Kolkata Court May 1952 Judgments
Profulla Chandra Vs. Prabartak Trust
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Cal8,57CWN554
P.N. Mookerji, J.1. This Rule raises two important questions -- one relating to the proper meaning of the word 'as', appearing in the Explanations to paragraphs (2) and (3) of Schedule A of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, where the expression 'residential purposes' is defined for purposes of the said Paragraphs, the other involving consideration of the applicability of the doctrine of 'res judicata' in relation to proceedings for refixation of 'standard' rent under the Rent Control Act of 1950 by reason of a previous decision in a proceeding for standardisation of rent under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948.2. The material facts are not in dispute and they are as follows:3. The petitioner Prafulla Chandra Bhar is the landlord and the opposite party, Messrs. Prabartak Trust, the tenant in respect of premises No. 61 Bowbazar Street in the town of Calcutta. In December 1941, the rent of the said premises was Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Nityananda Ghose Vs. Rajpur Chhaya Bani Cinema Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal208
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. On this notice of motion takenout by the defendant Company, the applicationis made to stay the suit and all proceedingsherein until the plaintiff has exhausted all hisavailable remedies against the mortgaged property or until he abandons his mortgage security. The application is made under Section 68(2),T. P. Act read with Sub-section (1) and Clause (a)thereof. 2. In order to appreciate the point advanced by the applicant and in order to determine the point raised, it is necessary to refer to the nature of pleadings in this suit which the applicant wants to stay.3. This suit was instituted by the plaintiff on or about 9th January 1952. In para. 1 of the plaint the claim against the defendant company is made only on the basis of its alleged liability as drawer of a Promissory Note dated 11th January 1949 for the sum of Rs. 40,000/- carrying interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum payable on demand to the plaintiff or order. That is the only claim made in the p...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath Sarkar Vs. Mahabir Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal36,56CWN679
G.N. Das, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and is directed against a judgment and. decree passed by Janab N. Ahmed, Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Howrah, dated 12-5-1947.2. The property in dispute belonged to three sisters Hedatan Bibi, Latifan Bibi and Kanij Fatema Bibi, It is not disputed at this stage that the interest of Hedatan Bibi has devolved ultimately on defendant 1 Mohabir Roy. Latifan Bibi is defendant 2. Kanij Fatema Bibi's interest was purchased by the plaintiff by a kobala on 17-6-1942. The position, therefore, was that the plaintiff had a one-third share in the disputed property. Defendant 1 had another third share and defendant 2 had the remaining one-third share. It is not disputed further that the entire property is in the occupation of defendant l Mohabir Roy as a monthly tenant. The plaintiff instituted the present suit for partition of his one-third share by metes and bounds. Defendant l Mohabir Roy raised several defences but it is necessary to state only...
Tag this Judgment!East India Film Studios Vs. P.K. Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Cal41,58CWN152
Bose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to withdraw or cancel an order of revocation of appointment of an arbitrator dated 24-11-1951 and for direction upon the said respondents to forbear from giving effect to that order.2. The petitioner carries on business of production and exploitation of films and for the purpose of such business he has his building, studio laboratory situated at Tollygunge in the suburbs of Calcutta. In the year 1942, the building, studio, laboratory and the garages belonging to the petitioner were requisitioned by the Government under the Defence of India Act, 1939. As no agreement could be reached between the petitioner and the Government as to the compensation payable in respect of the requisition, a reference was made by the Collector under the provisions of Section 19, Defence of India Act by an order made on 20-6-1944 and this reference was registered as Land Acqu...
Tag this Judgment!Anath Bandhu Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal759,[1952]22CompCas175(Cal),56CWN594
Chunder, J.1. This is an appeal against a conviction of the appellant Anath Bandhu Samanta under Section 407, Calcutta Municipal Act read with Section 488 and a sentence of fine of Rs. 500 only by the Third Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta. The complaint was also against Messrs. Samanta Industries Ltd. Sri Anath Bandhu Samanta was convicted as proprietor. It has been pointed out by Mr. Debabrata Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the appellant that as it is a limited company there can be no proprietor and the person in charge of the limited company should have been proceeded against. He very fairly points out that the person in charge is the son of Anath Bandhu Samanta called Shib Kanta Samanta who is the General Secretary. His first contention is that the proceeding should have been against Shib Kanta Samanta. As the matter has to go back to the Municipal Magistrate, when the matter goes back the learned Magistrate may draw up proceedings against Shib Kanta Samanta instead of Anath Band...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Agrasen Stores Vs. Ramrichpal Jhunjhunwala
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal379,56CWN828
K.C. Das Gupta, J. 1. These two Rules arising out of the same application raise an interesting point of law whether the provisions of Section 9(1)(f), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, are applicable for the purpose of fixing standard rest under that Act when the premises for which standardisation is sought, though constructed after 31-12-1949, form part of a proposed building which has not been completed.2. The tenant petitioner filed an application for fixation of rent in respect of one shop room which was numbered as shop room No. 4, at P. 30A, Kalakar Street. This room is one of the 8 rooms which have been constructed after 31-12-1949, on the ground floor of a proposed building. The proposal according to the evidence was to erect a six storeyed structure. It appears that some other rooms on the first floor have been only partially constructed. The Inspector who was asked by the court to make an enquiry as regards the costs of construction reported ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Mirabala Dasi Vs. Binapani Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Cal163,56CWN761
ORDER1. This Rule was obtained by a tenant defendant against the order passed in appeal by the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court and another Judge of the Small Cause Court, Mr. S. C. Biswas. They passed that order in appeal against the decision of the Judge Mr. P. M. Lahiri, another Judge of the Small Cause Court in an ejectment suit,...... under the West Bengal Premises RentControl Act. 2. A preliminary point has been taken that as a second appeal lies against the decree that was passed in appeal the Court cannot interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the order that has been passed. 3. In our judgment this objection should succeed. The West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act has made special provision as regards the hearing of these ejectment suits and as regards appeals from decrees passed in those suits. Section 16 of the Act provides as follows: 'Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law a suit by a landlord against a tenant in which recovery of ...
Tag this Judgment!Dudhewalla and Co. Ltd. Vs. Govindram Rameswarlal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal13,56CWN563
Chakravartti, Ag. C.J. 1. These are six applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a judgement passed by this Court in its civil revisional jurisdiction in six cases. Those cases were heard together. 2. The judgment was delivered on 14-1-1952 in all the six cases in the form of separate sectionsof a single pronouncement and' the learned Judges signed the 'judgment at 'the end. The applicants for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court made their first application for a certified copy on 8-2-1952 and we are informed from the Bar that that application was for a copy of the judgment. The requisites were filed on the same day and the copy was ready on the 12th of February next. Delivery of the copy was also taken on the same day. As the application was for a copy of the judgment, what was supplied was only a copy of the judgment. 3. It appears that on 21-4-1952 the applicants for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court made a second application for copy and we arc informed tha...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prosad Rajgharia Vs. British Insulated Callender's Cables Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Cal13,57CWN540
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. The rent of the tenancy which the opposite party held under the present petitioner having been standardised on the petitioner's application at Rs. 920-8 with effect from August, 1949 by the Additional Rent Controller, both the tenant and the landlord appealed. The landlord's appeal was dismissed but the tenant's appeal was allowed and the appellate Court set aside the Additional Rent Controller's order on the finding that there could be no standardisation of rent in view of the proviso to Section 3, West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950. Meanwhile the landlord had realised the sum of Rs. 3246/- from the tenant representing the difference in rent between the old rate and the new rate of Rs. 650/- and Rs. 920-8 as per month, respectively, for the period from August 1949 to July 1950. The tenant made an application purporting to be under Section 7, West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller who directed the la...
Tag this Judgment!Dulal Chandra Chatterjee Vs. Gosthabehari Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal259,56CWN681
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This appeal raises a short point under Section 4, Partition Act. 2. The facts which have led up to this appeal are as follows. There is a house situated within the limits of Konnagar Municipality which was owned at one time by one Nilmoni Mitra and on his death devolved on his four sons, Tinkari, Bishnu Charan, Gangacharan and Gostha Behari. By three separate conveyances executed on three different dates in 1948 the appellant, Dulal Chandra Chatterjee, purchased the respective shares of Tinkari, Bishnu Charan and Gangacharan, and thereafter he filed a suit for partition. In that suit the remaining brother Gostha Behari, who is the respondent in this appeal, made an application under Section 4, Partition Act, praying that he might be allowed to buy the shares purchased by the plaintiff at a valuation fixed by the Court. That application was met by the appellant with the objection that the application did not lie, inasmuch as the house concerned had been let out to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »