Kolkata Court April 1952 Judgments
Edward Ezra and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal263,56CWN875
Chakravartti, J. 1. These appeals are succeeding on two legal grounds concerning the validity of the trial at which the Appellants were convicted and it is therefore hardly necessary to state any facts other than those which bear on those grounds. The trial was held under the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance (29 of 1943). It appears that after the Ordinance had been promulgated, it was amended eleven times and adapted twice, with the undetected result that the thread of continuity, at least as regards the constitution of the Tribunal by which the Appellants were being tried, had snapped at a vital point. It was also overlooked that while the trial was proceeding under a special law, the new Constitution of India had come into force with its declarations of fundamental rights. 2. These are five appeals before us. The appellant in Appeal No. 95 is Major J. Phillips who was Accused No. 1 in the ease and had been, at all material times, the Controller of Telegraphs Stores...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Ratan Karmakar and anr. Vs. Amulya Charan Karmakar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal232,56CWN728
ORDERChakravartti, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order dated 27th March 1951, passed by the Additional District Judge of 24 Parganas under Section 40A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors' Act. The applicants before me are the debtors. 2. The only question for consideration is whether the transaction between the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties was a mortgage or a lease. It appears that on the 11th March 1921, one Ram Krishna, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners took a sum of Rs. 120/- from Amulya Charan, the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties. The only question involved in this Rule is the character of this money. 3. It appears that in connection with that payment a patta was executed in favour of Amulya Charan in respect of a share of a tank, whereas an ekrarnama was executed in favour of Ram Krishna. The patta purports in the clearest possible manner to be a document of lease whereas the...
Tag this Judgment!Damji Karamchand Vs. Kutch State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ714
ORDERVakil, J.C.1. The facts giving rise to the present application for revision of an order dated 14.3.52, made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kutch, briefly stated, are as follows:2. One Manilal Gokal along with others was convicted in Sessions Case No. 27 of 1949 for offences punishable under Sections 411 and 414, I.P.C., and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 9 months. Manilal Gokal preferred criminal appeal No. 6 of 1950 against his order of conviction and sentence to this Court and applied for being released on bail. This Court made the following order below Manilal's application for bail:Release appellant on bail of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount together. Trial Court shall stay realisation of fine on security to its satisfaction.It seems that the trial Court directed Manilal to furnish a surety for Rs. 10,000/- for 'stay of realization of fine'. M...
Tag this Judgment!Hind Estate Ltd. Vs. Grant James Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal20,56CWN566
Chakravartti, J. 1. These are two Rules directed against an order dated 29th August 1951, passed by Sri Syamadas Chatterjee, First Additional Subordinate Judge, Alipore, modifying a common order dated 8th January 1951, passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Sri K. P. Chattoraj, by which he fixed the standard rent for two tenancies on applications made by the respective tenants. The petitioner in the Rules before us is the landlord. 2. The tenancies are in respect of two suites of rooms in premises No. 220/1, Lower Circular Road, which appears to be a large and luxuriously constructed building. In the case out of which Rule No. 3265 arises, the tenant is Grant James Limited and the suite occupied by the Company is situated on the fourth floor and consists of four living rooms with mosaic floor and colour-wash walls, two bath rooms with necessary fittings, one passage room, one verandah and one kitchen. The total floor space is 1256 sq. ft. In the case out of which Rule No. 3267 arise...
Tag this Judgment!Amal Krishna Basu and ors. Vs. Chandi Charan Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal145,56CWN528
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the plaintiffs landlords in a suit for ejectment against an order passed by the Sixth Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, directing under Section 14 (1), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, the tenant defendant to pay Rs. 5057/14/- by 28-1-1952. This was the amount which the learned Judge found due on account of arrears and interest on calculation in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 (1). The suit was filed by the plaintiffs on 10-10-1950 on the allegation that prior to that date there had been defaults in the payment of arrears of rents from May. On 5-12-1950, the defendant appeared and filed an application for an order under Section 14 (1). This application was disposed of fay the learned Judge on 17-3-1951 by an order which is in these words.'On the defendant's prayer but without prejudice to the plaintiff, all arrears of rent up to February 1951 with legal interest, costs of the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Chhatu Lal Shaw Vs. Panchanan Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal755,57CWN563
ORDER1. This Rule was directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of 24-Parganas by which he directed the plaintiff to pay 'ad valorem' court-fees on Rs. 6000/- on the plaint and refused to pass any final orders on the application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint.2. The plaintiff along with defendant 2 and other co-sharers is in joint possession of the premises in suit. Defendant 2 executed a kobala on 6-5-1949, in favour of defendant 1 in the present suit. The plaintiff's allegation is that (the kobala was obtained by fraud and undue influence and he prayed, first, for a declaration that this sale deed was void and secondly, for a permanent injunction restraining defendant 1 from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and thirdly, in the alternative, for an order by the Court allowing the plaintiff to pre-empt. The relief for declaration was valued at Rs. 20/-, the relief for injunction was valued at Rs. 50/- and the relief for preemption was valu...
Tag this Judgment!Hind Estate Ltd. Vs. Ansar Ahmed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal54,56CWN543
Chakravartti, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order, dated 14-9-1951, passed by Sri N. Banerjee, Additional Subordinate Judge of Alipore, whereby he affirmed an order passed on 6-1-1951, by the Rent Controller, Calcutta, Thepetitioner before us is the landlord of the premisesconcerned namely, the Hind Estate Limited.2. It appears that the petitioner holds a lease for 99 years in respect of Premises No. 220/1, Lower Circular Road, and certain other premises. That lease is dated 30-12-1948. The opposite party is admittedly a tenant in respect of one shop room in Premises no. 220/1, Lower Circular Road, and it is to. the fixation of the standard rent for thatone shop room that the present Rule relates.3. The application for the fixation of a standard rent was made by the tenant opposite partyon 27-10-1950. In para. 4 of that application it wasstated that the shop room was a small one, measuring 15' 10' by 8' and tbat the rent in December 1941, was about RS. 20 only. The current rent...
Tag this Judgment!NalIn Chandra Pal Vs. Bejoy Ranjan Ganguly and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal53,56CWN537
Harries, C.J.1. This is an application for the conviction and punishment of the opposite-par ties for contempt of this Court.2. The opposite-party No. l Bejoy Ranjan Ganguly filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Alipore, against the present petitioner and another charging them with offences under Sections 420 and 406, Penal Code. It is unnecessary to deal in detail with these offences. But what was suggested was that the opposite-party had been induced to take certain land on the representation that the land belonged to certain lessors, whereas in fact it was said that it was khas-mahal land.3. The matter first came before a Sub-Divisional Magistrate who directed a Circle Officer to hold an enquiry. The latter submitted a report and expressed the view that this was not a criminal matter.4. The opposite-party thereafter filed a petition and on that a judicial enquiry was held by a learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate was of opinion that the offence under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Sankar Mawli Dutt Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal588,(1952)56CALLT500(HC)
Das, J.1. This rule was issued by this Court calling upon the Administrator and/or the District Magistrate of Chandernagore to shew cause why the proceedings pending in the Court of Sessions, Chandernagore against the petitioner should not be quashed.2. On 31-1-1951, a petition of complaint was filed before Sri K. P. Roy, learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Chandernagore and Magistrate, 1st Class Chandernagore, by one Dabiran Bibi on the following allegations.3. The complainant and her children were in occupation of a plot of land and of huts standing thereon, in Chandernagore as a tenant under the petitioner.4. In Falgoon 1356 B. S. (February-March 1950) communal disturbances broke out in Chandernagore. The complainant and her children left for East Pakistan. After the disturbances had subsided, the complainant with her children returned to Chandernagore in Jaistha or Asarh 1357 B. S. (May-July 1950) and came to learn that the petitioner had caused her huts to be demolished and had tak...
Tag this Judgment!Gunadhar Das and ors. Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal618
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal by eleven persons who were convicted of dacoity and each sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. They were tried along with twelve others by a learned Assistant Sessions Judge sitting with a jury. The jury had found the twelve persons not guilty, and they were acquitted but the jury unanimously found the eleven appellants guilty and they were dealt with accordingly.2. The case for the prosecution was that these twenty-three persons together with others committed a dacoity in the house of one Janakram Shaw, P. W. 2, on the evening of 10-9-1949. On that evening between 7 and 8 p. m. some 50 or 60 persons, it is said, were seen coming along the road towards this house armed with lathis, spears, swords and other weapons. They were shouting slogans such as 'Lal Jhanta Ki Jay', 'Mahajan Dhangsa Hauk' and were obviously making for the house of Janakram Shaw.Apprehending that his house might be the subject of attack, Janakram it is said bolted the main...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »