Kolkata Court June 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.
Probhat Kumar Chatterjee and anr. Vs. Sm. Latika Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal196,56CWN757
K.C. Das Gupta, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, 24-Parganas, dismissing an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C. Ths application was filed by two persons, Provat Kumar Chatterji and Krishna Kumar Chatterji, both minors. The decree which was sought to be set aside was passed in a suit brought by their father's brother's widow Latika Debi for partition, for return of certain ornaments and for accounts as a pauper. Both Krishna and Provat were impleaded in that suit as major persons and so there was no arrangement, for their representation through any guardian. The learned Subordinate Judge gave as the main reason of dismissing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure his conclusion being that in law these two petitioners could not be regarded as parties to the suit and consequently the decree was a nullity. 2. It has been contended before us that when the parties were, in fact, impleaded as defendants...
B.C. Das Gupta and anr. Vs. Bijoyranjan Rakshit and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal212,56CWN861
K.C. Das Gupta J. 1. The respondents in these 19 appeals are students of different medical schools who appeared at the Intermediate Licentiateship Examination of the State Medical Faculty of West Bengal in June, 1951, at the Burdwan Centre. Of them, some appeared only in the Anatomy paper and the rest in all the three subjects, Anatomy, Physiology and Pharmacology. The written examination was held on the 7th June 1951, and the oral examination on the 18th June 1951. On the 28th June 1951, one of the three examiners in Physiology sent a report to the Secretary, State Medical Faculty, in which he stated that while correcting answer papers of questions Nos. 1 and 2 he found that almost all the answer papers were the same in language and content, that when the same questions were put to these candidates in the oral examination not a single student could answer them, that some of them could not follow the meaning of the answer paper when the contents were read to them and that in his opinio...
In Re: Arthur Paul Benthall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal815,57CWN323
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This is a Reference under Section 57, Stamp Act and came to be made in the following circumstances.2. On 4-7-1949, Messrs. Orr, Dignam & Co., writing as Solicitors for the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, forwarded to the Collector of Customs Calcutta, a draft Power of Attorney, purporting to relate to an intended grant from one Mr. A. P. Benthall in favour of two persons, named D. C. Fairburn and J. J. B. Sutherland. The power conferred by the document was a general power, authorising the attorneys to act jointly and severally in the name of the executant and on his behalf in his individual capacity as also in his capacity as Director, Managing Director, Agent, Managing Agent and Liquidator of any company in which he was or might in future be interested and further, as Executor, Administrator or Trustee or in any capacity whatever as occasion might require. The Solicitors requested the Collector to adjudicate the stamp duty payable on the document under Section 31 of t...
Sukdeo Singh Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal41,56CWN669
ORDERK.C. Chunder, J.1. This rule was issued at the instance of an accused person who had been convicted by a Municipal Magistrate sitting in a Mobile Court for an offence under Section 386 (l) (c), Calcutta Municipal Act, read with Section 488 of the said Act. The accused' was caught hold of and produced before the Magistrate and the charge against him was that he kept a buffalo. The learned Magistrate's judgment as regards the evidence is this :'Sukdeo (that is, the accused) does not plead guilty. Section S. G. C. Roy says he has one buffalo. He denied Fined Rs. 15, in default S.I. for week.'Accepting everything that the Section S. O. G. C. Roy said as gospel truth I fail to see how any conviction could be based on the evidence. Perhaps as it was a mobile Court it was too much for the learned Magistrate to be burdened with a copy of the Municipal Act. If he had barely referred to Section 386 (l) (c) itself he would have seen that it is in these terms :'(c) keeping horses, cattle or o...
In the Goods of Kumar Brojendra Narayan Singh Deo Deceased
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal606
ORDERP.B. Mukarji, J.1. This matter has been set down before me for judicial determination under a special direction from the learned Chief Justice on 14-5-1952. 2. It has been a long standing point which has caused the offices of this Court constant headache for over half a century. On every occasion the point avoided Judicial determination by special departmental directions obtained from Judges confined to individual cases without setting the law and practice on the point.3. The point is that if an Order is made by the Court for grant of Letters of Administration to a person on his executing a personal bond without surety, can he obtain such Letters of Administration if he has that bond executed not personally but by an agent to whom he grants a power of attorney to do the same.4. Before proceeding to discuss and decide the point I consider it proper to set out briefly the facts of the case.5. Rajendra Narayan Singh Deo Maharaja of Patna and the certificated, guardian of the person a...
Sreedam Chandra Bhur Vs. Tencori Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal222,57CWN104
R.P. Mookerjee J.1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Chandernagore, rejecting a plaint on the ground that the provisions of Section 80, Civil P.C., had not been complied with. The order was passed immediately after the plaint was filed and before any notice had been issued on the defendants.2. I need refer only to such of the relevant facts as would be necessary to appreciate the objection raised 'suo motu' by the learned Subordinate Judge and the contentions raised by the parties before this Court.3. The plaintiff filed the suit against certain individuals in their personal capacity and also as members of the Council of Administration, or the Municipal Assembly, as the case may be, of the Free City of Chandernagore. The said Council and Assembly were also impleaded as party defendants. The suit was one for a declaration that a certain resolution passed by the Council of Administration was illegal and invalid. There were further prayers for cert...
Biman Chandra Bose Vs. Dr. H.C. Mukherjee, Governor and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal799,56CWN651
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent l, the Governor of West Bengal, to recall nominations of 9 members to the State Legislative Council of West Bengal and for direction upon him to forbear from giving effect to the notification dated 4-4-1952 containing the said nominations and also for suitable directions on the other respondents who are the persons nominated, preventing them from exercising their rights under the said nominations.2. The petitioner is a Master of Science, a Master of Arts and Bachelor of Law and is an Advocate of this Court practising in the Original and Appellate Sides of this Court. The case of the petitioner is that he possesses exceptional literary abilities and is the Author and Publisher of certain books of English Poems and Bengali verses which have found place in Bodleian Library, Oxford, Nobel Library, Stockholm, Sahitya Parishad Library, Imperial Library and ot...
Ramesh Chandra Nath Vs. Santi Chemical Works
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal407
ORDERP.B. Mukherji, J. 1. This Rule is directed against the order of the Small Cause Court Judge made on 16-8-1951 under Section 14 (4), Rent Act of 1950. The order that he made was in these terms:'Parties present as before. Parties heard, through pleaders. Parties do not examine themselves. The rents in arrears amount to Rs. 469/1/-. The defendant to deposit this sum within 31-8-51 to 1-9-51 for order.'2. It is said now on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that the order to deposit rev t was made on the basis of the contractual rent of Rs. 60/- per month including electricity. This, it is contended, is illegal, because in this particular case on 16-8-1951 when the Judge made the order there was a standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller at Rs. 21/4/-. It is, therefore contended that he should have required the tenant to deposit at the rate of this standard rent. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been depositing rent with the Rent Controller for at least ten months before th...
Nalini Ranjan Guha Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Cal462
ORDERBachawat, J.1. This is an application by Nalini Ranjan Guha under Section 8, Arbitration Act for appointment of an Arbitrator. The arbitration agreement provides for reference of the disputes to the Superintending Engineer of the Circle for the time being. In a previous application Das Gupta J. expressed the view that the office of the Arbitrator is now vacant and that the vacancy can be filled by this Court. It is now conceded by counsel that there is such vacancy and that the condition laid down in Sub-section (1) (b) of Section 8 is fulfilled. The appointed Arbitrator is incapable of acting and the Arbitration agreement does not show that it was intended that the vacancy should not be supplied.2. Before a party can apply under this section for appointment of an arbitrator he must serve the other party with a written notice to concur in the appointment of an arbitrator. The written notice relied on by the petitioner is a notice dated 28-4-1951 addressed to the Union of India and...
Ashutosh Banerjee Vs. Debjyoti Burman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal227,56CWN819
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an election petition under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 (Bengal Act 3 of 1923 as amended by the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1950).2. The petitioner is Ashutosh Banerjee, a defeated candidate at the last Municipal Election of Councillors of the Corporation of Calcutta whose result was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 1-4-1952. He was a Voter at the First General Election of the Corporation, his name being recorded as No. 703 in Part 'A' of the Electoral Roll of Constituency No. 64. There were four other candidates of which the first respondent Deb Jyoti Burman has been elected as the Councillor of the Corporation from the Constituency. The third and the fourth respondents after nomination withdrew from the contest. The nomination paper of the second respondent was rejected. The contest at the Polls was, therefore, between the petitioner and the first respondent.3. The sole ground on which the petitioner wants to set aside the election of respondent D...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »