Kolkata Court July 1951 Judgments
Tarapada Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal179
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226, of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the respondent from proceeding with certain departmental proceedings taken against the petitioner and from taking any steps against the petitioner under the Police Regulations, Bengal, 1943.2. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 2-1-1945 and has continued in such service under the State of West Bengal. The petitioner was posted as such Sub-Inspector at the Police Station of Sarupnagar in Basirhat Sub-Division in the District of 24 Parganas on the border of East Pakistan. On or about 13-1-1951, the petitioner was entrusted with the execution of warrant of arrest issued against one Anil Kumar Banerji of Charghat within the said Sarupnagar Police Station. The said warrant of arrest was issued by the Magistrate of Basirhat Sub Division as the said Anil Kumar Banerji failed to attend as a witness in his Court in one of the...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Lal Rathi Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal26,56CWN42
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This Rule was obtained against the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, the Superintendent of Presidency Jail and the State of West Bengal.2. The applicant before us has been detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, (Act IV of 1950) as amended by Act IV of 1951. The order of detention was made on the 10th July 1951 and served on the applicant on the next day, the 11th July, 1951. The grounds of detention were made out on the 12th July 1951 and communicated to the applicant on the 16th July 1951.3. The order of detention has been challenged on three grounds. It is said first that the grounds communicated to the applicant are not sufficient, exact and precise and they are too vague. The second ground of attack upon the order of detention is that it is illegal because its purpose is to nullify an order of acquittal and two orders of discharge, passed by Courts of law in favour of the applicant in some criminal cases brought against him. Thirdly, the order of det...
Tag this Judgment!iswari Prosad and ors. Vs. N.R. Sen and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal273,55CWN719
Harries, C.J.1. These are two connected civil revision cases arising out of orders made by learned Judges of the Small Causes Court vacating orders for ejectment which had been made under Section 12(3) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Provisions (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1948. In each of the cases the orders were vacated under the provisions of Section 18(1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1950, as amended by the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Act of 1950.2. The facts giving rise to Civil Revision No. 1369 of 1950. can be shortly stated as follows: The petitioner was the owner of premises known as No. 12 Pollock Street, Calcutta, whereas the opposite party was a monthly tenant of one room on the first floor of the said premises paying a monthly rental of Rs. 24-12-0. The tenant failed to pay the rent payable by him for the three consecutive months of March, April and May, 1949, whereupon the petitioner brought proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!Jugal Kishore Vs. Subh Karan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal571,56CWN170
G.N. Das, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the landlord (plaintiff) against orders of the Special Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta dated 29-11-1949 and 28-12-1949.2. The facts may be stated thus:The opposite party was a tenant of a portion of premises No. 203, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta at a rent of Rs. 127/- per month.After service of notice to quit on the opposite party the petitioner instituted proceedings under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act for eviction of the opposite party on the allegation that the tenancy had ipso facto determined on account of the latter's failure to pay rent for 3 consecutive months viz., Mangsir 2005 Sambat year to Magh 2005 Sambat year (corresponding to 17-11-1948 to 13-2-1949).The opposite party filed a written statement to the effect that rent was not due for 3 consecutive months and that notice to quit had not been served.3. The suit was heard by Sri B. P. Buxi, learned Judge, 4th Bench. By his preliminary judgment dat...
Tag this Judgment!Jadunath Roy and ors. Vs. Bank of Calcutta Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal506,[1952]22CompCas69(Cal),56CWN92
Banerjee, J.1. The petitioners before us who are the plaintiffs in suit No. 42 of 1946 pending in the Court of the Fifth Subordinate Judge Alipore, filed a suit for partition against the defendant bank which has its registered office at No. 3, Mangoe Lane, Calcutta, for partition of certain immovable properties.2. A preliminary decree by consent was passed on the 24th June, 1948 and a commissioner for partition was appointed.3. It appears that in respect of certain properties, the plaintiffs by subsequent transfer became the sole owners. No question arises as to the partition of these properties.4. A compulsory winding up order of the bank was made by this Court and on 1st April, 1949, a liquidator appointed. The cause title of the suit was then amended by bringing on the records of the suit the liquidator as a party to the suit. Leave was obtained under Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act to continue the suit.5. Thereafter the petitioners applied to the learned Subordinate Judge a...
Tag this Judgment!Shibaram Aditya Vs. Minor Subodh Kumar Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal533,56CWN82
G.N. Das, J.1. This rule was obtained by the landlord and is directed against an order dated 19-6-1950 and passed by Sri S. C. Biswas learned Judge 3rd Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta.2. The facts are as follows: In July 1948, while Rent Ordinance V of 1946, was in force, the petitioner initiated proceedings under Chap. VI of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act inter alia on the allegation that rent of the tenancy held by the opposite party was in arrears for 17 months, and that permission was duly taken from the Rent Controller. The West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948 came into force on 1-12-1948). On 1-6-1949 an order for possession was made by the trial Judge. The West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 came into force on 31-3-1950. Thereafter on 21-4-1950, the opposite party filed an application under Section 18 (1) of the 1950 Act. On 19-6-1950, the learned Judge 3rd Bench vacated the order for possession and...
Tag this Judgment!Satyanaraian Chamaria Vs. Sewmurat Sharma
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal550,56CWN167
G.N. Das, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the plaintiff landlord and is directed against an order dated 17-6-1950 passed by Sri S. K. Roy learned Judge, 6th Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta.2. The facts are as follows: The defendant opposite party was a tenant from month to month under the petitioner in respect of a shop-room on the ground floor of 32, Sir Hariram Goenka Street, Calcutta at a rent of Rs. 25/- per month. The petitioner instituted on 16-12-1949 a proceeding under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, on the ground that the opposite party had defaulted in payment of rent for 3 consecutive months viz., December 1948, January 1949 and February 1949 and that the tenancy had ipso facto determined. The proceedings ended on 31-3-1950 in an ex parte order for possession.3. The West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 came into force on 31-3-1950. On 30-5-1950, the opposite party filed an application under Section 18(1) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Mohan Das Vs. Biswanath Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal868
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ or direction upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 should not be called upon to exhibit the authority under which they purport to act as members of a Bhag Chas Conciliation Board constituted under the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950, and why they should not forbear from acting as such members and also for a direction upon opposite party no. 7 to cancel or withdraw the Notification, dated 18-1-1951, which constituted the Bhag Chas Conciliation Board in question.2. The petitioner claims to be a bargadar within the meaning of West Bengal Act 2 of 1950. It is alleged in the petition that on or about 15-3-1950, the West Bengal Bargadars Act came into force. Section 2(b) of the said Act defines a bargadar as meaning a person who, under the system generally known as Adhi, Barga, or Bhag, cultivates the land of another persons on condition of deliverin...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Ruia and anr. Vs. Govt. of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal573,56CWN156
Bose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Rule upon the respondents to show cause why Writs in the nature of Mandamus, Certiorari and Prohibition should not issue for direction upon the respondents to recall a Notice issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and for quashing and prohibiting of certain proceedings started under the said Act.2. The petitioners are two minor co-parceners of a joint Hindu Mitakshara family. The case of the petitioners is that premises No. 151/1, Baithakkhana Road and 98, Akhil Mistry Lane belong to the said joint family of the petitioners and the petitioners are separately entitled to one eighth share each in the said premises. By two indentures of leases dated the 4th June 1910 and 7th September 1929 the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners granted leases in respect of. the said properties in favour of the then trustees of an educational institution then known as Ripon College and now known as Surendra Nath Col...
Tag this Judgment!S.B. Trading Co., Ltd., Vs. Olympia Trading Corpn. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal685
Sarkar, J.1. In this suit, which is for ejectment, I have already delivered a judgment striking out the defence against ejectment, as the defendants had not complied with an order made under Section 14(4) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. Though the defence may have been struck out, the plaintiff has yet to prove its case before a decree can be passed in its favour, for the striking out of the defence does not amount to an admission by the defendants of the plaintiff's claim, Of course, I am now only concerned with that part of the plaintiff's claim which deals with the ejectment of the defendants. When the plaintiff proceeded to prove its claim for ejectment the defendants claimed to take part in the proceedings to oppose the decree for ejectment. In the present judgment, I propose to deal with the defendants' right to oppose the decree for ejectment 2. The first ground on which the defendants pressed their claim is based on Ch. XIV, Rule 3 of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »