Kolkata Court July 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.
Mohindra Prasad Vs. Poddar Brothers Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal614,56CWN229
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of Sarkar J., made in favour of the plaintiff in an undefended suit.2. On September 4, 1947 the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3410-9-3 from the respondents being the arrears of payments under a hire-purchase agreement. On November 14, 1947 the defendant appellant filed a written statement and nothing more was done for some considerable time. On April 8, 1949 the plaintiff-respondents made an application to the Master to strike out the defence for failure to file an affidavit of documents. On April .11, 1949 the learned Master ordered the defendant to file an affidavit of documents on or before April 26 and in default he directed that defence of the defendant-appellant be struck out and the suit transferred to the undefended list. On July 18, notice was issued under Ch. 10, Rule 35 directing the suit to toe set down in the special list to be dealt with for want of prosecution and on July 26, 1950 the suit was actually dismisse...
Purna Chandra Singha Vs. Sarojendra Kumar Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal251,56CWN740
R.P. Mookerjee, J. 1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff, and it arises out of a suit brought by him under Rule 63, Order 21, Civil P.C., and is directed against an order of dismissal of a claim preferred by him in certain execution proceedings.2. To appreciate the points in issue, it will be necessary to refer to some of the circumstances under which the suit came to be filed.3. One Gopal Chandra Sinha, father of the plaintiff who was in possession of extensive properties leaving a testamentary disposition. There executors were named by him. In 1931, the plff. Purna Chandra Singha filed a suit in the Original Side of this Court against his father's executors for various reliefs, including the administration of the estate left by Puma's mother, for recovery of certain properties belonging to the latter and some other reliefs. This suit was decreed in June 1933, allowing certain specific claims in favour of the plaintiff. Under the decree, further enquiries were to be made and...
Radha Ballav Poddar Vs. Motilal Chanda Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal569
Roxburgh, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the Subordinate Judge 6th Court at Alipore, reversing a decree of the Munsif, First Additional Court of Alipore, in an ejectment suit.2. The trial Court decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court reversed the decision, acting on its view of the effect of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Amendment) Act LXII [62] of 1950. I may say at once that in my opinion the decision of the lower appellate Court is correct although the reasons on which the decision is based are quite unsound.3. The suit was instituted on 29-7-1949, before the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act XVII [17] of 1950 came into force. During the pendency of the suit on 31-3-1950, the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act XVII [17] of 1950 came into force. The ground of eviction was that the tenant was an ipso facto defaulter under Section 12 (3) of the Act of 1948.4. The West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1950 came into force on 31-3-1950 and the decree in...
Debabrata Basu Vs. the Institute of Chartered Accountants and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal189,[1952]22CompCas138(Cal)
Mitter, J.1. This case involves the interpretation of Section 30 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, and the principal point for determination is whether the provision in Regulation 34 for refund of premium chargeable for the training of an articled clerk, purported to have been made in exercise of the powers given under Section 30, is ultra vires the said section.2. The first defendant, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, was constituted under the said Act. The plaintiff is a Fellow of the Institute. The second defendant, Prasanta Kumar Dutt, claims to be an Articled Clerk. The suit is for, inter alia, a declaration that the Articles of Apprenticeship made between the plaintiff and the said Prasanta Kumar Dutt on April 1, 1950 are valid; a declaration that the refusal by the defendant Institute to register the said articles is wrongful and illegal; a declaration that the said articled clerk be regarded as having been registered in the books of the Institute as from Ap...
Kumarkhali Banking Corporation Ltd. Vs. Surendra Nath Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal751,56CWN180
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Nadia in certain proceedings which had been Initiated under. Section 36, Bengal Money-lenders Act.2. The respondent-debtor had originally borrowed from the appellant certain sums of money on-executing a number of promissory notes. A portion of the interest due was paid, and the balance was secured by executing a mortgage on 9-4-1927, the interest stipulated being 12 per cent, per annum with six monthly rests. In February, 1931 the appellant, Kumarkhali Banking Corporation Ltd. obtained a decree for Rs. 6300 and odd being, the balance due under the mortgage. After various attempts the mortgaged property was sold for Rs. 5000 on 7-12-1939, in execution of the said-decree, the decree-holder being the auction purchaser. On 11-6-1940, the 'decree-holder-auction' purchaser sold that property to a third party for a consideration of Rs. 5800. On the passing of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act (x [10] o...
Mrityunjoy Chakravartti Vs. Provat Kumar Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal153,[1952]22CompCas353(Cal),56CWN18
ORDERRoxbrugh, J.1. This is a Rule against an order of Mr. A. Mukherjee, Magistrate, First Class, Nadia, rejecting a contention by an accused, who has been prosecuted under Section 409, Penal Code, that, as the provisions of Section 237, Companies Act, had not been observed, the complaint by the liquidator was not valid and the complaint should be dismissed.2. This matter was before me on a previous occasion. A complaint had then been filed by another person, and an objection had been taken to his complaint. On that occasion I found it not necessary to pass any specific order, as it was stated that there would be no difficulty in. getting a complaint filed by the Official Liquidator of the Bank in question, namely, the Bengal Bank Ltd., who had been appointed after the order of winding up had been passed. The present complaint, therefore, was filed by the Official Liquidator who has been given by the Court general power under Section 179, Companies Act, by an order, dated 16-1-1951. Th...
Kasiswar Basu Vs. Nakuleswar Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal738
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The present appeal arises out of a suit brought by a member of a joint Hindu family for partition.2. One Sitanath Basu died leaving a widow Tarangini and six sons, Bireswar, Kasiswar, Triguneswar, Nakuleswar, Kesabeswar and Sureswar. The eldest son Bireswar died leaving a will under which he gave his share in the properties to his two brothers Kasiswar and Nakuleswar. The youngest son Sureswar died intestate without any issue. His share in the property devolved on his mother Tarangini. On 15-9- 1944, Kesabeswar transferred his interest in the residential house which is the subject-matter of. the present suit in favour of Nakuleswar. Nakuleswar brought the present suit for partition of the residential house as between himself, his two brothers Kasiswar and Triguneswar and his mother Tarangini,3. Admittedly, the joint family had several properties and in those properties all the brothers including Kesabeswar and the widow Tarangini have some interest. The plaintiff's...
Tripura Modern Bank Ltd. Vs. Bansen and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal781
ORDERSinha, J.1. This is an undefended suit. At the moment it is failing for want of proper service of the writ of summons. That, of course, does not mean that I am dismissing it, but I am granting further opportunity to the plaintiff to effect a proper service. Unfortunately, this kind of service has become so frequent of late that in a future case the Court may not deal with the matter so kindly. It is for that purpose that I propose in this case to discuss the law relating to the service of writs and to point out the defects which are being so constantly met with.2. This suit is for a decree for Bs. 3,563-13-1, upon an overdraft loan account which defendant l had with the plaintiff Bank. Defendant l is a partnership firm and defendants 2 and 3 are the partners thereof. Defendant 4 has been sued as a guarantor. So far as defendant 4 is concerned, he was served personally and acknowledged service of the writ of summons, and no question arises about the service upon him. The service up...
Murulidhar Agarwalla and ors. Vs. Rupendra Mitter and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal321,56CWN260
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit for recovery of damages for use and occupation, or alternatively mesne profits. Upon the landings of the Courts below on the questions of fact which have not been and cannot, be either in law or on the materials on record challenged in this appeal the position stands thus:2. The property in suit belonged, originally, to Dr. Kartick Chandra Bose and Sons, of Calcutta, under a lease from the Chatterjees. On 23-5-1945, this property was transferred by a conveyance by Dr. Kartick Chandra Bose and sons to the plaintiffs of the present suit and by the said conveyance not only the property but also all right to realise arrears of rent, compensation, etc., in respect of the said property was transferred to the plaintiffs. It is the plaintiffs' case that the defendants had trespassed into the lands sometime in June 1942, and were continuing their wrongful possession as trespassers. The plaintiffs have brought the present su...
Setabganj Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Benozir Ahmed and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal116
Sarkar, J.1. This suit involves the decision of only one point. The point is whether, when a person has obtained a judgment in a foreign Court against another person, a fresh suit by him against the same person on the same cause of action in our country is maintainable? It is contended that such a suit would not be maintainable for two reasons. First, it is said, that the foreign judgment would bar the second suit on general principles. Secondly it is said that the foreign judgment would operate as such a bar by reason of Section 13, Civil P. C.2. The facts are simple and not in dispute. The plaintiff sold sugar to the two defendants of the value of Rs. 2,73,980-4-6. Obviously the deal was a purely commercial transaction. Of this sum the plaintiff was paid Rs. 2,40,000/-. The plaintiff filed the present suit in this Court on 8-9-1948 to recover the balance of the price amounting to Rs. 33,980-4-6 which the defendants had failed to pay. In this suit the plaintiff obtained an attachment ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »