Kolkata Court August 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.
Smt. Gurudasi Devi Vs. Chandi Charan Kundu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal736,56CWN12
Mitter, J. 1. This Rule involves the interpretation of Article 31 of Sch. 2 to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (Act IX [9] of 1887). The rule was issued by Boxburgh J. and was thereafter partly heard by him. The learned. Judge was of the opinion that the matter involved a general question as to the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court and was of such importance that it should be disposed of by a Division Bench. The rule was accordingly transferred to this Bench.2. The plaintiff opposite party No. 1 instituted in the 2nd Court of the Munsif at Burdwan a suit, being S. C. C. Suit No. 205 of 1950, against the petitioner and opposite party No. 2. The plaintiff's case inter alia was that he and the petitioner were co-sharers in respect of a property, a part whereof had been demised to opposite party No. 2, and that he was accordingly entitled to his share of the rent either from the opposite party No. 2 direct or from the petitioner Sm. Gurudasi Debi, if she had realised from the ten...
Bidhu Bhusan Bagchi and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal901
ORDERG.N. Das, J.1. This Rule was issued by this Court calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why the order, dated 4-13. 1951, superseding the District Board of Murshida-bad, should not be set aside, or why a writ in the nature of Mandamus, Certiorari and/or Prohibition under Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India should not issue restraining the opposite parties from giving effect to the aforesaid order and the orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate of Murshidabad delegating powers to the S. D. O. to administer the said District Board, or why such other or further order or orders should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. 2. The petition on which the Rule was issued purports to have been made by one Bidhu Bhusan Bagchi styling himself as ex-member and second vice-Chairman of the District Board on behalf of himself and other members of the Board. It does not appear, however, that the other members of the District Board joined the petitioner ...
Krishna Khandelwal and anr. Vs. Director of Land Hiring and Disposal E ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal16,56CWN306
ORDERDas, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioners calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued and possession of the premises mentioned in the petition should not be restored to the petitioners or such other or further order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.2. The petitioners are two ladies who are resident of No. 3, Ashutosh De Lane in the City of Calcutta. The opposite parties to the Rule are (1) Director of Land, Hirings and Disposal, Eastern Command, (2) Assistant Director of Land, Hirings and Disposal, Eastern Command, (3) State Manager, Government of India States, Calcutta Area, (4) Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, and (5) Post Master General, Bengal Circle.3. The petition was supported by an affidavit of' Chandalal Khandelwal, husband of petitioner No. 2. The counter-affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties was sworn to by opposite party No. 3. The further affidavit on behalf o...
Harinarayan Shaw and anr. Vs. Gobardhandas Shroff and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal140
R.P. Mookerjee, J. 1. The plaintiff respondent filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for recovery of possession of a particular property after declaration of title and also for damages. The plaintiff's case was that the property in suit belonged to the Srinagar Dharmasala Trust Fund which had been let outin tenancy. On 30-7-1942, possession was obtained after a decree in ejectment had been passed against the tenant. About May, 1946, defendant 1 unlawfully took possession of the land, illegally constructed certain temporary sheds and let out the same to defendants 3 and 4. Defendant 2 had also raised a platform in one portion of the land in collusion with defendant 1 without the knowledge of the plaintiff. 2. The principal defence was raised on behalf of defendant 1 who denied the plaintiff's title, claimed that he was not a trespasser, but his father had been in possession since 1939 With the consent of the plaintiff. Defendants 3 and 4 were claimed as tenants. 3. Defendant 3 ...
D. Parraju Vs. General Manager, B.N. Railway and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal610,56CWN264
ORDERDas, J.1. This rule was issued on 18-5-1951, calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why the order complained of in the petition should not be revoked or cancelled or why a writ in the nature of Mandamus or in the nature of Prohibition should not issue to the opposite parties prohibiting them or directing them to forbear from giving effect to the said orders complained of or why such other appropriate order or orders under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be made as to this court may seem fit and proper.2. The orders complained of are dated 18-11-1950 and 13-11-1950. By the order dated 18-11-1950, the petitioner was informed by a communication received from the District Transportation Officer that the petitioner has been removed from his service. By the order dated the 13th of December 1950, passed by the District Transportation Officer the petitioner was informed that the matter of his removal has been finally heard and that the appeal preferred by the petitione...
West Bengal Settlement Kanungoe Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. M ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal554,55CWN778
Harries, C.J.1. The petitioners in these two cases had applied to this Court under Article 228 of the Constitution praying that the records of two suits pending before a learned Subordinate Judge at Alipore should be transferred to this Court for the decision of certain constitutional points which were said to arise in the suits. The records were in due course transferred to this Court and this Bench heard the parties on the constitutional questions involved in the suits.2. The suits arose out of acquisitions of property made by the West Bengal Government under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948. It was suggested on behalf of the opposite parties that the whole of this Act was 'ultra vires' and if such was not the case that three provisions of the Act were 'ultra vires.' This Bench eventually held in a judgment delivered on March 22, 1951 that the whole of the Act was not 'ultra vires.' It further held that a portion of Section 8 proviso (b) of the Act was 'ultra v...
Dinendro Mullick Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal915
Banerjee, J.1. The appellant is the owner of premises No. 8, Esplanade Row East, in Calcutta, situate within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. In July 1927, he created a mortgage in favour of the Imperial Bank of India, by deposit of title deeds relating to the property for money lent.2. By a registered agreement dated 7-2-1938, made between the mortgagor and the Bank, two Receivers were appointed to take possession of the premises and realise the rents and profits thereof. By another agreement dated 22-12-1938, one of the Receivers was discharged and another appointed in his place, with like powers.3. In 1939, the Defence of India Act was passed and rules made thereunder. Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules empowered the Government of India to requisition any property, movable or immovable, if that was needed for the maintenance of public order or the efficient prosecution of the war. But if the Government requisitioned a property, it was liable to pay compens...
Dubar Goala and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Representing E.i. Rly. a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal496
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate Writ or direction upon the respondents (opposite parties) to show cause why certain contracts mentioned in the petition should hot be cancelled and why the opposite parties should not forbear from levying certain license fees upon the petitioners and also forbear from compelling the petitioners to do Begar or forced labour at the Howrah Railway Station.2. The petitioners are two licensed porters at Howrah Railway Station and hold licenses issued to them by Ballabhdas Agrawal who is a Railway Contractor under the East Indian Railway and opposite party No. 4 in this application. The opposite party No. 4 supplies and arranges daily attendance of porters at Howrah Railway Station under a contract entered into with the East Indian Railway administration. The terms and conditions in such contract have been varied from time to time and a copy of the present contract which governs the relations between...
indra Narayan Bera Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal61
Das, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioner calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a permit under the West Bengal Food Grains (Movement Control) Order, 1951, should not be granted to the petitioner or why the order complained of in the petition should not be set aside or why a writ in the nature of Mandamus or Prohibition or Certiorari should not issue or why such other or further order or orders should not be made as to this' Court may seem fit and proper.2. In the petition on which the Rule was issued the petitioner stated that he had a large family-consisting of 60 members and that the paddy of the lands referred to in the petition is entirely consumed by the members of the family and in the payment of the labourers employed by the petitioner for the purposes of cultivation and for incidental expenses. The petitioner stated that he had applied for a permit for moving his paddy about 350 maunds from a cordoned area in the Sunderbans to a, place outside the cordone...
Rajnarayan Kundu Vs. Sm. Kristamati Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal631
Roxburgh, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly dismissing an appeal from a decree of the Munsif, 2nd Court, Chinsurah. The plaintiff has sued for declaration of his title to the lands in C. S. plots Nos. 469 and 357 of Mouza Muktikiri, and for confirmation of his possession to the same.2. The plaintiff's case was that the plots in question appertained to a jama of Rs. 25/4/-held by defendant No. 2 Nitai Malo under the plaintiff. The plaintiff had purchased the lands in question in execution of that decree on April 21, 1941 and obtained possession on August 30, 1941.3. After his purchase, and after he obtained possession, a sale proclamation had been issued at the instance of defendant No 1 with respect to two plots Nos. 469 and 608 in execution of mortgage decree obtained by defendant No. 1 against defendant No. 2. Accordingly on. August 26, 1943 the plaintiff first learnt of the mortgage of defendant No. 1 covering plot No. 469. Thereupo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »