Kolkata Court May 1951 Judgments
P.C. Guha and ors. Vs. B.A. Basil
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal554,55CWN611
Harries, C.J.1. These are two connected revision cases from orders of an appellate Ct. made in proceedings for fixation of standard rent.2. P. C. Guha, the petnr. in Civil Revision Case No. 1372 of 1950 was a tenant of two rooms together with a bath & kitchen in premises known as 15-A Lindsay Street. He became a tenant on 1-6-1946 at a monthly rental of Rs. 55/-. This rent was increased in October, 1947 to Rs. 66-8-0 & further increased in December 1948 to Rs. 68-9-0. It was said that the rent payable for these premises on 1-12-1941 was Rs. 55/- per month.3. The opposite party landlord made an application to the Rent Controller for fixation of the standard rent of these premises contending that the standard rent should be Rs. 200/- per month. The tenant filed objections & on 5-12-1949 the Rent Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 160-14-0 & directed that that rent should take effect from the month of July 1949.4. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chief Judge of the Ct. of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramananda Agarwalla and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal120,55CWN572
Harries, C.J.1. This Ct. issued a Rule upon the Disk. Mag. of Burdwan to show cause why the records of this case should not be transferred to this Ct. for the decision of certain constitutional points which were said to arise in the case. The records were duly transferred and this Ct. has heard arguments on the constitutional points under the powers granted to it by Article 228 of the Const. Ind.2. The petnrs. were charged with contravention of Section 10 (1), Bengal Foodgrains Control Order, 1945 which had been made under powers granted by the Essential Supplies Act (Act XXIV [24] of 1946).3. The case for the prosecution was that on 23-5-1950 the petnrs. had in their possession more than fifty maunds of rice without a permit. The case was that they had hidden this rice amounting in all to fifty maunds and five seers in a number of barrels which were concealed in a lorry or truck. The learned Mag. found the petnrs. guilty and convicted them of an offence Under Section 7, Essential Supp...
Tag this Judgment!Dhajadhari Chatterjee Vs. Nitya Nanda Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal102
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This is a Rule against an order of a Judge of the Small Cause Court Calcutta, refusing an application purporting to be one under Section 18(1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, as subsequently amended for rescinding a decree for possession.2. The Original Order was passed on March 25, 1950, by consent in a proceeding in which the only defualt alleged under the Act of 1948 was one under Section 12(3) of the Act, usually referred to as an ipso-facto defualt. On May, 20, after Act XVII of 1950 came into force, the tenant made an application under Section 18(1) of that Act for relief. That was granted, although objection was taken by the landlord that the decree was a consent decree. On revision by this court, it was pointed out that the case was clearly one of ipso-facto default, and, in view of the interpretation put on Section 18(1) at that time, it had no application to such cases. Therefore, in revision this court set aside the order of the. learn...
Tag this Judgment!Ramapada Chatterji Vs. the Indian Iron Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal559
Das, J1. This is an application in revision on behalf of the debtors & arises out of proceedings under Section 37A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act.2. The opposite party purchased the disputed properties in execution of a money decree obtained by them against the petitioners. Thereafter the Govt. issued a notification under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of these properties. The properties have since been acquired by the Collector & the opposite parties have been put in possession by the Collector in regard to the plots now in dispute & other plots. Meanwhile, the proceedings before the Board continued & there was an order by the Board holding that the proceedings before the Board were maintainable. This matter came up to this Court in revision. A point was taken before this Court that in view of what had happened since the institution of the proceedings under Section 37A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, the application before the Board was not maintainable & could not proce...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Debi Jalan and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, CalcuttA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1951
Reported in: [1951]20ITR176(Cal)
CHAKRAVARTTI, J. - These are nine references concerning as many assessments of 8 ideas for, in the case of all of them, the assessment year 1945-46, and in the case of one, for the assessment year 1946-47 as well. The point involved in all these case is the same. The question asked is whether a particular sum of money, which was the profit make by the lady concerned from the sale of a block of shares held by her, was a part of her business income, taxable as such or a casual receipt from a source other than business and so exempt from taxation.The proceeding have had a course which, for income-tax cases, is rather unusual. In the Tribunal there was a difference of opinion between the two members, the Lawyers Members holding that the amounts concerned were not taxable and the Accountant Member holding that they were. Thereupon the cases were referred to a third member who happened to be an accountant and he agreed with the Accountant Member for the reason given by him. The judgment of t...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Mitra Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal524
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment & order of the Special Judge, Alipore, convicting the appellant; of an offence under Section 161, Penal Code, & sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for eight months & to pay a fine of Rs. 3000 which includes a fine of Rs. 2000 as required by Section 9 (1), West Bengal Act XXI [21] of 1949; in default of payment of the fine a further sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four months is imposed by the Special Judge.2. The case for the prosecution may be stated briefly.3. The appellant was at all relevant times the Accounts Officer & Financial Adviser to the Deputy General Manager, Grains, East Indian Railway, Calcutta. In that capacity he is said to have accepted directly from G. H. M. Patel of Messrs G. C. Bose & Co. a sum of Rs. 2000 as gratification with the motive of facilitating the passing of outstanding bills of Messrs. G. C. Bose & Co. relating to the supply of potatoes & onions to the East Indian Railway Administration....
