Kolkata Court May 1953 Judgments
Atindra Nath Mukherjee Vs. G.F. Gillett and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal763
ORDERSinha, J.1. The petitioner in this case was employed in the Indian Ordnance Factories, Metal & Steel Factory, Ishapore, which, is run under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. On or about 2-4-1940 he was holding a civilian post under the Army Department as a godown keeper, senior grade in the pattern shop. It is not denied that this is a service coming under the description 'subordinate services' as dealt with in Part IX of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. It appears from the affidavits that in or about that time, information reached the security staff of the factory that various irregularities were taking place in the belting section and that unauthorised works were being carried out. Mr. Dugal of the security staff is stated to have received certain definite information on 29-8-1951 and paid a surprise visit to the belting section. He found that one Sabdar Hossain, Beltman, was preparing a pair of new leather Sandals from material belongin...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Asit Kumar Ghosh.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1953
Reported in: [1953]24ITR576(Cal)
.CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.-The question referred in this case might well have been a larger and more difficult one, but all that it comprises and all that really arises out of the order of the Tribunal is a very slender point. The answer to that point, to my mind, is plain.The facts are these. the assessee is the adopted son of one Akshoy Kumar Ghosh who died in 1931, leaving a large estate, a widow and a will. By the will he directed certain payments to be made out of the income of his properties and bequeathed the residue of the estate to his natural son and sons, if any were alive at his death, or, in the absence of such son or sons to the son who might be adopted by his widow for which he gave her requisite authority. Three persons were appointed executors who were directed to pay the legacies as also to hold an administer the state, in case there was an adopted son till that son attained the age of 20 years. In pursuance of the authority given to her by the will, widow adopted the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Sibrat Missir Vs. Sasthi Rathi Karkari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal168,57CWN912
K.C. Chunder, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal against an appellate decree of the Subordinate Judge, 5th Additional Court, 24-Parganas, affirming that of the Munsif, 2nd Court, Sealdah. 2. The suit was for ejectment from 6 cottas of land recorded in Dag No. 312 of Khatian No. 943. It is clear that the tenancy began with a lease on 28-9-29 for 7 years. During the pendency of the lease a second lease was executed which specifically mentioned in the recital that it was 'after the expiry of the previous lease.' This lease was again for a further period of 7 years. The documents themselves leave no room for doubt that the second lease was a continuation of the first lease and there is no scope for all the speculation, on the face of the unambiguous word or the documents, made by the Courts below There was a continuation of the lease. Therefore Section 7(4) of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1949 read with Section 90 of the same Actclearly and specifically applied. Therefore the tenant...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalal Purusottamdas and Co. Vs. Jawarlal Purusottam Dave and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal758,57CWN744
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by the defendants for leave to appear and defend this suit which has been instituted by the plaintiff under Order 37, Civil P.C. The summons was taken out on 30-3-1953.2. The suit is one for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 19,129-12-6 as principal and Rs. 500/- as interest due on a promissory note dated 17-4-1952.3. Many interesting and important points have been raised in this application. The defendants contend first that Order 37, Civil P.C. is 'ultra vires' the Constitution and is against the principleof natural justice. The next point taken is that the promissory note in this case is not really a promissory note because it is endorsed on an account book of the plaintiff and also because the language is not really the language of the usual promissory note. On merits, however, there is very little defence except some agreement is pleaded in the presence of one Doyalal Dave No. 24/25, Rup Chand Roy Street, Calcutta, by which it is said that the...
Tag this Judgment!Bankim Chandra Banerjee Vs. Sarjoo Tewari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal14,57CWN738
G.N. Das, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order of the Presidency Court of Small Causes directing stay of proceedings under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, under Section 47 of the said Act.2. The matter came up for hearing before Chunder J. By an order dated 13-1-1953 it was referred to a Division Bench and has now come up before us.3. The facts which gave rise to the present Rule may be shortly stated as follows :4. In June 1948 the plaintiff obtained, permission from the Rent Controller for initiation of proceedings under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act on the ground of 'bona fide' requirement of the disputed premises. Thereafter the plaintiff-petitioner served a notice on the defendant-opposite party terminating the tenancy. On 2-9-1949 the plaintiff-petitioner initialed proceedings under Section 41 of the said Act. The proceedings were numbered as a suit. The suit was dismissed by a Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Manindra Nath Biswas Vs. Radhasyam Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal676
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. On 19-12-1950 the plaintiff Respondent Radha Shyam Biswas obtained a decree (including claim and costs) in Money Suit No. 15 of 1950 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Krishnagar against the Defendant Appellant Monindra Nath Biswas for a sum of Rs. 57,376/- upon a Solenama filed in the suit on 5-12-1950. Under the Solenama, the Respondent's dues were payable in several instalments extending up to April 1952 and the mode and manner of payment of these instalments were also clearly specified therein. It was also distinctly provided in the said Solenama that in case of any default on the part of the defendant Monindra Nath Biswas in the carrying out of the terms thereof the Plaintiff Radha Shyam Biswas would be entitled to realise his entire dues or the then, outstanding balance thereof by immediate execution. The Solenama further expressly provided in paragraphs 5 and 6 thereof as follows:'5. If the defendant violates any of the terms out of all the terms ment...
Tag this Judgment!Kamala Bala Audhya Vs. Amulya Kumar Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal714,57CWN682a
ORDERK.C. Chunder, J. 1. This Rule was issued at the instance of a landlord. The matter is very simple & has been complicated merely by misunderstanding of the law on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge. It is regrettable that in spite of numerous published decisions of this Court, such wrong ideas of the law still can prevail in a Subordinate Judge's Court.2. The tenant asked for standardisation of rent. Therefore the onus of establishing standard rent and thereby evading payment of the contractual rent was clearly on the tenant. The tenant did not shew which of the clause would apply. It has already been pointed out by this Court that there are four different methods of computation in that small Section 9 (1) of the Rent Control Act of 1950. The landlord tried to show that not only was the premises in existence in 1941, it was let out in 1941 and he sought to prove by witness what the actual rent in 1941 was. Both the Courts have disbelieved his story as to what the actual rent...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnath Narendranath Vs. Nanjee Shamjee and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal787
ORDERS.R. Das Gupta, J. 1. This is an application under S. 33 of the Arbitration Act for an order declaring the award No. 1347 of 1952 made by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Tribunal of Arbitration, to be null and void, alternatively for an order setting aside the said award. 2. The principal ground taken in support of this application is that the second Court constituted by the Registrar, Bengal Chamber of Commerce under Rule 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal of Arbitration, Bengal Chamber of Commerce, had no jurisdiction to make the award. In other words, it is contended that the Registrar, Bengal Chamber of Commerce, in constituting the second Court under Rule 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal ofArbitration, Bengal Chamber of Commerce, cannot appoint the same persons who constituted the first Court but must appoint different persons, different from the persons who constituted the first Court, to determine the dispute which has been referred to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce....
Tag this Judgment!Jatindra Nath and anr. Vs. State on Complaint of Bhutamani Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal548
ORDERK.C. Chunder, J. 1. This Rule was issued at the instance of two accused persons who have been directed by the learned Sessions Judge of Midnapore to be committed to the Court of Session on a charge under Section 366, Penal Code and such other sections as may apply.2. Briefly, the facts are that according to the evidence on record a young girl aged about thirteen formerly living with her step-mother was recovered by the police from a locked-up room of petitioner 2, Bhutnath Maity. The further evidence is that the girl was taken away by Jatindra Nath Maity, petitioner 1, from her step-mother making a false representation, that is, obtained her consent by fraud. Under the criminal law also fraud vitiates consent. The object or purpose it is said, was to force the girl to marry somebody. Evidence has been given that the girl was absolutely unwilling to marry and was being forced to do so and an attempt to help her to come away proved abortive. The learned Magistrate was mainly swayed ...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhendu Bikash Barua Vs. Hare Krishna De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal636,57CWN692
Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant and is directed against a judgment of Chunder J., dated 28-3-1952.2. The facts are that In September, 1949, the plaintiffs respondents initiated proceedings under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act alleging that they required the disputed premises for their own use. The proceedings were numbered as Suit No, 10455 of 1949. The suit was decreed on contest by Mr. B.P. Bakshi, learned Judge, 4th Bench, his decision being dated 28-8-1949. Against that judgment an appeal was taken by the defendant to the Special Bench. The Special Bench dismissed the appeal on 23-3-1951. Thereafter the defendant filed a petition purporting to be under Section 115, Civil P. C. and Article 227 of theConstitution. A Rule was issued being Civil Rule No. 1437 of 1951. The Rule came up for hearing before Chunder J. who by his judgment dated 28-3-1952, discharged the Rule. Before the learned Judge two points appear to have been raised, namely, (1) whethe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »