Kolkata Court May 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.
Bhuwalka Brothers Ltd. Vs. Dunichand Rateria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal740,56CWN685
Banerjee, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Baohawat J. requiring our decision upon the effect and validity of an Ordinance made by the Governor of this Province.2. The plaintiff is a merchant who has been carrying on business in Calcutta in jute goods for the last 30 or 35 years and during this time he entered into numerous transactions to the approximate value of rupees eighty to ninety crores. In the year 1949, the volume of his business exceeded Rs. 2 crores. Yet he never possessed a godown nor any place to store jute goods. He gives 'actual' delivery by means of delivery orders or mate's receipts. In his evidence he said :'The goods remain with the mills. We deal either in delivery orders or mate's receipts. Delivery order is in other words the goods. Whether you say delivery order or delivery of the goods, it is one and the same thing.'That is how he carries on business.3. As to the defendant, the learned trial Judge has thus summarised its position :-'A large part of the...
Umapati Choudhuri and ors. Vs. Subodh Chandra Choudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal377,57CWN112
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. The petitioners instituted a suit which has been numbered as Suit No. 12 of 1950 for partition of properties belonging originally to four brothers, Nandalal, Amritalal, Motilal and Mohitlal. The petitioners are the sons and legal representatives of Panchkori, one of the six sons of Amritalal. It is not disputed that Panchkori did acquire by inheritance an interest in the joint properties. Sometime before 1932, he lost that interest and that interest passed to another son Amritalal, Lalit. The petitioners have brought the suit on the averment that thereafter they have reacquired an interest in the properties and found their case on deeds of transfer from Lalit. They have also asked for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from executing the decree passed in an earlier suit for partition instituted by Subodh who is the son of Mohitlal. In this earlier suit which was numbered 39 of 1945 the present plaintiffs were not made parties. It is on that ground th...
Great American Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hindusthan Flashlight Mg. Co. Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal474,57CWN147
ORDERBachawat, J. 1. This is an application tor removal of the Arbitrator. 2. Under the contract the arbitration was to be by two Arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party. In this case the petitioner did not appoint its Arbitrator because it was then under the impression that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter in dispute. The result was the arbitrator appointed by the respondent became entitled to act as sole arbitrator. An application was made previously for determination of the scope and effect of the arbitration agreement but counsel for the petitioner did not then press for setting aside the appointment of this arbitrator. 3. The arbitrator in this case is Ramnath Bajoria who is the father of the Managing Director of the respondent company. Having regard to this relationship Ramnath from the beginning had a peculiarly delicate task to discharge as an arbitrator. Every arbitrator is expected to conform to the fundamental rules relating to the administra...
Sm. Prafulla Nalini Ghose and anr. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal560,57CWN116
ORDERP.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order passed by a learned Magistrate, 1st class, Sealdah, on 27-10-1951, convicting the two petitioners under Sections 453 and 341, I. P. C., and sentencing each to a flue of Rs. 30/- in default to S. I. for 15 days under Section 453, I. P. C., and directing also restoration of possession under Sections 522, Criminal P. C. there being, however, no separate sentence passed under Section 341, I. P. C.2. A motion for reference of the case to this Court was eventually rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 21-1-1952 and thereafter on 28-1-1952 the present Rule was obtained by the two accused.3. The case had a chequered career. In the petition of complaint which was filed on 17-11-1949, process was prayed for under Sections 448/341/506/426/427, I. P. C., and such process was sought not only against the two petitioners who are husband and wife but also against their three sons and two daughters and two other persons, Priya ...
Haran Chandra Dutt and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal907
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in the nature of Quo Warranto against the respondent District Board and the members thereof to exhibit the authority under which they purport to exercise the functions and powers and perform the duties of the District Board of 24-Parganas and of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and the members thereof and also for the issue of an appropriate writ directing the respondent State of West Bengal to. revoke or cancel certain notifications issued under West Bengal Ordinance 3 of 1948 and under West Bengal Act 23 of 1948 and under Act 14 of 1950 and Act 51 of 1950.2. The petitioners are inhabitants of villages Dhop Dhopi and Dakshin Chatra in the district of 24 parganas and are qualified to vote at elections of members of the District Board of 24 parganas and to stand as candidates for election as members of the said District Board. 3. On 1st October 1886, a District Board known as the District Boar...
Pannalal Sen Vs. Lakshmisona Pyne and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal840,56CWN597
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This application requires determination of the question whether deposit of money in Court under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C., is liable to rateable distribution tinder section 73 of that Code.2. The summons was taken out by the plaintiff-decree-holder for an order that the Sheriff of Calcutta do pay to him the sum of Rs. 8,193-13-0 less the commission and other expenses payable to the Accountant-General towards pro tanto satisfaction of his claim under the decree.3. The facts may be very briefly stated.4. This decree was made in favour of the applicant, on 19-5-1947, ordering the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 6,500/- with interest at 6 per cent. per annum from the date of the decree until realisation, and also the costs of the plaintiff to be taxed by the Taxing Officer of this Court, with interest at the same rate until realisation. The applicant obtained on 11-2-1948, an order for attachment of premises No. 7, Taltola Lane, Calcutta and, ...
Davco Products Ltd. Vs. Rameswarlal Sadhani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Cal195
Das Gupta, J.1. This appeal is against the order made by Banerjee J, on the application of a paid up shareholder of the Davco Products Ltd. to wind up the Company. The grounds on which the order was asked for were that the Company had suspended business for more than a year, that it was unable to pay its debts and that as the substratum of the Company was gone, it was just and convenient that the Company should be wound up. The application was contested by the Company. It was supported by two other paid-up share-holders and also by two persons who claimed to have been employed by the Company and to have obtained decrees for arrears of salary due to them against two of the Directors and claimed to be the creditors of the Company. Of the other creditors, the Imperial Bank of India, claiming dues of over Rs. 1,50,000/- for which a suit was pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Alipore, appeared and denied certain allegations made against them by the applicant but did neither supp...
Soshi Kumar Banerjee and ors. Vs. A.W. Hill and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal195
Harries, C.J. 1. A Rule was issued calling Upon the opposite parties to show cause why the records, of a certain suit should not be transferred to this. Court for the decision of a constitutional point involved in the suit namely whether Section 30(1)(a)(b) of the Bengal Money Lenders Act is ultra vires the Constitution. 2. I do not think that the records should be transferred because though a constitutional point might arise in a proper case, I do not think it can be said to arise in this case. 3. The proceedings giving rise to this application were instituted many years ago. They were dismissed by the trial Court which held that the suit was not maintainable. That decision was reversed by this Court and the view of this court was upheld by ,the Federal Court and the trial court was directed to proceed to hear the suit on its merits. All this occurred long before the Constitution came into force. 4. Even assuming that these provisions of the Bengal Money Lenders Act have become ultra ...
Belait Sheikh and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal753
Das Gupta, J.1. The appellants are residents of the village of Brahmanigram within the jurisdiction of Police Station Bampurhat in the district of Birbhum. The entire village was formerly included in the Bampurhat Union under the Village Self Government Act. A portion of the Brahmanigram has however been included in the Municipality of Bampurhat that has been constituted by the Government of West Bengal in 1950.2. Aggrieved by this, the appellants have, for the purpose of removing their grievance, applied to this Court for exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. They have for this purpose challenged the very constitution of Bampurhat Municipality as a mala fide act of the West Bengal Government, carried out in contravention of the Statute, and have also challenged as invalid the appointment of persons, as the first body of Commissioners of Municipality as not made in accordance with law. They have asked (1) for a writ in the nature of certiorari for the quashing of th...
Ahidhar Ghose Vs. Jagabandhu Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal846,56CWN643
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This is the judgment-debtor's appeal against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore, rejecting his objections under section 47, Civil P. C. The material facts are not in dispute but the appellant contends that the learned Subordinate Judge has erred in law in his interpretation and application of para. 4, Indian Independence (Legal Proceedings) Order, 1947, and section 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act.2. Under the zemindar-respondent the appellant holds a Patni in respect of lands which lie partly within the Indian Union and partly within Pakistan. The annual jama is Rs. 3760-11-0 and the Patni was created under a kabuliyat, executed on 20th chaitra 1319 B. section and registered on 4-4-1913. There being default in the payment of the Patni rent and the usual cesses for the period 1351 B. S. to 1354 B. S., the landlord (respondent) instituted R. S. No. 22 of 1947 against the appellant in the 3rd Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore. The suit was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »