perganas, holding License Nos. 35 A. L. P., 34 A. L. P. & 31 A. L. P. respectively. Barasat Sub-Division is a deficit & non-procurement area. The petnr. had been carrying on the business of husking paddy at the said mills for ab...
Protap Kumar Sen and anr. Vs. Nagendra Nath Mazumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal511,55CWN624
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. On 30-5-1947, the pltfs. petnrs. filed a suit in the Ct. of the Subordinate Judge at Jessore, then a part of undivided Bengal. In pursuance of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge certain properties, belonging to the deft. situate within the district of 24 Pergannas, were on 28-6-1947, attached before judgment through the Dist. J. at Alipore. When the suit was so pending in the Jessore Ct. under the Indian Independence Act, 1947 (10 & 11 Geo. VI, c. 30) two new Dominions came into existence with effect from 15-8-1947; & among others the then Province of Bengal was partitioned between the two said Dominions, India & Pakistan.2. The suit pending in the Jessore Ct. was decreed ex parte on 9-12-1948 On 3-8-1949, the pltfs. D. Hs. applied before the Subordinate Judge at Jessore, then situate within the Dominion of Pakistan, for a certificate of non-satisfaction under Order XXI, RULE 6, Civil P. C. The certificate of non-satisfaction was accordingly issued on 18-8-19...
Abinash Chandra Jana and ors. Vs. Chakradhar Khatua and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal499,55CWN717
K.C. Chunder, J.1. This rule was issued at the instance of a purchaser of a part of a holding against whom an order for pre- emption had been made on the application of a co-sharer tenant of the holding.2. The facts are not in dispute except as to whether there was a partition or not. The facts briefly are that three sets of tenants were amongst themselves separately possessing the lands of the holding. The District Judge has held that there was a partition and he has relied upon an admission made in the sale deed which is the title deed of the pre-empting co-sharer tenant. The position was accepted by the District Judge namely that there was a partition of the lands of the holding. It must be said that the holding has not been split up Under Section 88 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and there has not arisen separate holdings. All the tenants remain co-sharer tenants of the holding. Section 26P, Bengal Tenancy Act, gives a right to co-sharers tenants of a holding the right to pre-empt in ca...
Nalinakhya Bysack and anr. Vs. Shyam Sundar Halder and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal199,55CWN621
K.C. Chunder, J.1. This Rule was obtained by a landlord against an order of a Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, granting relief to the opposite party tenant against ejectment under Section 18 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950.2. The question which arises in this case is whether Section 18 (1) of the Act of 1950 applies to orders passed under Section 43 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act in a proceeding under Section 41 of the said Act. This point was considered at length by a Divisional Bench of this Court in 'Atulya Dhan Banerjee v. Sudnangsu Bhusan', Civil Revn. C. No. 1358 of 1950 reported In 55 Cal W N 343', by Mr. Justice G. N. Das and Mr. Justice Lahiri in which the judgment was delivered by Mr. Justice Das and agreed to by Mr. Justice Lahiri. The question has been examined at great length there and almost everything that was urged before us is covered by that judgment. Mr. Justice Das has very rightly pointed out that...
Rani Bala Seth Vs. East Indian Rly.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal501,55CWN522
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal preferred by a widow whose claim to compensation for the death of her husband was dismissed by the Comr. for Workmen's Compensation.2. The workman was one B.K. Seth by name & at the time of his death he was employed as an engine driver in the East India Rly. On 2nd March 1947, he finished his duty at Chitpore Locomotive Shed at 5.45 A.M. At about 6.15 A.M. he was knocked down by a train at Ultadanga Rly. Station & killed. His widow Ranibala Seth claimed compensation & alleged that the average wages of the workman was between Rs. 100/- & Rs. 200/- per month.3. The learned Comr. came to the conclusion that the accident did not arise out of & in the course of the employment of the workman. He was actually killed on a rly. platform & in the view of the learned Comr. that was a public place to which the public had access. The risks of that place were not risks of the employment, but were risks to which the general public were exposed & therefore he was of t...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Indumati Saha W/O Upendra Nath Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal512,55CWN662
Guha, J.1. This is an appln. for revn. of an order, dated 29-4-1960, passed by an Addl. Dist. J. of 24-Pergannas.2. The facts are briefly as follows: On 30-1-1946, sixty-five bags of tobacco were booked by the pltf. opposite party from Nilphamari, a station on the B. A. Rly. Administration for carriage & delivery to him at Khulna which is also on the same Rly. Administration. Both the stations are now within the Dominion of Pakistan. On 8-2-1946, the pltf. was given delivery of only forty, five bags out of sixty-five bags, the balance having been lost in transit. On 22-1 1947, the pltf. instituted a suit against the then Governor-General of India in Council as representing the B. A. Rly. Administration. This suit was instituted in the Ct. of the Subordinate Judge at Khulna, & it was based on a claim for compensation for short delivery of consignment. On 15-7-1948, the Khulna Ct. ordered the return of the plaint to the pltf. holding that the liability was of the Indian Dominion. Thereup...
Dr. Surendra Nath Mandal and ors. Vs. Ram Chandra Awasthi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal504
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an appln. under Art. 226 of the Const. Ind. for order on the opposite party No. 2, the Addl. Dist. Mag. of 24-Parganas, to show cause why certain orders made by him in relation to the affairs of the Budge Budge Municipality on 9-2-1951 & 16-2-1951, should not be set aside or cancelled & as to why the opposite party No. 1 should not be restrained from functioning as Chairman of the Municipality.2. The facts are shortly as follows : The petns. are the seven Comrs. of the Budge Budge Municipality. Resp. l was the Chairman of the Comrs. of the Municipality since 4-2-1949. It is alleged that 8 Comrs. out of the total number of 10 Comrs. of the Municipality lost confidence in the Chairman & on 8-9-1950, a requisition signed by 7 Comrs. was served on the Chairman for convening a special meeting for considering a proposal for removal of the Chairman from office. It is further alleged that the Chairman did not take steps to convene the meeting within 15 days of the servi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »