Kolkata Court November 1953 Judgments
Haji Md. Vakil Vs. Commr. of Police and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal157
Sinha, J.1. The petitioner is a citizen of the Indian Union. In 1942, a license was Issued to him in respect of a D. B. B. 1 Gun by the District Magistrate of Balliah, U. P. In 1946, a fresh license was issued to him in respect thereof by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta. In 1951, the petitioner applied for a license in respect of a .32 bore revolver, and it was granted to him, by indorsement on his gun license.2. On the 25th February 1952, the gun and revolver was taken away from the petitioner. On the 1st March 1952, the petitioner received the following communication from the respondent :FromThe Commissioner of Police, Calcutta ToJanab H. Mohammed Vakil, P. 31 Gonesh Ch. Avenue, Calcutta. Dated 1st March 1952 Subject : By virtue of powers vested in me under section 18 of the Indian Arms Act, I hereby cancel your Arms license No. 18266-XVI (Calcutta) in respect of one 12 bore D. B. B. L. Gun No. 471E/13089 by Manlicher Schoenauer and one .32 bore revolver No. 17840 by Smith & W...
Tag this Judgment!Mohunt Satyanarayan Giri Vs. Nanda Gopal Seth and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal333
B.P. Mookerjee, J. 1. Tile only point which arises for decision in this appeal on behalf of the debtor is whether the registered bond on which the plaintiffs have filed the present suit had closed the previous dealings, and whether the same is hit by the provisions contained in proviso (i) to Section 35(1), Bengal Money-Lenders Act.2. The relevant facts necessary to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties may be shortly stated. The predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs respondents had advanced certain sums of money on different dates to one Protap Chandra Giri who was the Goswami of a certain debot-tar estate. After the death Protap Chandra Giri, Rudrananda Giri Goswami borrowed Rs. 200/- on the 26th POUS, 1325 B. S. On the 12th Falugun 1325 B. S. (24-2-1919), there was an accounting between Rudrananda and the plaintiffs, and it appeared that out of the total advance made to Pro-tap of Rs. 14494/8as. Rs. 9571/14as. had been repaid leaving a balance of Rs. 4922/10as; t...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendralal Dutt Vs. Sm. Kshetramani Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal140
Guha, J. 1. This appeal by the defendant arises out of a suit for recovery of house rent. Both the Courts below have decided the suit against the present appellant.2. A preliminary objection was raised by the plaintiff-respondent regarding the maintainability of the appeal. It appears that the appeal has already been dismissed by this Court as against pro forma defendant No. 5. It is contended, therefore, on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents that the whole appeal has become incompetent. This objection cannot, however, be sustained. It appears from page -2 of the Paper Book that by an amendment petition the plaintiff stated that she had purchased by a registered Kobala 1/7th share belonging to pro forma defendant No. 5. Reference may also be made to pages 17, 18 and 19 of the Paper Book. In the circumstances disclosed above, no relief was sought against pro forma defendant No. 5 and the dismissal of the appeal against him cannot jeopardise the maintainability of the appeal against th...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Abatar Mahato Vs. Sm. Shanta Bala Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal207
Lahiri, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant in a suit for ejectment. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendant alleging that he was a thika tenant liable to ejectment without any notice according to the terms of a kabuliyat executed by him on the 23rd May 1938. The defence of the defendant, inter alia, was that the suit was liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff had no right to terminate the tenancy of the defendant without service of a notice to quit.2. The trial Court accepted the above plea of the defence and held that the document upon which the plaintiff relied, namely, the document of the 23rd May 1938, was not admissible in evidence and therefore the plaintiff was required to serve a notice for the purpose of terminating the tenancy of the defendant. The learned Munsif accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's suit and against that decision the plaintiff filed an appeal The lower appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the document upon which the plaintiff re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›