Kolkata Court January 1952 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.
Debendra Bandhu Lahiri Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal808
ORDERSinha, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause why the findings, judgments and orders complained of in the petition should not be set aside and/or brought up for correction or why the license of the petitioner should not be restored to him or why a Writ of, or in the. nature of, Mandamus and/or Certiorari should not issue restraining the respondents from giving effect to the orders complained of. An ad interim order was granted staying the operation of the order of cancellation of the license pending the hearing of this Rule.2. The facts shortly are as follows: The petitioner was the holder of a license in respect of a country spirit shop at Wasabari in the district of Jalpaiguri. On 12-2-1950, at about 6 p. m. Janab A. Matleb, Superintendent of Excise, Jalpaiguri, made a surprise inspection of the shop.The way in which the inspection was conducted is as follows:A trial purchaser by the name of Shawna Gariman was sent into the shop by the Superintendent to b...
Tara Pada Ray Vs. Shyama Pada Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal579,57CWN356
Mookerjee, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit in 1930 for partition of joint family properties belonging to the plaintiff and his brother, defendant No. 1. A preliminary decree was passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Murshidabad, on the 27-3-1933. Such of the properties as were found to be joint were directed to be partitioned by metes and bounds into two equal shares, one to be allotted to the plaintiff and the other to his brother, defenant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 Shyamapada was held to be liable to render accounts to the plainr tiff Tarapada for a certain specified period. If Shyamapada failed to render accounts within one month from the date of the decree a commissioner was to be appointed to take accounts in the light of the findings and observations contained in the judgment.Against this decree, an appeal (Appeal from Original Decree No. 185 of 1933) was taken to the High Court and a cross-objection was also filed. During the pendency of that appeal, a Receiver was...
Dudhewalla and Co. Ltd. Vs. Govindram Rameswarlal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal585,56CWN315
G.N. Das, J.1. These six Revision cases arise out of as many applications filed by the tenants for fixation of the standard rent in respect of their respective premises under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, hereinafter called the 1950 Act. The landlord is the petitioner in each of these cases.2. Before I deal with these cases separately, two questions, common to all these cases, have to be answered. It appears from the order of the Rent Controller that the petitioner purchased the house (No. 20, Baranashi Ghose Street, Calcutta) of which the disputed premises form parts, in 1946 and that the house was in existence on December 1, 1941, and was in the possession of the then owners and not, of tenants.3. Learned Counsel on both sides were at pains either to contest or support the finding of the Rent Controller in these cases that the entire premises were 'remodelled' or 'renovated' at a heavy cost. The Appeal Bench did not come to ...
Banarashi Lal Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal322
ORDERP.N. Mookerjee, J.1. The petitioner before me was prosecuted on a charge of 'violating the provisions of Clause 18(1), West Bengal Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1948 by not keeping the price list of the textile goods in his shop hanging.' The petitioner's defence was that he was not guilty. On the evidence before him the learned Magistrate came to the finding that the petitioner had no price list hanging in his shop at the time when the offence was said to have been committed. The learned Magistrate, upon that finding, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The learned District Magistrate refused to interfere with this order of conviction and sentence in revision. The petitioner then moved this Court and obtained the present Rule.2. The short submission that has been made before me on behalf of the petitioner is that, even accepting the finding of the learned Magistrate that the petition...
Puran Chand Burman and anr. Vs. Md. Latiff and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal566
Bose, J.1. This is an undefended suit for arrears of rent and for recovery of possession of premises No. 78, 78/1 and 78-2 Bentink Street, Calcutta, situate within the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court.2. The ground on which possession is asked for is that the defendants' interest in the premises stood ipso facto determined on the expiry of the month of October 1949 under the provisions of the West Bengal Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948.3. It is stated in the plaint that since the month of August 1949 the defendants failed to pay any rent in respect of the premises, and that there is a sum of Rs. 728-7-0 due for arrears of rent up to October 1949. The plaintiff claims mesne profits from October 1949 on the ground that as the defendants' tenancystood ipso facto determined by reason of three consecutive defaults in payment of the rent for the months of August, September and October, the defendants became trespassers, and, therefore, they have no right to retain p...
United Commercial Press Ltd. Vs. SatyanaraIn Chamaria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal136,56CWN346
Harries, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of P.B. Mukharji J., dated September 6, 1951 made in favour of the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff-respondent to recover possession of portions of certain premises known as No. 32 Sir Harriram Goenka Street on the ground that the tenancy of the said premises had been 'ipso facto' determined by reason of the provisions of Section 12(3) of the West Bengal Rent Control Act of 1948.3. It appears that the tenancy commenced on April 1, 1944, the rent then being Rs. 525/-per mensem. Later in the year 1948 the rent was increased in circumstances which we know nothing of to a sum of Rs. 840/- per mensem. But no point is taken that this increase was in any way illegal.4. In November 1948 there appears to have been some quarrel between the parties and in that month the tenant refused to pay his rent and never paid any rent for the premises thereafter right up until the date ot the decree, name...
Aswini Kumar Nath Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal679
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate Writ directing the opposite parties to withdraw and/or cancel the orders of acquisition and certain notifications issued under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act.2. The petitioner is the owner of certain plots of lands in Mauza Hatinagar and Mauza Shibpore within the jurisdiction of Berhampore Police Station in the district of Murshidabad. The particulars of such lands are set out in paragraph 5' of the petition. It is alleged that some of these lands are tenanted and some are under cultivation of the petitioner. It is alleged that for some time past certain refugees have been trespassing upon the lands of the petitioner under the authority of the opposite parties and they are cutting down trees and making excavations and are causing damage to the petitioner's lands. It is alleged that on the 30th November, 1950, two notifications, one bearing No. 12676 L. Dev. dated the 16th ...
Esmail Pailan Vs. Sailendra Nath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal779
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. In this second appeal, which is at the instance of the tenant-defendant, some important and interesting questions arise for consideration. They relate chiefly to the rights of the parties who are admittedly the landlords and the tenant with regard to the trees on the suit land, and the ascertainment of those rights involves inter alia the determination of their status, that is, within which class of tenants under the Bengal Tenancy Act the tenure-holder, including the under-tenure holder, raiyat, and under-raiyat, they respectively fall, and, further, whether the tenant defendant has a right of occupancy in his land. Having regard to the findings of the Court of appeal below, they also necessarily include within their scope the specific question of the rights of an under-raiyat having a right of occupancy in his land with regard to the trees thereon. The determination of these questions depends upon the interpretation of the patta, Ex. 1, under which the tenancy in...
Girija Nandan Vs. Balaram Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal671,56CWN299
Das, J.1. This is a Reference made by two learned Judges of the Presidency Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, for our opinion on the point'whether in a contested suit a Small Cause Court Judge is bound to write any judgment.'2. The Reference arose under the following circumstances. The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 600/- from the defendant on account of his salary for the month of September, 1949, the fixed salary being Rs. 600/- per month. The defendant filed a Written Statement disputing this claim. The suit became a contested one. In the course of this suit, on the 9th of March 1950, the hearing of the suit was adjourned to the 16th. of May 1950. On the latter date by consent of parties, the suit was adjourned to 18th July, 1950. On the 18th July, 1950, the suit was decreed. The order of the Court bearing date 18th July 1950, runs as follows:'Parties' lawyers present as before. Plaintiff Girija Nandan Bhattacharjee examined and cross-examined. Defendant's pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›