Kolkata Court August 1951 Judgments
Tulsibala Rakhit and anr. Vs. N.N. Khosal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal109,56CWN193
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order of the Magistrate dated the 10th March 1951 drawing up proceedings under Section 107, Cr. P. C. against the petitioners who were the second party and directing the petitioners to show cause why they should not execute the Bond for keeping peace-for a period of one year.2. The opposite party is a tenant of the petitioners. There are many disputes between them as landlords and tenant. Quarrels are going on regarding supply of water and electricity. Then there are proceedings before the Kent Controller for standardisation of rent. The petitioners have also brought a suit for damages before the Third Court of the Munsif at Alipur and another Title Suit before, the same Court.3. Against this background of litigation and dispute the allegation of the opposite party before the Magistrate was that the petitioners were creating nuisance and were abusing and insulting the opposite party with filthy language and were threate...
Tag this Judgment!Gupta and Sons and ors. Vs. Sambhunath Mukhopadhyay
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal772,56CWN166
G.N. Das, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of the tenants judgment-debtors against an order of Sri K. M. Das learned Munsif, 1st Court, Asansol, dismissing their applications for relief under Section 18 (l), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 (Act XVII [17] of 1950) as amended by Act LXII [62] of 1950.2. The decree for ejectment was passed on 30th March 1950 on the ground of ipso facto determination of the tenancy under Section 18 (3) of Act XXXVIII [38] of 1948. Thereafter on 22nd April 1950 two of the judgment-debtors made an application for relief under Section 18 (l) of Act XVII [17] of 1950. This was rejected on 29th July 1950 in view of the decision in S.B. Trading Co. v. Satyendra Ch. Sen, 54 Cal. W. N. 756. Thereafter an application was made by the petitioner No. 4 judgment-debtor No. 4 for relief under Section 18 (l) of Act XVII [17] of 1950 on 29th November 1950. The Amending Act LXII [62] of 1950 came into force on 30th Novemb...
Tag this Judgment!National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Monorama Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal143,56CWN523,(1952)ILLJ361Cal
Harries, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation awarding the applicant respondent a sum of Rs. 1200/- as compensation together with certain costs.2. The applicant was the mother of a boy who, it is said, died as the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The boy admittedly was employed by the appellants in a canteen or tea shop and it was part of his duty to take tea from the tea shop which was outside the factory gates to various persons in the factory. On 28-4-1949, late in the afternoon the boy was returning to the tea shop after having served tea to certain persons in the factory when he had to pass a mob of workmen who were leaving the factory. This mob, it transpired, was attacking thepolice and the police had to fire in self-defence. Unfortunately a bullet struck this boy and he was severely wounded. He was taken to hospital, but unfortunately died the following day.3. These proceedings we...
Tag this Judgment!Anwar Ali Sarkar Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal150
Harries, C.J.1. These are two petitions for the issue of writs of certiorari to quash proceedings which have taken place and which are taking place before a Special Judge at Alipore under the West Bengal Special Courts Act of 1950. The two petitions came before Bose J. for hearing. In the view of the learned Judge the petitions raised points of great importance and difficulty and he accordingly referred them to the Chief Justice for decision by a larger Bench. This Bench of five Judges has been constituted to hear and decide the petitions.2. Civil Rule No. 942 of 1951 has been preferred by one Anwar Ali Sarkar who with forty-nine other persons was tried by a Special Judge appointed under the West Bengal Special Courts Act of 1950 (Act X of 1950)upon charges of murder, conspiracy to murder to commit grievous hurt with deadly weapons, and to commit mischief. There were also charges under the Explosive Substances Act and a charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of ca...
Tag this Judgment!National Tobacco Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Hardit Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal752,56CWN187,(1952)ILLJ609Cal
G.N. Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the employers against the decision of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation allowing the claim filed by the workman for compensation in respect of an injury alleged to have been sustained by him.2. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 16-1-1948. The claim was filed before the Commissioner on 6-9-1949. One of the defences taken to the claim was that the claim is barred by the law of limitation. It is not necessary to deal with other defences which were raised in the Court below. The Commissioner was of opinion that as the workman was in service till July 1949 the claim was in time. Under Section 10, Workmen's Compensation Act a claim has to be made within one year of the date of the accident unless there is sufficient cause for not-making the claim earlier.3. In this case the Commissioner was of opinion that as the workman was in service, there was sufficient cause for the workman not filing his claim earlier. In the case of Lingley ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahumad Ali Biswas Vs. Jyotsna Kumar Bandopadhyay and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal19
Roxburgh, J.1. This is an appeal by a tenant against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad affirming the decree of the Munsif of Lalbagh in a suit for eviction.2. The circumstances are a little unusual. Apparently the plaintiffs and the defendant were each occupying the premises of the other as tenants, and the plaintiffs' case is that the rents were set off. The defendant started trouble by suing the plaintiffs for rent, whereupon the plaintiffs gave the defendant notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act to vacate.3. Two points were urged before me, first that in view of the arrangement between the parties, the decree for eviction should not have been made without some corresponding relief to the defendant to get back his premises. No case was made out that there was in fact any such mututal arrangement, and I fail to see how any case of equitable relief can arise in the circumstances. There is therefore no substance in this point.4. The other question raised was that the ...
Tag this Judgment!National Industries Vs. Sassoon Rice Mills Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal381
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is the plaintiff's summons for an amendment of the plaint by deleting the word 'Limited' and the word 'Company' from the plaint. It is stated that the description of the defendant as Sassoon Rice Mills Limited was an error and the proper defendant is Sassoon Rice Mills. This summons was taken out by the plaintiff's Solicitor on 21-2-1951.2. In the affidavit of Laburam Jain, a partner of the plaintiff firm, affirmed on 21-2-1951, in support of the summons, the allegation is that the defendant at all material times represented themselves as a limited concern or held themselves out as such and in fact in the correspondence and documents they described themselves as Sassoon Rice Mills Limited and that the plaintiff bona fide believing on the said representation sued them as a limited company. In that affidavit reference is made to correspondence and documents, some of which were produced at the time of the hearing of this application and learned counsel appear...
Tag this Judgment!Amarendra Nath Vs. Raghunath Nandan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal849,56CWN107
ORDER1. These two Rules arise out of certain proceedings-(Case No. c 649/446 of 1950 of the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Barrackpore) -started on a complaint to the effect, inter alia, that by false and fraudulent representations the five accused persons had induced the complainant to advance a sum of Rs. 11000 to accused l on a mortgage of certain land, situate at Baranagore within the District of 24-Parganas.2. The complaint was filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer of Barrackpore on 9th May 1950, and on that very date the accused were summoned under Section 420, Penal Code. After several dates the trial actually commenced on 13th September 1950 and between that date and 12th January 1951 six prosecution witnesses were examined and cross-examined before charge. Thereafter, arguments were heard on two dates and, eventually, the case was adjourned to 1st February 1951 for the framing of charge. On that day the learned trying Magistrate expressed the view that, on the evidence...
Tag this Judgment!Bansi and ors. Vs. Governor-general of India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal35,56CWN83
Das, J.1. The facts giving rise to the reference are as follows: 10 different suits were instituted in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, for recovery of compensation for loss of certain goods consigned for carriage from stations on the North Western Railway to Howrah, a station on the East Indian Railway.2. In the plaint it was alleged that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court, as the notices of claim under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act were issued from Calcutta and were served on the 1st defendant, East Indian Railway, in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of the Court.3. The defendants in these suits were described as follows : (1) Governor General for India in Council representing East Indian Railway; (2) Governor General for India in Council representing North Western Railway.4. A common defence to these suits inter alia was that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits.5. By consent of parties, the above 10 suits were directed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Bijoy Singh Vs. Bilasroy and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal440
Banerjee, J.1. This is a seller's appeal against an order of Bachawat, J., refusing to set aside an award.2. Under an arbitration clause contained in a contract of sale of goods, the buyers referred their dispute with the seller that arose out of the contract to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce. The contract was made on May, 10, 1946, for sale of B-Twills. The buyers agreed to buy the goods at Rs. 66-12-0 per hundred bags - delivery July to September, 1946, at the rate of 15,000 bags monthly.3. The buyers in their turn sold the goods to Messrs. Sohanlal Karnawat. As the goods were not delivered to the buyers, they in their turn could not give delivery to Messrs. Sohanlal Karnawat who, thereupon, by two letters dated October 1, 1946, and October 7, 1946, to their sellers asked for the difference - being the difference between the contract rate and the rate prevailing on October 1, 1946, namely, Rs. 78-4-0 per hundred bags, amounting Rs. 5175/-. The Jute Control Order was at the time when ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »