Kolkata Court September 1951 Judgments
Meher Ali Vs. Tulsi Charan Chatterji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal204
ORDERP.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order quashing certain proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal P. C. The proceedings have been quashed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the only rival to the petitioner's claim to possession of the disputed property has not been legally made a party to the said proceedings. The Rule has been opposed by opposite party No. 4 and a report has also been received from the trying Magistrate through the learned District Magistrate of 24-Parganas containing some grounds in support of the order of quashing.2. The relevant facts lie within a short compass and are as follows. 3. On April 12, 1951, the petitioner, Sk. Meher AH, applied before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Alipore for the drawing up of proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal P. C. against opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 and others (not specifically named) in respect of the disputed property situate at Behala, upon the allegation 'inter alia' ...
Tag this Judgment!Brojobala Dassi Vs. Shebaits of Sri Sri Saradiya Durgamata Thakurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal285,57CWN74
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. Debendra Nath Mukherjee, the predecessor of the plaintiffs respondents who have sued as representing Sri Sri Saradiya Durgamata Thakurani, was the owner of a number of immovable properties including Pargana Kismet Maharul within Pargana Kulbaria Touzi No. 371 of the Murshidabad Collectorate and a two anna share of Dihi Hilara, Touzi No. 486 of the same Collectorate. Debendra had been performing the Saradiya Durga Puja from 1921. In September 1929 he executed an Arpannama (Ex. 2) in favour of Sri Sri Durgamata Thakurani Jew for the due performance of the annual puja of the said Goddess. An image of the Goddess Durga would have to be made ready according to the shastras, every year during the autumn season from, out of the income of the properties endowed, the deity is to be worshipped either at the dwelling house of the settlor at Gorabazar in Murshidabad or at Benares. Directions were also given as to how the income accruing from the said two properties was to be d...
Tag this Judgment!Bhola Nath Mallick Vs. Mahadev Mallick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal226,56CWN223
R.P. Mookerjaee, J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, 5th Court, Alipore, overruling an objection filed by the defendant opposite party to.2. The Award in question was filed by the arbitrators on September 21, 1949 in a pending proceeding in T. Section No. 182 of 1948. One of the defendants, Mahadev Mullick, who is the opposite party in this Court, filed an objection, on December 17, 1949. The preliminary objection was taken by the plaintiff Bhola Nath Mullick that the objection was barred by time and cannot be entertained by the Court.an award filed by arbitrators.3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plea of limitation could not be entertained.4. To appreciate the poin't in issue we may set out some of the relevant facts in this connection. The plaintiff-petitioner originally filed an application under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act pleading that the dispute between him and the defendant Mahadev had been referred to the Arbitra...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Kripalani Vs. Mahabir Ram and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal452
Sarkar, J.1. This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to, show cause why they should not be committed to prison for contempt of Court. The facts are not in dispute and have to be taken as stated in the petition since the opposite parties have not denied them by any affidavit.2. The petitioner is the tenant of a shop room in Lindsay Street, Calcutta. He had sublet two window spaces in this room to the opposite party No. 1. It is not clear whether any room space was included in the sub-tenancy but that does not affect the question to be decided. The petitioner had started ejectment proceedings against the opposite party No. 1 in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, in respect of the demised spaces. These proceedings had eventually been brought over to this Court in its revisional jurisdiction and finally terminated in favour of the petitioner by an order made by Roxburgh J. on April 10, 195.1. That order was in these terms:'The bailiff of the Court to give possession of the...
Tag this Judgment!Nani Lal De and ors. Vs. Tirthalal De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal513,57CWN232
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This Rule was obtained on behalf of the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit brought by them for contribution. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiffs' claim.2. For a proper appreciation of the points in issue in the present matter the facts may be shortly stated. One Chandra Nath Bhattacharjya held a jama Rs. 33/- under the predecessor of the plaintiffs and defendant I, who were members of the same family. In 1875 Chandra Nath sold the holding to one Badal Giri. This transfer was recognised by the landlords and is supported by the entry in the records of rights as finally published. In course of execution of a rent decree obtained by the Dey landlords against the heirs of Chandra Nath, without impleading the heirs of Badal Giri, the property was purchased by defendant 2 Satya Charan Ghose. Satya Charan was resisted by the heirs of Badal Giri from taking possession of the holding. Defendant 2 thereupon brought a suit, with alternative prayers either to b...
Tag this Judgment!Bhadreswar Majhi Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1364
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. The question that arises for decision in this case is whether after an application under section 363 of the Calcutta Municipal Act has been, withdrawn by the Corporation a fresh application lies under the same section with respect to the same structures.2. The present Rule was issued on the Municipal Magistrate and the Corporation of Calcutta to show cause why the proceedings now pending before the Municipal Magistrate on the application under Section 363 of the Calcutta Municipal Act that was filed in January 1951 with respect to some alleged unauthorised structures should not be quashed. It appears that for a portion of the structures that are now alleged to be unauthorised and sought to be demolished, an application under Section 363 of the Calcutta Municipal Act was made by the Corporation on the 1st June 1949. After the proceedings instituted on this application had continued for some days, the Corporation asked for leave to withdraw that application and, on t...
Tag this Judgment!Nitish Chandra and anr. Vs. Promode Kumar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal18,56CWN375
Lahiri, J. 1. This is an appeal by plaintiffs 1 and 2 in a suit for partition, and it is directed against an order, dated 8th July 1950, made by Sri P.N. Lahiri, Subordinate Judge, First Court, 24 Parganas, refusing the application of plaintiffs 1 and 2 under Section 3, Partition Act (Act no. 4 of 1893).2. The subject-matter of dispute is premises no. 25A, Harish Mukherjee Road, which is the dwelling house of the parties. A preliminary decree was passed on. 25th January 1949, holding that plaintiffs l, 2 and 3, and defendants l, 2 and 6 had one-seventh share each in the dwelling house, and defendants 3, 4 and 5 jointly had , one-seventh share.3. After the passing of the preliminary decree, the Court appointed a Commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining whether the dwelling house could be partitioned amongst the seven co-sharers. The Commissioner submitted a report stating that it was not possible to divide the dwelling house by metes and bounds into seven allotments. Some of the co-...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Charusila Dassi Vs. Madan theatres Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal536
P.B. Mukharjee, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit claims possession of the two cinema houses, named Sree Cinema and Uttara Cinema, formerly known as Cornwallis theatre and Crown Cinema respectively at No. 138/1 and 138/2 Cornwallis Street, Calcutta, on the ground of forfeiture. The defendant company is alleged to have committed breach of the covenant in the lease between the plaintiff and the defendant company dated 19-8-1933, which provides that the lessee shall keep a box, not less than four seats in each of the said cinema houses at the disposal of the lessor for the use of herself or other person or persons authorised by her or on her behalf & if the lessor so desires in writing the defendant company shall instead of four seats in the box permit 6 persons in the stall and 8 persons in the gallery or pit to view the performance held in the aforesaid two demised premises. The allegation is that the defendant company has committed breach of this covenant. That is the cause of action.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Latikabala Dasi Vs. Anil Behari Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal103
Banerjee, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made on 29-8-1950, by P. B. Mukharji, J. revoking the probate granted by this Court on 30-9-1921, which was extended on 16-9-33.2. Benode Lal Ghose, a wealthy inhabitant of Baranagar in the suburbs of Calcutta, acquired by dint of his own labour properties moveable and immoveable of considerable value. He, having no son, adopted a boy of the name of Charu, and made his last will and testament, bearing date 29-7-1912. It appears that the relationship between the adopted son and the father was not good; and in 1917 he intended to change his will. He desired to place his estate to the value of Rs. 75,000/- in the hands of the Administrator-General of Bengal for the purpose of a hospital to be built at Baranagar. He wrote on 29-6-1917, to the Administrator-General to send a man to assist him to make a will. There is a draft agreement of 1917 on the records, which shows that it was prepared for the purpose of enabling the Administrator-General ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sudhir Chandra Ray Chaudhuri, an Attorney
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal258,56CWN51
Harries, C.J.1. Two Rules were issued - one on July 26, 1951 and the other on July 27, 1951-by Mitter J. calling upon Sree Sudir Chandra Ray Chaudhuri, an Attorney of this Court, to show cause (1) why he should not be convicted and- punished for contempt of Court and (2) why disciplinary action should not be taken against him under the provisions of the Letters Patent of this Court. The Rule relating to contempt of Court was made returnable before the learned Judge, but the Rule relating to disciplinary action was made returnable before a Bench of three Judges as required by the Rules of this Court. As the two Rules were concerned with the same matter application was made to have the Rule relating to contempt of Court heard by the Bench of three Judges which would have to be constituted to hear the Rule relating to disciplinary action. The course suggested was obviously a convenient and proper one and an order was made transferring the contempt matter and directing the same to be heard...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »