Kolkata Court November 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.
Raj Kumar Shaw Vs. Dominion of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal235
ORDERBachawat, J.1. This is a suit against the Dominion of India representing the East Indian Railway. The matter has been set down for hearing of the preliminary issue whether or not this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit.2. On behalf of the plaintiff, it is admitted that the only part of the cause of action upon which they can rely is the issue and service of notice under Section 80, Civil P.C. at Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is admitted by counsel for the defendant that notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code was both issued at and served in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is contended by the defendant that the issue and service of such notice is not part of the cause of action 'and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction.3. I am satisfied on the authorities that notice under Section 80, Civil P.C., is part of the cause of action for the purpose of jurisdiction. That such notice is part of the cause of action was decided by Sinha...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. S.B. Trading Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal506,57CWN197
ORDERP.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order of the learned Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, acquitting the accused opposite party S. E. Trading Co. Ltd., of a charge under Section 492, Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, read with Section 179 (b) and Schedule 9 of the said Act. The offence alleged was the exercise of the calling of a market-owner without a license for the first half year of 1950-51 and the prosecution was launched on 29-12-1951. 2. According to the prosecuting Municipal authorities the accused were liable under the Act to pay a scavenging tax of Rs. 2340/- for the said first half year of 1950-51 in respect of the place alleged by the prosecution to be a 'market' and popularly known as Raja Katra in the Burra Bazar area of this city and to take out on such payment a license under Section 179 (b) of the Act for the said period, and they having failed to make the payment, and for such payment several demands were said to have been made, and take out the lic...
Anumati Sadhukhan Vs. Assistant Regional Controller, Procurement, Alip ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal187,57CWN194
Lahiri, J. 1. In these five appeals the appellants challenge the validity of Para. 15 of the West Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1949. The appellants are owners of Rice Mills in Baraset Sub-Division in the District of 24-Perganas and carry on the business of husking paddy. By an order, dated 12-10-1950, the Assistant Regional Controller of Procurement, Alipore, granted permits to the appellants restricting the quantity of paddy to be husked by them and by another order, dated 7-12-1950, he directed that the husking mill owners would be authorised to husk half of their previously permitted quantities upto 14-12-1950, and that no husking mill should be run after that date without obtaining further orders. 2. The appellants applied under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and obtained Rules upon the Assistant Regional Controller of Procurement, Alipore, requiring him to revoke his order, dated 7-12-1950, and to forbear from giving effect to the said order and also to show cause wh...
Sudhir Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal226
K.C. Das Gupta, J. 1. This Rule was issued on the State of West Bengal to show cause why the proceedings now pending against the petitioner under Section 161, Penal Code should not be quashed. It is contended before us by Mr. Dutt on behalf of the petitioner that as in this case the investigation was by a Sub-Inspector of the Railway Police in violation of the provisions of Section 3 of Act 2 of 1947, the proceedings have no legal basis. Section 3 of Act 2 of 1947 is in these words: 'An offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 165, Penal Code shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence for the purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained therein: Provided that a Police Officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police shall not investigate any such offence without the order of a Magistrate of the first class or make any arrest therefor without warrant'.2. The effect of the proviso is that Section 156, Criminal P.C. i...
Sree Sree Radha Ballav Jiu Thakur Vs. Shebaits of Sri Sri Iswar Lakshm ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal398
G.N. Das, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 Sree Sree Radha Ballav Jiu Thakur by bis shebait Uday Chand Mahatab, Maharajadhiraj Bahadur of Burdwan, against a judgment of P.N. Mookerjee J.2. The facts which led up to this litigation may be stated as follows. The plaintiffs claimed to be under tenants in respect of a putni mehal which was held by the 'pro forma' defendants as putnidars under the Zemindar, viz., the debottar estate of the Maharaja of Burdwan. In 1934 a suit for rent for the years 1337 to 1340 B.S. was instituted by the Zemindar against the then holders of the putni in question. Plaintiff 1 of the Rent Suit was describod as the deity Sree Sree Radha Ballav Jiu Thakur by the shebait Maharaja of Burdwan represented by the Manager, Court of Wards, and plaintiff 2 was described as the said deity represented by the Maharaja of Burdwan simpliciter. The suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff 1. It was dismissed as against plaintiff 2. The decree which was drawn up in the sui...
Udaychand Mahatab Vs. Gopinath Reja and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal236,57CWN245
Das J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder under Clause 15, Letters Patent, against the judgment of Roxburgh J. affirming the orders made by the court below dismissing the appellant's application for execution as prayed for.2. The facts are not in controversy and may be stated as follows: The respondents held a putni tenure under the appellant. The rent of the putni having fallen into arrears, the appellant landlord obtained a decree for arrears of rent on 17-7-1939. This decree was executed on 7-3-1941, the prayer in the execution petition being a sale of the tenure in arrears. Thereafter the proceedings in execution were stayed on receipt of a notice from the Debt Settlement Board, at the instance of the judgment-debtors. The order for stay made by the Board was ultimately vacated.On 4-6-1946, the appellant made an application for amendment of the execution petition. In the amendment petition, the decree-holder stated that the tenure in arrear had been sold in an intermediate re...
Indian Electric Works Ltd. Vs. Bhabataran Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal390,57CWN144
G.N. Das, J. 1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Mookerjee J. remanding the plaintiff's suit for further consideration.2. The only question which was in controversy before Mookerjee J. and which is now in dispute before us relates to a question of limitation.3. In order to understand the implication of the arguments addressed at the Bar, it is necessary to state the nature of the relief claimed by the plaintiff in his suit and the, facts which preceded it.4. The disputed plots are C.S. dags Nos. 270 and 274. Plot No. 270 is stated in the plaint schedule to be a homestead plot which was held by the defendant's predecessor Upendra Nath Mukherji as a mokarari raiyat under the proprietors of touzi No. 3 of the 24-Parganas Collectorate. Plot. No. 274 is stated in the plaint schedule to beSali (arable land) which was held, by the said Upendra Nath Mukherji in occupancy right under 'the said touzi No. 3 of the 24-Parganas Collectorate. It appears that Upendra Nath Mukherji sold the dis...
Tarapada Ghose Vs. Sailendra Nath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal583,57CWN131
Chakravartti, C.J.1. There seems to have been misconception in this case on the part of all parties. The plaintiffs brought a suit in which they prayed for a large variety of reliefs, the chief of which, are construction of a will, declaration of their title to certain movable and immovable properties, partition of the said properties, accounts and appointment of a receiver, pending the final determination of the suit. The above is only a broad summary of the large multitude of reliefs which have been crowded into the prayer portion of the plaint, but they give a fairly accurate idea of the lines along which the plaintiffs desired the Court to relieve them. The suit was valued for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 55173-3-9 but for the purposes of court-fees the plaintiffs adopted a method which one thought was no longer surviving. They took the reliefs on construction of the will, declaration, accounts and the appointment of a receiver separately, valued each relief at Rs. 500/- and ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›