Kolkata Court March 1953 Judgments
Sm. Moni Manjuri Dassi and ors. Vs. Mrs. Razik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal6
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. The central point of dispute in this application is attorney's right of rateable distribution under Section 73, Civil P. C., where he has attached in execution of an order for costs made in his favour under Rule 48 of Chap. 38 of the Original Side Rules.2. The application is made by the decree-holder plaintiffs for an order that the Sheriff of Calcutta do pay out of the sum of Rs. 2371/4/- being the net amount lying in his hands out of the sale proceeds of two mud kothas at No. 59, Mechuabazar Street, Calcutta, belonging to the judgment-debtor after deduction therefrom the commission of the Accountant-General, payable to the plaintiffs' attorneys the costs of and incidental to the execution proceedings of the decrees dated 30-4-1948 and 4-4-1949, including those of levying their respective attachments and costs of all proceedings in connection with, the sale of the attached properties and also of costs of and incidental to this ap-plication and of costs to the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Owners and Partners of the Firm Named Shah Kantilal Vs. Dominion o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal67
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application in execution. The owners and partners of the firm Shah Kantilal as plaintiffs obtained an ex parte decree on 21-10-1948 from the Court of the Civil Judge, Okhamandal, in the former State of Baroda in Suit No. 4 of 1948-49 against the defendant Dominion of India as owning the East Indian Railway for the sum of Rs. 5683/12/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and also for the sum of Rs. 533/7/4 as costs with interest at the rate as aforesaid. On 21-3-1949, the State of Baroda merged with the then Province of Bombay. The decree-holder thereafter made an application on 24-4-1950, in Okhamandal Court for transfer of the decree to the Calcutta High Court for execution and on the same date there , was an order by the Civil Judge, Okhamandal,' transferring such decree to this High Court for execution. On 2-2-1951 the Tabular Statement in execution by the decree-holder was affirmed in this Court.The total amount for which the execut...
Tag this Judgment!Rebati Ranjan Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Umaprasanna Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal574,58CWN193
G.N. Das, J.1. This is a petition, in revision on behalf of defendants nos. 1 and 2 and is directed against an order of Mr. P.M. Lahiri, learned Subordinate Judge, Birbhum, dated the 8-12-1952, directing the payment to the Receiver, who is opposite party No. 1 in this Rule, his salary at the rate of Rs. 5007- per month from 20-1-1951 pros-pectively till his discharge.2. The petitioner, opposite parties Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were co-trustees of two trust estates known as Brajabala Trust Estate and Ram Ranjan Trust Estate.3. As was to be expected, the trustees had their differences with the result that on 13-11-1950, two Title Suits Nos. 110 of 1950 and 111 of 1950 were instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Birbhum, by the plaintiff opposite party No. 2 against the petitioners as defendants nos. 1 and 2 and opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 defendants Nos. 3 and 4. In these suits, the plaintiffs prayed for removal of the trustees and appointment of new trustees for the framing of a sc...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer, Companies District 1, Calcutta and anr. Vs. Calcut ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal721,[1953]23ITR471(Cal)
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This appeal involves a short and simple point, but it was sought to be presented as if it involved an intricate question of interpretation of statutes and also a profound question of constitutional law. In my opinion, whatever the true answer to the question may be, there is no room for either intricacy or profoundity.2. The facts are equally simple. The respondent is a private limited company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and having its registered office at 8, Clive Row, Calcutta. For the assessment years 1942-43, 1943-44 and 1944-45, assessments were made on it by three several orders, dated respectively 26-1-1944, 12-2-1944 and 15-2-1945. Those assessments were made under Section 23(3), Income-tax Act, upon returns being furnished and the amounts of tax demanded were duly paid. Subsequently, on 28-3-1951, three separate notices were issued to the respondent, calling upon it to submit fresh returns for the three accounting years, relative to the sa...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Talapatra Vs. Bengal Bonded Ware House Association
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal598,57CWN455
G.N. Das, J. 1. This Rule was obtained against an order of Mr. S. K. Roy learned Judge of the Presidency Court of Small Causes, Sixth Bench, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under Order 21, Rule 100, Section 144, Civil P. C. and Section 13(2), Rent Control Act, 1950. The admitted facts are that the opposite party 2 was a tenant under the opposite party 1. The petitioner is a subtenant under opposite party 2 in respect of a portion of the premises held as tenant by the opposite party 2 under opposite party 1.2. On 10-1-1951 the opposite party 1 obtained a decree in ejectment against opposite party 2 on the ground of default in payment of rent after service of a notice to quit. In execution of that decree the opposite party 1 wanted to eject the petitioner from the disputed property but was resisted by the petitioner in taking possession. On the next date the opposite party 1 dispossessed the petitioner with police help. Thereafter the present application...
Tag this Judgment!Jatindra Nath and ors. Vs. Sm. Sreerupamanjuri Roy Chaudhurani and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal86
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. These two appeals are by the plaintiffs and the defendant in a suit to enforce two mortgages which were admittedly taken by the plaintiffs on two loans, one of the sum of Rs. 75,000/- in May 1932 and another of the sum of Rs. 60,000/- taken in four different instalments. The mortgage bonds for the identical lands were executed--one on the 3rd of May, 1932, and the other on the 2nd of August, 1933. The main defence raised was that the mortgagor was entitled to the protection of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act.2. The question on the answer to which depends the decision whether or not the defendant is entitled to the protection of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act is whether the two loans or either of them was a commercial loan within the meaning of the Money-Lenders Act.The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the creditor had failed to discharge the burden that lay on him of proving that the loan was advanced solely for the purpose of business, and accordin...
Tag this Judgment!HuseIn Ebrahim Vs. Kesardeo Kanoria and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal111
ORDERS.R. Das Gupta, J.1. This is an application to set aside an award of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Deb appearing on behalf of the applicant raised three grounds in support of his contention that the award should be set aside. In the first place, he urged that the arbitrators had no jurisdiction to make the award. The reason for his saying this is that the first Court which was constituted on the 28th June 1951 consisted of two persons namely, Messrs. K. E. Tosh and w. B. Cochran. The said arbitrators or the Court did not make their award in time and the time to file their award having expired, on the 10th November 1951 the Registrar of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce wrote to the parties informing them that he had constituted another Court, and thereafter the second Court proceeded with the arbitration and made its award on the 23rd November 1951 which is now sought to be challenged before me.2. Mr. Deb contends before me that the second Court as notified on the 10th November...
Tag this Judgment!Punyendra Narayan Vs. Bhairabendra Narayan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal710,57CWN586
ORDER1. This Rule raises the question ofcourt-fees payable by the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted the suit claiming the Bijniraj Estate which was under the management of the Courtof Wards together with certain movable properties. The suit as originally instituted was for declaration only and when it was held by theCourt that a purely declaratory suit was barred 'toy the proviso to Section 4, Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff filed a petition for amendment by adding a prayer for possession and giving up his claim to certain movable properties and also one item of immovable property which has been described as Monoharpur Chak which has been resumed by the Government. The question of court-fees arose when the plaintiff sought to add the prayer for possession.2.It is common ground that the court-fee payable should be determined by Article 7, Para. 5 of the Court-Fees Act. The plaintiff valued his claim at Rs. 2,17,271/- odd on the footing that according to the administration report of...
Tag this Judgment!Amiyo Pal Choudhury and ors. Vs. Province of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal551,58CWN347
R.P. Mookerjee, J. 1. Premises described as plot No. 489 of Southern Avenue in South Calcutta was requisitioned under Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules on 2-10-1944. -Possession was taken on 20-10-1944, of the ground floor and of the entire premises on 15-11-1944. As no agreement could be reached between the owner & the Government as under Section 19(1) (a), Defence of India Act as to the compensation to be paid for such requisition, the question of proper compensation was inferred to an arbitrator. The Land Acquisition Collector had offered compensation at Rs. 250/- per mensem for the period when only the ground floor had been requisitioned, such compensation being inclusive of the charges for payment of rates and taxes and for repairs. As from the date when the entire premises had been taken possession of by the requisitioning authority compensation at Rs. 450/- per mensem inclusive of municipal taxes but exclusive of repairshad been offered. This was not accepted by theowner.2....
Tag this Judgment!Kristapado Bhakta and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal297
Sen, J.1. This revisional application arises from an order of Sri S. C. Mukherjee, Magistrate, 1st Class, Serampore, convicting the petitioners in a summary trial under Section 427, Penal Code and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 25 in default to rigorous imprisonment for one month. There was an order for compensation of Rs. 50/- to be paid to the complainant.2. The case of the complainant Barada Prosad Mete was that on the 9th 'Sravan' 1358 B. S. corresponding to July 1951, the accused petitioners Kristapada Bhakta 'alias' Krishna Pado Bhakta, Mihirlal 'alias' Misri Bhakta and Sarat Chandra Bhakta with other men numbering 12 to 13 forcibly cut the land of the complainant on the common boundary and dismantled the pillars which had been put on the boundary as a result of demarcation after a civil suit, and amalgamated some of the complainant's land with their own land committing mischief to the extent of about Rs. 100/-. The defence case was that no such occurrence had taken...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »