Kolkata Court July 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.
Brahmachari Ajitananda Vs. Anath Bandhu Dutt and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal395,57CWN954
Mitter, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order of acquittal. 2. The petitioner's father Kali Charan Mukherjee, since deceased was the complainant in a case of cheating against the opposite party. Kali Charan was a retired Magistrate. On or about 9-8-1947, the opposite party represented to the complainant that he was in a large way of business and that pending the payment to him of a bill which was due to him from Messrs. Birla Bros., Ltd. he required a temporary loan of Rs. 5,000/-. The opposite party asked the complainant for the loan and promised to repay it by 7-11-1947, at the latest. The complainant's case was that by reason of the said representations, which he believed, he was induced to deliver to the opposite party a cheque for Rs. 5000/- which the opposite party in due course cashed. According to the complainant, in order to create confidence in his mind, the opposite party deposited with the complainant as security two policies of life insurance for Rs. 10,000/-and Rs....
Santi Devi and anr. Vs. Province of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal212,58CWN180
Mookerjee, J.1. This is a claimant's appeal against the decision by an Arbitrator appointed under, Section 19 of the Defence of India Act.2. On behalf of the respondent a preliminary objection has been raised about the maintainability of the appeal, but that question can be considered only after the relevant facts are shortly stated.3. Premises No. 20, Baburam Ghosh Road, Tollygunje, had been requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, and claim was laid on behalf of three parties, viz., the admitted owners of the property who would be described hereafter as the Ghoses and the present appellant Kanhyalal Kanodia and a certain concern known as the Unity Production. After a certain date the Ghoses did not press their claim any further. The Collector, however, held that Rs. 1000/- per month would be the reasonable compensation for the property requisitioned, but the Kanodias were not entitled to any part of the same. Kanodia had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 12500/-per month d...
Commr. of Wakfs and anr. Vs. Mohammad Moshin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal463
Sarkar, J.1. The important question that arises in this appeal is whether a wakf of the ward's property created by a guardian appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act with the sanction given by Court under Section 29 of that Act, is valid.2. It appears that Mohammad Moshin, the respondent in this appeal, was born sometime in 1916. He inherited certain properties from his mother who died not very long after his birth. On 25-2-1925 his father Syed Hossain Ali, was appointed the guardian of his person and properties under the Guardians and Wards Act by the District Judge at Alipur. On 9-7-1932 Hossain Ali as such guardian obtained an order from that Court under Section 29 of that Act permitting him to create a wakf alal aulad of Moshin's properties. Pursuant to that permission, on 30-10-1932 Hossain Ali actually executed a deed of wakf whereby he also made a wakf of some of his own properties. The wakf was thereafter duly enrolled as a wakf alal aulad by the Commissioner of Wakfs, unde...
Md. Safi Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal301,58CWN189
Guha Ray, J.1. The short point in this application for admission of an appeal which was heard after notice to the State is whether an appeal lies at all The applicant Md. Safi was convicted by a Presidency Magistrate under Section 323, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month on that count. He was further convicted under Section 354, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month and to a fine of Rs. 50/- or in default to rigorous imprisonment for two weeks more. The sentences of imprisonment on the two counts were to run concurrently.2. The only section which provides for a right of appeal from convictions and sentences by Presidency Magistrates is Section 411, Criminal P. C. It runs as follows:'Any person convicted on a trial held by a Presidency Magistrate may appeal to the High Court, if the Magistrate has sentenced him to imprisonment for a term exceeding six months or to fine exceeding two hundred rupees.'Mr. Banerjee on behalf of the appli...
Lutfar Rahaman Laskar Haji Kabadali Naskar Vs. the State of West Benga ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal455,58CWN48
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. In this matter two points have been raised before us for decision : (1) Whether the Government Pleader should be taken to have appeared for opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 who are officers of the Government; and (2) whether the counter affidavit prepared in the office of Sri Smriti Kumar Roy Choudhury, Advocate, may be received although he has not filed any power on behalf of any one of the three opposite parties.2. The procedure to be followed for appearance on behalf of Government or public officers sued in their official capacity is contained in Order 27, Civil P. C. Under Rule 2 of the said Order persons being ex-officio or otherwise authorised to act for the Government in respect of any judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be recognised agents by whom appearances, acts and applications under this Code may be made or done on behalf of the Government. Rule 8 of the said Order lays down the procedure in suits against a public officer :'(1) Where the Government un...
Sardar Bahadur Sardar Indra Singh Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1953
Reported in: [1954]26ITR670(Cal)
CHAKRAVARTTI, C.J. - This reference causes a most unpleasant impression, both because of the careless and misguided manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the legal advisers of the assessee and the carefree and inconsiderate manner in which they were dealt with by the officers of the Income-tax Department. An application, purporting to be an application for a refund, was made in August, 1945, and not till June, 1950, was it finally disposed of - the interval having been occupied by a protracted correspondence as also frequent interviews, alternating with interludes of silence on both sides.The facts are as follows. On August 18, 1945, Messrs. S. K. Sawday & Co., a firm of income-tax practitioners, addressed a letter to the Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, regarding what was called 'Sardar Bahadur Sardar Indra Singhs Trust' and stating that the Trust being one wholly for charitable purposes its income was exempt from tax and therefore a refund ought to be granted at ...
Golam Bari Molla Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal248
G.N. Das, J.1. Appeal No. 157: This is an appeal from the judgment of Bose J., dated 28-3-1952.2. The facts which have given rise to the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 6-1-1950, a notification under Section 4, West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act (Act 21 of 1948) was published stating that a certain plot of land described in Schedule 2 to the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, was needed or likely to be needed for settlement of immigrants and for better living conditions in village Paikpara. On 27-4-1950, a notification under Section 6 read with. Section 7, West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act was published. After a declaration in terms of Rule 8 framed under Section 14 of the said Act, possession was taken of the said area with the exception of three plots being Cadastral Survey plots Nos. 259, 571 and 2490, on 16-12-1950.3. The petitioner's allegation is that he had no notice of the notification aforesaid or of the declaration under Rule 8 ...
Saroje Mohan Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Jiban Mull Babu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal26,57CWN909
Das, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the plaintiffs against an order passed by Mr. D. N. Chakladar, learned Subordinate Judge, Bur-dawn, dated 26-6-1952, requiring the plaintiffsto pay ad valorem fees on the aggregate value of the consideration recited in three kobalas which are sought to be set aside by the plaintiffs. 2. Shortly stated, the plaintiffs allege that three kobalas, consideration, whereof respectively amounted to Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 16,000/-and Rs. 21,000/-, were not binding on the J plaintiffs for the reasons stated in the plaint. The prayer (Ka) of the plaint was that according to the statements made in the plaint and the circumstances of the case, the different kobalas in respect of the property described in the schedule to the plaint are invalid, fraudulent, collusive and without consideration and that a declaration be made that they are not binding on the plaintiffs and, if necessary, the same might be set aside. Prayer Kha of the plaint was one for a permanent injuncti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›