Kolkata Court April 1953 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.
Jamini Khan Vs. Dhirendra Nath Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal762,57CWN530
ORDERK.C. Chunder, J. 1. This Rule was issued at the instance of a tenant who has been ordered by the Munsif to deposit rent under Section 14(4), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950.2. The point urged before me is that in the written statement there was an allegation that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. Therefore, no deposit should have been ordered. It appears that in a previous proceeding between the same parties the question whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between these two parties themselves was raised and was decided against the petitioner. That case was dismissed on another ground. Over and above this, when Section 14(4) application came to be heard, the petitioner himself was examined. His deposition was that there was an adjustment of some dues over the value of betel purchased from him against the cost awarded in the previous suit and the rent due to the plaintiff. He himself, therefore, accepted that he ...
Bipra Charan Sarkar and anr. Vs. Sm. Rupeswari Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal682,57CWN707
Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Mookerjee J. dated 6-9-1950.2. The disputed property and certain other property belonged to one Mohan Chand Choudhury. On his death the property devolved on his sons Doman, Satish and Ananta. Doman's widow is Damayanti, defendant 4. Satish and Ananta are defendants 2 and 3. In 1929 Doman as Katra of the joint family of the Choudhurys mortgaged the disputed property and certain other lands comprising about 12 bighas in favour of the plaintiffs. As the rent of the mortgaged property was unpaid the landlords instituted a suit for recovery of rent and obtained a decree and in execution thereof auction-purchased the said property on 8-6-1935. Thereafter the landlord auction-purchaser let out the disputed property about 6 bighas to defendant 1, Rupeswari, who is the mother of Satish and Ananta, defendants 2 and 3. The remaining lands viz. 6 bighas were let out to Damayanti, defendant 4...
Tincourie Mazumdar and anr. Vs. Sri Kishan Chand Boral and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Cal369,59CWN220
G.N. Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decision of Mr. S.N. Guha Ray, as he then was, learned District Judge, 24-Parganas, whereby he affirmed the decision of Mr. J. P. Mukherji learned Subordinate Judge, 6th Court, Alippre, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for partition on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title to 12 annas share claimed by them.2. At this stage the question in controversy has narrowed down to a question of law. The question of law arises on, the following facts:3. The property in dispute belonged to one Kedarnath who died in 1918 having been survived by his four sons Monilal, Chunilal, Tinkari and Satish. Monilal died without leaving any issue. Chunilal's widow is Sushila who figures as plaintiff 2- Tinkari is plaintiff 1. Kedarnath executed a mortgage of the disputed property in favour of the predecessor in interest of one Pannalal Banerjee. To enforce the mortgage debt a suit was instituted and a decree was obtained an...
Mahammad Ali Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal681,57CWN678
Mitter, J.1. This is a petition for quashing certain proceedings under Section 409, Penal Code which are now pending against the petitioner in the Court of thr Special Judge of Bankura. The petitioner, who is a postal peon, has been charged with criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 30/-.2. The prosecution case against the petitioner is as follows. On 14-8-1951, one Kanai Krishna Sircar of 157, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, remitted a sum of Rs. 30/- by a postal Money Order addressed to his wife Shrimati Shibarani Sircar who was then residing at a village called Sahaspur in the district of Bankura. As she did not receive the money, she wrote a postcard to her husband enquiring about it. This postcard never reached her husband. On 27-8-1951, the petitioner saw the said Kanai Krishna Sircar at his Calcutta residence and confessed that he had misappropriated the money by forging the signature of the addressee of the Money Order in the acknowledgment portion of the Money Order. The pe...
Radharaman Das and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal98
ORDERSinha, J. 1. The petitioners, Radharaman Das and Kanailal Das are two brothers. They are the owners of a three-storeyed building in the suburbs of Calcutta, viz., premises No. 42A, S. R. Das Road. The first-floor consists of six living rooms, kitchen pantry, bath-room and privy. This floor was partitioned into two flats and one flat consisting of 4 bed rooms, one covered verandah, one kitchen and one combined bathroom, is the subject-matter of this application.In November, 1948, it was in the occupation of Tarapada Ghosh but the petitioners were obviously looking out for letting it out to tenants. Mr. S. N. Sen, at present working as a Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal began negotiating for it, but in the meanwhile notice requisitioning the flat was served by the West Bengal Government. Thereafter, Mr. Sen went into occupation. According to him, he prevailed upon the Government to de-requisition the premises but it is not clear whether an actual order was passed to...
Satyahari Choudhury Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal661,57CWN581
S.K. Sen, J. 1. In this revisional application the petitioner Satyahari Choudhury has prayed for setting aside the order of the Special Judge Birbhum holding that he had jurisdiction to try the petitioner along with the other accused of the case -- 'State v. Fhani Bhusan Das', which was allotted to the Special Judge Birbhum by Government Notification No. 5596 J dated 9-10-1952.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: Some plots of land belonging to one Bholanath Gorain were acquired for irrigation purposes by the Land Acquisition Collector, Birbhum. In respect of one of the plots the award happened to be in the name of a fictitious person Tribhanga Murari Das and the amount awarded in respect of that plot was Rs. 1426/3/6. It appears that during the field work in connection with the land acquisition case, the land acquisition amin Phani Bhusan and the land acquisition Kanungo Ramesh Chandra Ghosh reported that though the plot originally belonged to Bholanath Gorain it was purch...
Jagdish Chandra Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal706,57CWN839
Mttter, J.1. This Rule was directed against the petitioner's conviction under Section 407 read with Section 488, Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, for having sold adulterated mustard oil. The prosecution case was based upon an analysis of a sample of the oil concerned disclosing' a saponification value of 177,8. The petitioner's defence was thai the oil was pure.2. The validity of the conviction depends upon the construction to be placed upon the relative words of two Government Notifications, numbered respectively 735 P. H. and 736 P. H., both dated 20-3-1928, issued in exercise of the power conferred by Section 422 of the Act.3. The material part of Section 407 of the Act is in these terms:'407 (1) No person shall directly or indirectly, himself or by any other person on his behalf, sell, expose or hawk about for sale, or manufacture or store for sale, any of the following articles, namely, ..... (e) mustard oil, ..... unless the following conditions are fulfilled, namely, ..... (v) in t...
House Ltd. Agency Vs. Paints and Lecquers Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal409
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is plaintiff's application on a Chamber summons to take the plaint off the file or alternatively to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit or in the further alternative to stay the suit.2. The application is from many points of view a peculiar one.3. The suit was filed by the House Limited Agency described as a registered firm as the plaintiff. The verification in the plaint is by Makhan Lal Samaddar a partner of the plaintiff firm. The plaint is also signed by the said part-ner Makhan Lal Samaddar. Makhan Lal Samaddar is admittedly a partner.4. The present applicants calling themselves also as plaintiffs are the other partners of the same plaintiff firm. The partners of the plaintiff firm are Makhan Lal Samaddar, Sm. Ramala Sarkar, Birendra .Kumar Mitra, Sm. Karmarani Bose and Hari Sankar Dutt. The Articles of Partnership are contained in a Deed dated 8-12-1948. The suit was instituted on or about 10-7-1952. The claim in this suit is aga...
Satya Sundar Ghose Vs. Sailendra Kinkar Pal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal560
ORDERChunder, J. 1. This Rule was issued at the instance of a first party who prayed before the Magistrate that a 'Rasta' or thoroughfare for the use of the public had been obstructed by the opposite parties. As that was also the way to first party's own house he prayed to the Magistrate to take action. It seems that action was asked for under Section 147, Criminal P. C. Obstruction of a public thoroughfare being a public nuisance action should have been taken under Section 133 of the Code. The result was that as more than 3 months elapsed before the Magistrate actually drew up proceedings from the date of complaint, the Magistrate subsequently dismissed the application on the ground of 3 months' limitation as mentioned in the proviso to Section 147, Clause (2), Criminal P. C. The Magistrate has carefully recorded that he is passing no opinion whatsoever on the merits of the case. The Magistrate applied the wrong section in initiating proceedings and therefore the order cannot stand. T...
Mahadeodas and ors. Vs. Gherulal Parakh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1958Cal703
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. The appellants Mahadeodas Maiya and his four sons are members of a joint Mitakshara family carrying on business under the name of Mahadeodas Surajmall at Darjeeling. The respondents are members of another joint Mitakshara Hindu family. They are Gherulal Parakh and his three minor sons. They carry on business at Darjeeling under the name and style of Ramlal Gherulal. The appellants brought the present action for recovery of Rs. 5300 as due from the respondents on account of two enterprises carried on by appellants and respondents as partners. Both these were for 'forward contracts for purchase and sale of wheat'. In one altogether 32 forward contracts were said to have been made between the partnership and the firm of Mulchand Guljari-mal, merchants of Hapur. The document on which the offer for the partnership was first made has been marked Ex. 6(c), There was a previous suit by the appellants against the respondents on a claim over dues on account of the losses inc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »