Kolkata Court August 1952 Judgments
Hem Bala Dassi Vs. Sundar Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal627,57CWN179
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This case has been the occasion for an interesting debate on two important questions of procedure relating to proceedings for contempt of Court, in view of the importance of the issues and the somewhat unsettled character of the practice of the Court, we invited Mr. H.N. Sanyal to appear as an 'amicus curiae'. Mr. Sanyal readily responded to our request and we are grateful to him for the assistance he rendered. 2. The points I have referred to arise out of the following facts: The appellant Hem Bala Dassi is the owner of premises No. 5, Ratan Sarkar Garden Street, Calcutta, which she let out to one Lalit Mohan Saha and Lalit Mohan, in his turn, sub-let the premises to a number of sub-tenants. Among the sub-tenants were the respondents to this appeal, Sunder Shaw, Kaloo Shaw, Hira Shaw and Nand Lal Shaw. In 1948, the appellant brought a suit against Lalit Mohan Saha, which was Suit No. 2449 of that year, and in that suit she obtained a decree for ejectment. In due ...
Tag this Judgment!Nitya Gopal Samanta Vs. Pran Krishna Dau and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal893,57CWN439
G.N. Das, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 against a decision of Sri J. M. Bir, learned Subordinate Judge, Burdwan directing that the disputed property which consists of a tank and its banks, be sold amongst the co-sharers. The disputed property was recorded in C. S. dag 1205 of mouza Rasuikhand, P. S. Raina, District Burdwan. The plaintiffs claim 13 annas 12 gandas 2 kara 2 kranti share in the disputed property. The share of defendant 1 is stated to be 1 anna 12 gandas 1 kara 1 kranti 14 tils, that of defendants Nos. 2 to 4, 4 gandas 1 kara 1 kranti 16 tils and that of defendant No. 5, 10 gandas 1 kara 10 tils. The plaintiffs allege that defendant 1 has been exercising acts of possession in the tank and its banks and has not taken any care about the tank and that it is not convenient and possible to possess the disputed property jointly with the defendants, that the defendants refused to have the tank amicably partitioned though the plaintiffs requested the defendants to do so. T...
Tag this Judgment!Chillu Kahar Vs. Burn and Co. Ltd., Howrah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal516,57CWN149,(1953)IILLJ202Cal
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This appeal raises an important question under the Workmen's Compensation Act on which, I confess, I have not found it easy to come to a satisfactory conclusion.2. The appellant, Chillu Kahar, was a workman under the respondents, Messrs. Burn and Company Limited, but in what exact capacity he was employed is not clear. The respondents alleged that he was a hammerman, but the appellant denied that allegation, although subsequently he appears to have admitted it. His positive case, however, is that his duty was to 'join iron into the furnace and to take it out on opening the door of the furnace'.' The respondents' case that he was a hammerman and worked at some distance from the furnace probably means that his duty was to beat heated pieces of iron and steel into shape. It may well have been that the appellant was a hammerman, but he was himself required to throw into the fire and draw out the pieces of iron and steel which he was required to beat up. Unfortunately,...
Tag this Judgment!Dulal Chandra Mondal Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal238
Guha, J.1. This is a petition by one Dulal Chandra Mandal for revision of certain orders passed against him by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Barasat. It appears that on receipt of a police report the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate drew up proceedings against the present petitioner under Section 110, Criminal P.C., on 26-6-1952, asking him to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond of Rs. 500/- with two local sureties for good behaviour for a period of three years. The petitioner was present in Court and on the same day the proceedings drawn up against him under Section 112, Criminal P.C., were explained to him under Section 113, Criminal P.C. On the very same day, the learned Magistrate passed against the petitioner an order under Section 117 (3), Criminal P.C. directing that he be detained in custody until the conclusion of the enquiry or until a bond of Rs. 500/- with two local sureties was executed, as in the opinion of the learned Magistrate immediate measur...
Tag this Judgment!Brindaban Ghose and anr. Vs. Jiban Chandra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal239
P.N. Mukerjee, J. 1. A question of some nicety is involved in this second appeal. The appellants who are the plaintiffs in the trial Court claimed 16 annas title to the entire suit lands on the strength of an order for pre-emption made in their favour under Section 26F, Bengal Tenancy Act. This claim was allowed in part by the learned Munsif, namely, to the extent of an 8 annas share and the said decision was affirmed on appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge. Hence the present second appeal by the plaintiffs.2. The relevant facts lie within a short compass and they are as follows: The disputed lands formed part of an occupancy raiyati holding. In this holding plaintiff appellant No. 1, Brindabon and his brother Rashbehari and defendants Nos. 1 and 2, Jiban Chandra Haldar and Sudhir Chandra Haldar, were co-sharer tenants. Rashbehari died and thereafter his heirs sold the disputed lands as appertaining to his share to one Makhan Lal Gharami by a registered kobala dated 22-6-1946. In th...
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Nath Banerjee and ors. Vs. Shibaram Aditya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal282
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court by the plaintiffs in a suit which they have lost both in the trial Court and in first appeal. The judgment is thus one of affirmance. There is no question that the value of the subject-matter in dispute before the Court of first instance and in dispute in the proposed appeal exceeds Rs. 20,000/-. The only question therefore is whether the proposed appeal involves any substantial question of law. 2. On that point, fortunately, even the respondents agree that the points involved in the appeal are all points of law and at least two of them are certainly substantial. It appears that the properties in question belonged originally to one Sureiidra Nath Mookerjee who died, leaving him surviving a widow named Rakhal Dasi Debi and a daughter named Sin. Avistakarini Debi & five grandsons, who are sons of Avistakarini & who are the plaintiffs in the suit out of which the present appeal arises. Avistakarini propo...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Mahalakshmi Debi and anr. Vs. Bama Charan Nandi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal42,56CWN853
G.N. Das, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the plaintiffs-petitioners and is directed against an order made by Mr. Fatik Chandra Roy Choudhuuy, learned Subordinate Judge, Hooghly, holding that the suit was not properly valued and stamped and requiring the plaintiffs to put in the deficit court-foes within one week from that date.2. The plaintiffs' allegation in the plaint is that the disputed properties which are described in items Nos. l to 4 of the plaint belonged at one time to a joint family consisting of four brothers, Bama Charan, defendant 1 of this suit, Shama Charan, Panchanan and Satish. Shama Charan's son Kalipada is defendant 2 in this suit. Pancha-nan's widow Mahalauxmi is plaintiff 1 and his son Dulal is plaintiff 2. Satish is dead. On certain allegations made in the plaint the plaintiffs alleged that a preliminary decree passed in a previous suit for partition being Title suit No. 31 of 1947 was inoperative, fraudulent and not binding on the plaintiffs of this su...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Premlatika Sircar Vs. Provash Ch. Sircar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal242
G.N. Das, J. 1. This matter has come up before this Court for confirmation of a decree nisi made by the District Judge, Howrah, directing that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent be dissolved. One of the points raised related to the jurisdiction of the Court.2. On going through the papers it appears that in the petition the allegation was that the petitioner, the wife, and the respondent the husband, last lived together at Lake place, Ballygunge, which is within the jurisdiction of the District Court, 24 Parganas. In her evidence the petitioner did not say that she and her husband last lived together or at present reside at any place within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Howrah. The petitioner merely stated that she lived at Amta within the said jurisdiction under Section 4, Divorce Act, the Court which is competent to make an order for dissolution of marriage is the District Court. The term 'District Court' is defined in Section 3(3) of the Act as meaning...
Tag this Judgment!Juggilal Kamlapat Vs. N.V. Internationale Crediet-En-Handels Vereening ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1955Cal65,58CWN731
ORDERBachawat, J.1. This is an application to set aside an award made by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce.2. By a contract dated 10-8-1950 the petitioner . Juggilal Kamlapat agreed to sell and the respondent a Dutch Company agreed to buy 500 bales of certain jute goods at Rs. 209/- per 100 bags C. & F. Jawa Main Ports, draft drawn at sight under an irrevocable letter of credit, shipment November/December 1950 equally, subject to export licence and subject to the terms and conditions of the Calcutta Jute Fabrics Shippers Association contract form in use for the time being. That contract form amongst other clauses contains an arbitration clause, a clause providing that theLetter of Credit must be despatched to the sellers within 7 days of the contract and a clause providing that each monthly shipment would be deemed to be a separate contract. Under the contract all increases in freight and duty were on the buyer's account.3. The letter of credit was despatched to the sellers after great de...
Tag this Judgment!Jatindra Nath Nandi and ors. Vs. Krishnadhan Nandi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal34,56CWN858
G.N. Das, J. 1. This rule was obtained by the defendants against an order of a learned Subordinate Judge valuing the suit instituted by the plaintiffs for purpose of jurisdiction of the Court.2. In order to understand the question which was pressed before us, it is necessary to state the case made by the plaintiffs opposite-parties in their plaint. The plaintiffs' case is that the predecessors of the parties endowed certain properties in favour of the deity Sree Sree Iswar Sridhar Jiu and in course of succession the plaintiffs are now entitled to participate in the sheba and puja of the deity. It is alleged that by mutual arrangement the sheba and puja of the deity is performed by turns, the shobaits having respective palas of their own. The plaintiffs' allegation is that the defendants arc not allowing them to enjoy the privilege of worshipping the deity and performing the sheba and puja of the deity during the pala of worship. They therefore brought this suit for the purpose of decla...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »