Kolkata Court March 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.
Durjendra Krishna Vs. K. Shaw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal147,56CWN671
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. The opposite party K. Shaw filed an application before the Rent Controller for standardisation of rent for what he claimed was held by him as a tenant under the present petitioner, viz., a portion of , the roof and parapet of 1 R.G. Kar Raod, Calcutta, where admittedly the opposite party displayed an advertisement by fixing a hoarding on a portion of the roof and the parapet. The petitioner raised an objection that this was no case of lease but that the opposite party K. Shaw was a mere licensee and not a lessee and accordingly the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 were not available to him.The learned Rent Controller accepted this contention and rejected this application on this ground. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that this was not a case of mere license and that the paramount intention of the parties was to create a tenancy in respect of the roof and that the grantee was in the position of a tena...
Bishno Charan Vs. Birendra Krishna Mazumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal261,56CWN753
Bachawat, J. 1. On December 6, 1949 the landlord petitioner obtained from the Small Cause Court an order for recovery of possession of the premises from the tenant opposite party on the ground of ipso facto termination of tenancy under the Rent Control Act of 1948 in summary proceedings instituted under Chap. VII, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. The order directed possession to be given on January 3, 1951. On 31-3-1959 the Rent Control Act of 1950 came into force. The latter Act was amended by the Amendment Act of 1950 which came into force on November 30, 1950. On January 2, 1951 the tenant applied for vacating the order for possession. On January 8, 1951. the Court directed payment of a certain sum of money and on such payment on January 19, 1951 vacated the order for possession. The landlord has moved this Court in revision against the order dated January 19, 1951. 2. It is now settled law that the expression 'decree for recovery of possession' in Section 18(1). Rent Control Act ...
Yunus Shaikh Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal567
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Sessions Judge directing a Magistrate to commit the opposite party to the Court of Session for trial upon a charge under Section 366, Penal Code.2. The charge against the petitioner was that he had gone off with the wife of one Fakir Mohammed and apparently had lived with her for some time.3. A complaint was made and the matter was investigated by a Magistrate. Two possible charges could have been framed, one under Section 366, Penal Code and one under Section 498, Penal Code. After hearing the evidence the learned Magistrate framed a charge under Section 498 that is of enticing away a married woman with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with another person.4. The Sessions Judge was moved in revision and he appears to have thought that the proper charge here was under Section 366, Penal Code and he directed a commitment upon that charge. The learned Judge assumes that what the husband said that the girl...
Hub Lal Show Vs. Prem Raj Lala
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal94
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. The respondent Premraj Lala filed an application under Section 38 of the Bengal Moneylenders Act in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Howrah. In that application it was stated that the original loan of Rs. 500/- with all interest accrued thereon at the statutory rate had been fully satisfied from the income. The prayer, however, was that an account be taken of the loan described and a declaration of the amount, if due, if any, be made upon the loan. The present appellant having raised an objection to the maintainability of the application the learned Subordinate Judge decided that the applicant was not entitled to maintain the petition in view of his case made in paragraph 7 of the petition that the loan had been satisfied. He accordingly dismissed the case as not maintainable. Against this Premraj Lala, the applicant, preferred an appeal to the District Judge, Howrah. The learned District Judge was of opinion that the application was maintainable and in that vie...
Bimal Singh Kothari and anr. Vs. Muir Mills Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal645,[1952]22CompCas248(Cal),56CWN361
Banerjee, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by S. R. Das Gupta J., on January 5, 1951, revoking leave granted to the plaintiffs to institute the suit under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. That clause provides that if the cause of action shall have arisen in part within the local limits of the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiffs may file the suit with leave of the Court first obtained. The leave under this clause is a condition precedent to jurisdiction. Unless the condition is fulfilled by obtaining the necessary leave to sue, the Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. If the suit is instituted with the leave, and thereafter the leave is revoked, the Court will have no jurisdiction to try the suit. The revocation of leave deprives the plaintiff of his right to have his suit tried by the Court of his choice. The matter, therefore, is very serious to the plaintiff.2. The granting and revocation of the leave is a matter in the discretion o...
Durlav Chandra Ghose (a Firm) Vs. Sm. Benarashi Devi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal728,56CWN495
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. On 8th October 1947, the opposite party made an application in the Small Cause Court for an order for delivery of possession of the land of which the present petitioner ?was a tenant. The order directing delivery of possession was passed on 2nd August 1948. The Court took no notice of the objection raised by the petitioner that he could not be evicted without payment of compensation for the valuable structures he had constructed on the building with respect to which he was a tenant, with the con-sent of the landlord. The order passed on 2nd August 1948, was in these words 'Writ of possession to issue and possession to be given on the 28th September 1948.' The date was thereafter extended from time to time and before possession had been given the Ticca Tenancy Ordinance came into force on 26th October 1948, and thereafter on 28th February 1949, the Tikka Tenancy Act came into operation. On 7th May 1949, the present petitioner filed an application purporting to be un...
Mani Bhai Patel Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal761,56CWN554
Harries, C.J.1. These are two appeals from convictions by a Municipal Magistrate.2. The three appellants were charged under Section 407 read with Section 489, Calcutta Municipal Act with storing, exposing and offering for sale tea which on analysis had been found to be adulterated with foreign matter. All the three accused were found guilty and convicted and Rambhai Patel and Manibhai Patel were each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, and Jashbhai Patel, who was the seller of the tea, was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300. In default he was to undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days. It is from these convictions and sentences that the present appeals have been preferred.3. The appellants Rambhai Patel and Manibhai Patel are partners of a firm carrying on business of tea merchants and Jashbhai Patel was actually concerned in the sale of this tea.4. Officers of the Corporation visited a godown of this firm and took samples of tea stored therein. This tea was ...
Ramchandra Sha Vs. Sachindra Kumar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal184
Das, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioner, Ram Chandra Sha, against an order of a Subordinate Judge, Alipore, dismissing his suit for setting aside an election held in Ward No. 1 of the Kamarhati Municipality.2. The ground on which the election was. sought to be set aside was that the nomination paper filed by the petitioner was wrongly rejected'. The defect in the nomination paper which was relied on by the learned Subordinate Judge in support of his judgment is that against the name of the candidate, the name of the proposer and the name of the seconder the word 'mill' was used instead of word 'male'. In the Kamarhati Municipality there are only two rolls kept one for male voters and another for female voters. There is no roll kept in the Kamarhati Municipality of 'mill' voters. The numbers in the electoral roll of the candidate, the proposer and the seconder were correctly given. It is obvious that the word 'mill' was a clerical mistake for the word 'male'. There could be n...
Hurdeodas Agarwala Vs. the State of W.B. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal857
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate Writ for a direction on the opposite parties to forbear from, depriving the petitioner of his property mentioned in the petition and from taking possession of the same and also for a direction upon the opposite parties not to take any steps or proceedings under: the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act of 1948.2. The petitioner's case is that he holds 6 bighas, 10 cottahs and 4 chatacks of land in Jote Tikalmal at Siliguri in the District of Darjeeling where he resides and carries on his business. By a declaration made under Section 6, West Bengal Act 21 of 1948 the Provincial Government purported to acquire lands measuring 27.78 acres in. Siliguri, Pargana Baikunthapur, District Darjeeling, including the said land belonging to the petitioner. This Notification was dated 19th December 1949, and was published in the Calcutta Gazette, dated 22nd December 1949.On 18th February 1950, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›