Tag this Judgment!Bela Debi Vs. Bon Behary Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal86
ORDERSinha, J.1. This is an application for an order that the schedule to the plaint in the suit, and the-consent decree dated 5 6-1939, and also of the agreement dated 1-12-1933, be corrected, and/or amended, by inserting the correct schedule as mentioned in para. 20 of the petition. There is also a prayer that the Registrar be directed to appoint a Surveyor to survey the premises No. 69/l, Cossipore Road, Calcutta, after amendment and that he should be further directed to execute the conveyance in accordance with the correct schedule.2. The facts are briefly as follows:3. The defendant Bon Behari Roy is the owner of certain plots of land situated on the Cossipore-Road. On or about 1-12 1933, Roy executed an agreement for sale in favour of one Chandrika Prasad Gupta, in respeet of the plots of land which had been described in the agreement for sale in the following matter:'All that piece and parcel of land (which is at present covered with water) measuring about 10 cottabs of land (be...
Tag this Judgment!Probodh K. Sarkar Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal385,56CWN437
Bachawat, J.1. This is an application by Mr. B.K. Ghose, Receiver, appointed in Suit No. 420 of 1950 for the appointment of an umpire in place and stead of the late Sri Sarat Chandra Bose and for other reliefs.2. There were three contracts between Probodh Kumar Sarkar and the respondent Union of India. Each contract contains an arbitration clause providing for reference to two arbitrators one to be appointed by each and in the event of disagreement between them to an umpire appointed by them.3. Sarkar claimed that large sums of motley were due to him from the Union of India under the contracts. The disputes were referred to the arbitration of two arbitrators, one arbitrator being nominated by each party. Both arbitrators were unable or unwilling to act and on 9-3-1949 there was an order referring the disputes to the arbitration of Bakshi Shib Charan Singh and Sri S.C. Mitter and in case of difference of opinion between them, to an umpire to be nominated by the joint arbitrators. On 21-...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Chandra Vs. Himangshu Kumar Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal316,55CWN605
ORDERBose, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 6-5-1950, passed by respondent 2 in certain departmental proceedings taken against the petitioner.2. It appears that the petitioner was a member of the clerical establishment in the Bengal Police for the last 23 years and was governed by the Bengal Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1936. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed a clerk in the Bengal Police some time in April 1927 by the Deputy Inspector General, Backergunj range, and the petitioner was given a letter of appointment according to the service rules of the Police Service. This fact of the petitioner being appointed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Backergunj, is, however, not stated in the petition but it appears that for the purpose of establishing this fact before the Court the petitioner's solicitor by a le...
Tag this Judgment!Parasram Harnandrai Vs. Chitandas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal82,55CWN585
ORDERSinha, J.1. This is an application for revocation of leave which has been granted to the plff., under the provisions of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The facts are briefly as follows: There is a shop, situate at Katra Tobacco, Khari Baoli, in Delhi, under the name & style of 'Peramal Chetandas. The plff. is a registered partnership firm, carrying on business under the name & style of Parasram Harnandrai at 129 Cotton Street, Calcutta & also at Delhi. The plff. firm claims the said business of 'Peramal Chetandas' to be a partnership of which the partnership firm is one of the partners. The deft. Chetandas says that he is the sole owner of the business which bears his own name & that of his father Peramal. The process by which the plff. firm claims to have become a partner is set out in the plaint & is as follows: (1) In or about 5-3-1945, one Rajinder Kumar, Bhuramal & Mangalchand, entered into a 'verbal agreement in Calcutta, for the purpose of carrying on business in co-partne...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »