Kolkata Court January 1953 Judgments
Narayanprosad Jhunjhunwalla and ors. Vs. the Indian Iron and Steel Co. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal695
Bose, J. 1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs who are five share-holders of a company known as the Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., for selves and on behalf of the other share-holders of the said company against the said Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and 8 other persons who are directors of the said company for a declaration that an ordinance known as The Iron & Steel Companies Amalgamation Ordinance 1952 (8 of 1952) and an Act replacing the said Ordinance being Act No. 79 of 1952 are void and inoperative and the Scheme of Amalgamation and merger contained therein is illegal and void and for an injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect to or acting upon the said Scheme of amalgamation and merger, and for certain other reliefs (2) The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant company being the Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act on or about 11-3-1948 and its business is, inter alia, the manufacture of iron and steel. The authorised c...
Tag this Judgment!Albion Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Jute and Gunny Brokers Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal458,57CWN541
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This is a reference under Chap. 5, Rule 2, Rules of the Original Side, by Bachawat J. of an application made to him, praying that a certain award be declared null and void or, alternatively, that the validity and existence of the contract to which the award related, be adjudged and determined and that the award be set aside. The learned Judge thought that the questions raised before him were such that they might be dealt with more advantageously by a larger Bench, particularly in view of the fact that no appeal would lie from his decision on those questions. He thought further that the whole application might be dealt with by the larger Bench, because on the remaining questions too, the parties had agreed to proceed only on the affidavits.2. The facts are simple, but in order to set out intelligibly the questions of law which have arisen out of them, it is necessary to refer first to the relevant provisions of law and their history.3. In 1950, the West Bengal Legis...
Tag this Judgment!Jugaldas Damodar Modi and Co. Vs. Pursottam Umedbhai and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal690
Bachawat, J.1. I will deliver one judgment covering the 5 matters in the list.2. Purshottam Umedbhai & Co. instituted Suit No, 3660 of 1949 in which they seek to vindicate a claim against Jugaldas Damodar Modi & Co. A Cross Suit No. 479 of 1951 was instituted by Jugaldas Damodar Modi & Co. against Purshottom Umedbhai & Co. While these suits were pending the parties to the suits by an agreement in writing dated 19-10-1951, agreed to refer the disputes in both these suits to arbitration of one M. Mehta and to confer summary powers on the arbitrator. The parties also agreed to withdraw the suits on the re-opening of the Court after the long vacation. The parties proceeded to arbitration without a formal order of reference by the Court. On 17-11-1951, the arbitrator made an award directing Pursottom Umedbhai & Co. to pay a sum of Rs. 25,0007- to Jugaldas Damodar Modi & Co. On 18-2-1952 the award was filed in Court and the award case is numbered 52 of 1952. The award is before me for judgme...
Tag this Judgment!Panchu Gopal Mondal and ors. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal410
Das Gupta, J.1. This application for revision is directed against an order passed by a Magistrate appointed under the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act on an application under Section 363 of that Act.2. Before going into the merits of the application in revision it is necessary to dispose of a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the opposite party, the Corporation of Calcutta. The objection is that the order passed by a Magistrate dealing with an application under Section 363, Calcutta Municipal Act, is not subject to revision under Section 439, Criminal P.C.3. The decision of this objection depends on the answer to the question whether a Magistrate dealing with an application under Section 363, Calcutta Municipal Act is a criminal Court. If it is, this Court has jurisdiction under Section 439, Cr. P.C. to revise in suitable cases orders passed by the Magistrate. If it is not a criminal Court, this order cannot be revised under Section 439, Cr. P.C. whether or not it might...
Tag this Judgment!Sailabala Dasi Vs. Sarat Chandra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal625,57CWN279
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This Rule raises a point of first impression, and a somewhat challenging one, under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Ordinance 1952.2. The Rule was obtained by the defendant in a suit for ejectment. That suit was decreed on 31-8-1948, and the decree of the trial Court was affirmed on appeal on 10-9-1949. On 28-2-1949 the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act came into force. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application under Section 28 of the new Act for reopening the decree and for consequential reliefs, but his application was dismissed on 28-5-1951, on the finding that he was not a thika tenant at all. An appeal from that order was dismissed on 24-3-1952, on the ground that no appeal lay. Thereafter, the defendant moved this Court against both the order of 28-5-1951, passed by the Munsiff and order of 24-3-1952, passed by the appellate court and obtained the present Rule. While the Rule was pending, the Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Ordinance was published and came int...
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Nath Ray Sarkar and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal595,57CWN283
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This Rule raises an interesting question under Section 8 (2) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 regarding limitation for applications for a reference to this Court that may be made under the Act.2. The facts are simple and are as follows. It appears that on 6-10-1949, a notification, numbered 8214/L. A., (P. W.) dated 23-9-1949, was published under Section 4 of the Act to the effect that the Provincial Government had decided to acquire a particular area of land belonging to the petitioners. The area concerned, we are informed, is 108.07 acres of which 82.52 acres are in the occupation of tenants, while the rest, namely 25.55 acres are in the khas possession of the petitioners. On the publication of that Notification, the petitioners lodged a claim, presumably under Section 5 (2) of Act, and asked for an award at the rate of Rs. 200/- per cottah. So far as the tenanted lands are concerned, they asked for a total amount of Rs. 9,86,000/-...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Ghosh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal408,57CWN275
Das Gupta, J.1. These four Rules which were obtained by four persons tried separately for offences under Section 7, Essential Supplies Act were heard together as they raised the same question of law. The charge against each accused was that he on 29-5-1951, moved several bags of paddy in a cart without permit from outside the corridor to a place inside the corridor, not being a 'bona fide' resident of the corridor area, in contravention of Government Order No. 512 F.D. dated 15-1-1951 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7(2) of the Act 24 of 1946, All the four were convicted under Section 7 (2) of the Act 24 of 1946 and each was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three weeks and to pay a fine of Rs. 60/-in default, to rigorous imprisonment for three weeks more, and the paddy seized was forfeited.2. There can be no doubt that the charge as framed is defective. The accusation was that an order under Section 3, Essential Supplies Act had been contravened. The rel...
Tag this Judgment!D.R. Gellatly Vs. J.R.W. Cannon
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal409,57CWN294
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. Certain attractive questions of law were raised in this Rule, but in our view the petitioner is debarred from urging them in view of the facts of the case.2. An order under Section 14(4) was made against the petitioner on 17-8-1951. It appears that in his defence in the suit, he has taken a plea that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the opposite party, Mr. Bose, who appears for the petitioner, contended that since that defence had bean taken in the written statement, there could not be any question of making any order under Section 14(4) till the issue raised by that defence was decided against his client and it I was held that he was, in fact, a tenant. That contention appears to be right. The Rent Act can apply only to tenants. In fact, Section 14(4) itself says that an order under that section will be made if the 'tenant' contests the suit. If the person, sued as a tenant, pleads that he is not a tenant, then till that question is...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Chandra Bose Vs. Radharani Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal102,57CWN801
ORDERK.C. Chunder, J. 1. This rule was issued at the instance of a tenant. The landlord sued for arrears of rent as well as for ejectment. Rent was in arrears from October, 1947 to June, 1952 according to the landlord. The tenant was ordered to make deposit of the whole of this rent under Section 14 (4) overruling his contention that the Court is only entitled to order him to deposit the portion which the Court determines is not barred by limitation. The Court was of opinion that the question oflimitation could be considered under Section 14 (4). It has been pointed out in the Full Bench decision in the case -- 'T. S. R. Sarma v. Nagendrabala Debi', reported in : AIR1952Cal879 (A) that Section 14 (4), Rent Control Act is to be read subject to Section 14 (1). Section 14(1) says that the arrears of rent are legally payable. Therefore where arrears of rent are mentioned in Section 14 (4) they are arrears of rent legally payable and if the tenants cannot be compelled in law to pay any port...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Saran and anr. Vs. Narayan Chandra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal125
Renupada Mukherjee, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted in the trial court by the plaintiffs on their behalf and also as representing the inhabitants of village Joy-kristapur and other neighbouring villages for a declaration of a public right of way over three settlement plots described in the schedule of the plaint. The allegation of the plaintiff in brief was that these three plots were being used by the villagers of Jaykristapur as well as of other villages as pathways from time immemorial for passage of men, cattle, cart etc., and such user was referable to some dedication or lost grant in some remote antiquity. It was further the case of the plaintiffs that defendant Johur Muchi began to convert these pathways into-agricultural plots from the last part of 1350-B.S. He is unjustified, according to the allegation of the plaintiffs, in preventing the plaintiffs and other people from using the pathways and hence the occasion for the suit. The pathways w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »