Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal308
ORDERChunder, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the complainant in connection with an order under Section 522, Criminal P. C. The facts briefly are that the complainant was the owner of a house which was broken into by refugees who took possession of the same committing offences under Sections 143, 448 and 453, Penal Code attended, as has been found by the learned Magistrate, with criminal force, show of force and criminal intimidation. The opposite parties in the present application are two ladies Maya Rani Sen Gupta and Bimala Sanyal. The complainant is one Yusuf Cossim Ariff. The opposite parties along with others were convicted by the learned Magistrate and sentenced to pay fines. The matter came up to this Court in revision after an appeal had been filed. This Court upheld the conviction. The landlord after the conviction of the opposite parties had prayed to the learned Magistrate for restoration of possession by ousting the two opposite parties. There is no question a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal392
Guha, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, C. P. C., at the instance of certain claimants directed against an order of Mr, N. K. Ghose who was appointed an Arbitrator under orders of Government dated 31-7-50, The subject matter of dispute is portion of 3 C.S. plots which had been requisitioned by Government under Rule 75A, . Defence of India Rules, on 2-11-43. It appears that subsequently these lands were acquired by Government. In the order of Government dated 31-7-50 mentioned above it was mentioned 'inter alia' that the said properties were requisitioned under Section 8, Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Ordinance, 1946, (Ordinance 19 of 1946) and under Section 3, Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947, and have been acquired. It appears further that there was also a Notification published in the Calcutta Gazette on 17-7-47 stating inter alia that the disputed lands had in supersession of previous orders been acquired under Section 5 (1) Requisitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal579,57CWN342
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate Writ for cancellation of an order of requisition dated 4-3-1952 made under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act (W. B, Act 5 of 1947) and also for cancellation of a notification directing the petitioner to vacate the premises requisitioned and also for direction upon the opposite parties to forbear from giving effect to the said order of requisition and the said notification.2. The petitioner is a resident of Garh Kamalpur in P.S. Mahisadal in the district of Midnapore. The case of the petitioner is that he became a tenant in respect of the whole of the first floor and one room on the ground floor in a two-storied building at Garh Kamalpore of which respondent 6 is the owner under a lease dated 16-2-1952 which was for a period of 5 years and at a rent of Rs. 50/- per month. There are other tenants in respect of other rooms on the groun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1954Cal159,57CWN790
Lahiri, J.1. This is an appeal by the Director of Consumer Goods, West Bengal, and also by the State of West Bengal against a Judgment of Bose J. by which he allowed an application filed by the respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The facts which are material for the purpose of this appeal may be briefly stated as follows: The respondent Is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and carries on the business of manufacture of an adhesive substance known as P. B. Clay which is intended for use in building works. The respondent has been carrying on this business since 1943 and the Government of India acting under the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance (No. XXXV of 1943) fixed the price of P. B. Clay Between the years 1943 and 1948, the respondent used to sell the products at the prices fixed by the Government of India. According to the report of the Government Test House at Alipore, dated October 20, 1943 cement was no part of the composition of P. B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal568,57CWN271
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 225 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ for cancellation of a declaration made under Section 6, West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, and for direction upon the respondents to forbear from proceeding further with the acquisition or from taking possession on the strength of the said declaration.2. The petitioner is the owner of about 2.42 acres of land in Mouza Kodalia in Police Station. Khardah in the District of 24 Pargaaas. By a notification dated 8-9-1951 published in the Calcutta Gazette on 11-10-1951, and purported to be issued under Section 4, West Bengal Land Development Act, 1948, it was notified that the petitioner's said lands along with other lands were likely to be needed for the settlement of immigrants. The total area which was notified as likely to be so needed was 284.32 acres. On coming to know of the said notification, the petitioner approached the respondent No. 3 who is the Collector of 24 Par-gan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal671,57CWN431
Chakravartti, C.J.1. These are two Rules directed against the same order passed by the Fifth Judge of the Small Cause Court on 20-3-1952 in a proceeding for the standardisation of rent. Civil Revision Case No. 1666 of 1952 arises out of a Rule issued at the instance of the landlord, while Civil Revision Case No. 1804 of 1952 arises out of a Rule issued at the instance of the tenant. The subject matter of the tenancy is a room situated on the ground floor of premises No. 97 Harrison Road, Calcutta. It is said that at one time this room consisted of two rooms, Nos. 3 and 4, but some time ago the partition between the two portions was removed and the area was converted into a single room.2. The application for the standardisation of rent was made by the tenant. His case was that the contractual rent of Rs. 207/- per month was excessive and inasmuch as the rent borne by the same room in 1941 was Rs. 40/- per month, the standard rent should be fixed at a much lower figure than the contractu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal565,57CWN253
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This Rule is directed against an appellate order, dated 22-9-1951, upholding an order made by a learned Munsif in a proceeding under Section 26F, Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The material facts are as follows. On 19-7-1949, the petitioner sold .49 decimals of land to one Bhudeb, but the kobala was made out in the names of the sons of the transferee. This kobala was registered on the same day. On May 15, 1950 the property was resold by the transferee to the petitioner. On 22-5-1950, opposite party No. 1 made an application for pre-emption under Section 26F, Bengal Tenancy Act.3. The objection taken on behalf of the petitioner appears to have been that although the transaction between him and Bhudeb had been given the form of a sale, it was really a mortgage; but the appearance of a sale had been given because Bhudeb was not a registered money lender and consequently he could not represent himself as a lender of money on interest, it was further contended that, in any event...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal702,57CWN601
Chakravartti, C.J.1. The only point of substance in this Rule is the point taken about the order for costs. The petitioner before us is a claimant in a Land Acquisition case. An area of land, belonging to her and measuring 7.92 acres, was requisitioned in 1943 and derequisitioned in 1947. The Collector offered her a compensation of Rs. 410/- on a certain basis, but not being satisfied with the adequacy of the amount, the petitioner asked for and obtained a reference under Section 19 (1Kb) of the Defence of India Act. The arbitrator was the Distirct Judge. The District Judge dealt with the various grounds urged before him, both as respects the adequacy of the compensation awarded for the actual area requisitioned and also as respects a further claim made on the ground of loss sustained because of the abandonment of some neighbouring areas by the cultivators because of the requisition of the aforesaid area of 7.92 acres. The grounds sought to be urged before us as regards the correctness...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal363,57CWN255
ORDERBose, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ directing the respondent to forbear from giving effect to a notice of demand dated 8-5-1952 and a summons dated 13-5-1952 issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay a certain sum by way of petrol duty, and also to forbear from giving effect to a resolution dated 19-12-1951 and an order dated 4-4-1952 under which the said petrol duty has been purported to have been imposed upon the petitioner.2. The case of the petitioner is that he carries on a business amongst other places in the city of Chandernagore as Agent of Burmah-Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. of India Ltd. under the name and style of Hind Trading Co. and as such runs a Petrol Pump at Burra Bazar, Grand Trunk Road in the City of Chandernagore. The said Petrol Pump yields a daily average cash sale of about Rs. 500/-. By a decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Prance, Chande...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal414
ORDERChunder, J. 1. This Rule is at the instance of a tenant who complained under Section 34 of stoppage of water by the landlord. He mentioned 25-1-1951, as the time when this was done. His petition before the Rent Controller under Section 34, West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1950 was on 29-1-1951. 'Prima facie', no question of limitation arises. No issue as to limitation under Section 34 was ever raised before the Rent Controller. The learned Subordinate Judge without proper appreciation of what was being done by the Rent Controller held that the occurrence related to violation of an order passed in 1949 by Mr. S.K. Neogi but the judgment of the learned Rent Controller itself will show that what the Rent Controller meant was that instead of carrying out what Mr, Neogi had previously ordered in 1949 the landlord further harassed his tenant by an additional act of plugging the tenant's pipe this time. He says: 'it appears that the landlord instead of plug...
Tag this Judgment!