Kolkata Court September 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.
Mahadev Prosad Khemka Vs. Hanuman Seba Trust
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Cal16,57CWN514
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This case has been the occasion for some strange orders in the Court below and an extremely interesting argument before us.2. On 23-6-1945, the opposite party, Hanuman Seba Trust brought a suit against one Rameswar Khemka for his ejectment from a piece of non-agricultural land and for damages. The latter relief was asked for on the footing that Rameswar had been occupying the land as a non-agricultural tenant for a limited period, but in spite of the period having expired he had been continuing in possession.3. At the time the suit was brought, the Bengal Non-agricultural Tenancy (Temporary Provisions) Act, 9 of 1940 was in force and by reason of the provisions of Section 3 of that Act, every suit for ejectment of a non-agricultural tenant, other than such suits brought on account of non-payment of rent, was liable to be stayed during the period that the Act might continue to be in force. Because of that provision, the learned Munsif decided that the ejectment par...
Subodh Gopal Bose Vs. Brojendra Kishore Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Cal90
K.S. Das Gupta, J.1. The .52 acre of land for which the present litigation was started by the respondent more than 15 years ago lies in mouza Chandpur in the suburbs of Calcutta. While the greater portion of this mouza is included in a revenue paying estate, touzi No. 56 of the 24 Parganas Collaborate, lands included in several other touzis including touzi No. 6 of the 24 Parganas Collectorate also lie in this mouza. The lands of Touzi No. 6 that are included in this mouza are, according to the Thak Survey Map of the mouza, shown in seven chaks numbered therein as 5, 11, 19, 20, 22, 24 and 25.2. The question that still remains for decision in the litigation is whether the land in dispute shown in C. S. map as plot No. 901 of mouza Chandpur is included in Touzi No. 6. The appellant before us having purchased Touzi No. 6 at a sale for arrears of revenue issued notice to annul the defendant's tenancy in this land on the averment that this land lay within that Touzi and brought the suit fo...
The Dominion of India, New Delhi and anr. Vs. Manindra Land and Buildi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Cal174,[1953]23CompCas524(Cal),57CWN898
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. On the 12th January, 1946 the Governor General of India in Council promulgated two Ordinances demonitising currency notes of the value of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/-. Ordinance No. 2 of 1946 (Bank Notes (Declaration of Holdings) Ordinance) required banks and Government Treasuries to furnish information concerning bank notes valued over Rs. 100/- held by them. Ordinance No. 3 of 1946 (High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonitisation) Ordinance) provided for the procedure to be followed for the demonitisa-lion of High Denomination Bank Notes above the value of Rs. 100/-. These two Ordinances were published in the papers the next day, the 13th January, 1946. Under different provisions of these Ordinances, the 13th and the 15th January, 1946 were declared to be Bank Holidays under the Negotiable Instruments Act. January 14th was a Sunday.2. Under section 4 of the Ordinance 2 of 1946 every Bank and every Government Treasury was required to prepare and send to the...
Lodna Colliery Co. (1920) Ltd. Vs. Bholanath Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Cal233,58CWN227
R.P. Mookerjee, J. 1. The plaintiffs respondents filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for damages for coalwrongfully taken away by the defendant company from underneath the lands belonging to the plaintiffs and for coal rendered unworkable and for other reliefs.The plaintiffs claim that they are the owners of certain plots which form Touzi No. 2597 of the Burdwan Collectorate. These plots are situate within Lot Sripur within which lands of different Touzis are included.2. Lands covering an area of 6000 bighas appertaining to touzi No. 12 of the Burdwan Collectorate and situate within Lot Sripur were taken in Patni right in 1907 by one Pran Krishna Chatterjee. In 1911 Pran Krishna gave a prospecting lease in favour of the Lodna Colliery Co., Ltd., the predecessors of the present defendant the Lodna Colliery Co. (1920) Ltd. Shortly thereafter Pran Krishna also obtained from the Zemindar, the Maharaja of Burdwan, rights to the minerals under the same property. Thus Frankrishna b...
Gobordhan Dutta and anr. Vs. Promotha Nath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal412
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This is the landlords second miscellaneous appeal -- and there is also an application in the alternative under Section 115, Civil P.C. -- arising out of the tenant's application under Section 6, West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Act (West Bengal Act 62 of 1950) read with Section 18(1), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1950 (West Bengal Act 17 of 1950). The application was allowed by the trial Court and the landlords' appeal against that decision was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court not upon the merits but upon the preliminary ground that under the law no appeal lay against an order passed under Section 6, Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1950 or Section 18(1), Rent Control Act, 1950. On the merits the learned Subordinate Judge expressed himself tentatively in favour of the appellants-landlords but as in his view the appeal before him was incompetent he did not pursue that matter to its final conclusi...
Ramani Mohan Vs. Jogesh Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal771,57CWN537
ORDERP.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. In this Rule the tenant-petitioner challenges two orders of the learned Munsif, 1st Additional Court, Alipore, one dated 11-4-1951 allowing his application under Section 6 of the new West Bengal Act 62 of 1950 for rescission of an ejectment decree passed against him on 25-9-1950 taut directing him to deposit a sum of Rs. 313-15-3 within fifteen days and the other dated 5-6-1951 rejecting his application under Section 151, Civil P. C. for accepting the deposit, then offered to be made, by enlarging the time given under the previous order dated 11-4-1951.2. The relevant circumstances may be shortly stated as follows:-- The landlord-opposite party brought the ejectment suit against the tenant-petitioner on 13-5-1949 alleging that the tenancy had been ipso facto determined under the Rent Control Act of 1948 then in force. This suit was decreed ex parte on 25-9-1950. In the meantime the Rent Control Act of 1950 (West Bengal Act 17 of 1950) had come into force and ...
Sm. Nihar Kumari Debi and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal179
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of Bose J., dated 2nd February 1951 by which the learned Judge dismissed an application made by the appellants for certain orders under Section 45, Specific Relief Act and writs of Mandamus against the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and the Corporation of Calcutta.2. It has been held in the case of -- Chairman, Budge Budge Municipality v. Mangru Mia', A. O. O. No. 77 of 1951 which was heard along with this case, that an appeal lies. Of the two respondents in the appeal, the appellants abandoned their case against the Commissioner of Police. Only the case against the Corporation of Calcutta therefore requires to be considered.3. Briefly stated, the facts are that two plots of land, situated at the junction of Gariahata Road and Ekdalia Road, were purchased in the names of three ladies, Nihar Kumari Debi, Sunayana Debi and Smriti Kana Debi. Who the actual purchasers were, whether the ladies themselves or they and Ganga Go...
T.S.R. Sarma Vs. Nagendra Bala Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal879,57CWN1
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This is a Reference to a Full Bench by Mitter and Guha JJ. of a question arising under the West 'Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1950, on which they found themselves in disagreement with the view taken earlier by another Division Bench. As the question arose in a Civil Revision Case, the entire case has been referred, as required by the Appellate Side Rules.2. The material facts are as follows. The opposite party, Nagendra Bala Choudhurani, is the owner of premises No. 134 Rash Behari Avenue, Calcutta and the first floor of that building is in the occupation of a body called the South India Club which holds the same as a tenant. On 23-3-1950, Nagendra Bala filed a suit against the Club for ejectment on the ground that she required possession of the premises for the purpose of building a second floor and also on the ground that the members of the Club had made several unauthorised constructions and had also been misusing the premises in vario...
Chairman, Budge Budge Municipality Vs. Mongru Mia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal433,57CWN25
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a judgment and order of Bosc J. by which the-learned Judge held a certain resolution adopted by the Commissioners of the Budge Budge Municipality and a notice served on the respondents in pursuance of that resolution to be both invalid and directed their cancellation under Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India. The learned Judge also directed the Commissioners to determine according to law the applications made by the respondents for renewal of their licenses. Against that decision the Commissioners have, by their Chairman, appealed. 2. The appeal came up for hearing in the first instance before a Division Bench constituted of S. R. Das Gupta J. and myself when two questions of general importance were raised on behalf of the respondents. The Budge Budge Municipality exercises jurisdiction in an area which lies outside the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court. It was contended that ...
Mulchand Bulakhidas Vs. Arya Bandhu Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal424,57CWN236
ORDERP.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This Rule arises out of a proceeding for standardisation of rent and it raises an interesting question.2. The petitioner is the landlord and the opposite party the tenant under him in respect of the disputed premises, viz., a shop room in the ground floor of premises No, 191, Harrison Road, Calcutta. This tenancy commenced sometime in the year 1945 and the contractual rent was Rs. 500/- per month.3. On 22-2-1948 the tenant-opposite party applied for standardisation of rent under the Calcutta Rent Control Ordinance 1946 which was then in force and the Rent Controller by his order dated 15-7-1948 fixed the standard rent at Rs. 425/- per month with effect from April 1948. From this decision there was no appeal taken by the tenant but the landlord preferred an appeal on 14-8-1948. This appeal was heard on 24-3-1949 by the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, who delivered his judgment on 25-3-1949.4. From the materials before me it appears clear ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »