Kolkata Court May 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.
In Re: Srinath Zamindary (In Liqdn.)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal207
ORDERBanerjee, J.1. This is an application on behalf of one of the lessors for an order that the liquidator do give possession to the lessors-of the demised land. The application is made by one of the lessors and is supported by two others. It is opposed by Srimati Usha Bala Dassi, the fourth lessor.2. The question is whether the lease has come to an end. The lease was granted on 17th July, 1928, to the company which is in liquidation, and contains, among others, the following clause:'In case the company goes to liquidation voluntarily or otherwise, this lease shall cease to be operative and the company shall forthwith make over possession of the abad to the proprietors.' 'Abad' is the property in question.3. The company went into voluntary liquidation on 2nd May, 1950. Srimati Usha Bala made an application for the compulsory winding up of the company. The application was admitted by this Court. In due course the winding up order was made. The date of the order is 11th December, 1950. ...
Rellim Ltd. Vs. Vise (H.M. Inspector of Taxes).
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1951
Reported in: [1952]22ITR51(Cal)
WYNN-PARRY, J. - The principal of law which govern this case are perfectly clear; and as the matter strikes me it is one which upon examination will be found to raise no more than a very short question -short, but not thereby easy to answer - namely whether or not the Commissioners had evidence before them upon which they could properly make the finding which they did. The Commissioners finding is expressed in these words : ' We the Commissioners who heard the appeal found that the company was a trading company with trading profits'. In my view that is a perfectly clear finding and is not open to the same sort of doubt to which the first finding of the Commissioners in the case of Leeming v. Jones was open. Thus, one is faced there was no evidence upon which the Commissioners could properly base that finding ?The Commissioners refer in paragraph 1 of the case stated to the incorporation of the company in 1938 and to those of its objects as set out in clause 3 of its memorandum of assoc...
Krishna Lal Mazumdar Vs. Manindra Nath Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal231,56CWN258
ORDERHarries, C.J. 1. This is a petition from an order of a learned Judge of the Small Cause Court dis-missing an application by the tenant defendant for relief under Section 18 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. 2. A suit for possession was decreed on 25th November 1949. On 24th May 1950 an application was made under Section 18 of the Rent Control Act, 1950, for relief and by consent the amount of the outstanding arrears of rent etc. was fixed at Rs. 1952/11/3. The amount was deposited, but the landlord refused to accept the same and moved the High Court in revision against the order of the Court vacating the decree for possession upon deposit of the amount due. The revision application was allowed by this Court and the rule was made absolute. The result was that the tenant's application for relief under the 1950 Act stood rejected and the order for possession remained. This was the state of affairs, when on 4th December 1950, the application gi...
Ramesh Chandra Majumdar Vs. Sm. Sobodhbala Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal198,55CWN508
ORDERHarries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order made by a learned Judge of the Small Cause Court directing certain security under Section 14 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950.2. The suit had been brought by the landlord for ejectment and for a large sum as arrears of rent. An application was made to the Court under Section 14 that the Court should ascertain in the amount of the arrears of rent and direct the tenant to deposit the same and the future monthly rent as it fell due in Court pending the disposal of the case.3. The case for the tenant is that there is no rent due at all because under an agreement made between him and the landlord the tenant was entitled to deduct from a future rent the cost of repiars. The tenant claims that the repairs cost Rs. 2,000/- and if that was deducted from the rent as it fell due, nothing was due and owing for rent.4. It seems to me that the Court must decide this question before it can ma...
Dharamsi Liladhar Vora Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal439,55CWN665
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This is a Rule against an order of the Full Bench of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes upholding a decree of the trial Judge dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff's suit was filed on December 21, 1948, against the Governor-General of the Dominion of India. His claim is in respect of loss, non-delivery, or destruction of two consignments valued at Rs. 187/8/-. The goods were despatched from a station on the, Bombay Baroda and Central Indian Railway to Calcutta to be delivered by the Bengal Nagpur Railway.2. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been served. The only notices proved are Ex. 4, copy of notices sent by registered post to the General Managers of each of the two Railways, dated July 21, 1948, with the accompanying acknowledgment due from the General Manager of each Railway. Besides these notices another notice was sent on August 12, 1948, addressed to the Gov...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›