Kolkata Court January 1954 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.
indu Bhusan Sreemani and ors. Vs. Sm. Angurbala Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal63,58CWN422
ORDERK.C. Chunder, J. 1. This Rule was issued at the instance of decree-holders in connection with an execution proceeding. A decree for contribution was passed for three separate amounts against three separate judgment-debtors. One application for execution was filed, in which the three separate judgment-debtors and the three separate amounts were mentioned, praying for execution of the decree. In the sale proclamation there was only a sale proclaimed to be about to be held for one amount namely the total amount of the three sums decreed against the three judgment-debtors and the sale was to be of the entire property in the three separate shares of the three judgment-debtors.The three judgment-debtors filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C. for setting aside the sale. This application was filed on 28-11-50 and was registered on 18-1-51 when the record was brought up. Another application was filed on 22-1-51 which states that after the record had been brought up the j...
Sunil Kumar Bose and anr. Vs. Ajit Kumar Bose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal245,58CWN483
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. The dispute in this case is over a- total sum of Rs. 11,593-10-0 of which Rs. 9500/- was the amount standing to the credit of Sailendra Nath Bose, a Railway servant, in the Railway Provident Fund, Rs. 1820/- also standing to his credit as the special contribution thereto, Rs. 183-10-0 due' to him as arrears of his salary and dearness allowance etc. and Rs. 90/- on account of the value of his share in the Employees' Co-operative Credit Society.It is admitted now that after the death of Sailendra Nath Bose, Ajit Kumar Bose, Ranjit Kumar Bose and Sunil Kumar Bose jointly applied to the Railway authorities for payment of these monies but were informed by the Railway authorities that the Provident Fund money was, under the rules applicable to the deceased Railway servant as regards the Provident Fund, payable only to the minor sons. It was after this that the two sons Ajit and Ranjit started the present action in which they alleged that Sunil was not the son of their fa...
Krishna Mohan Samanta and anr. Vs. Khandu Moyee Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal295
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This is the judgment-debtors' appeal arising out of proceedings in execution of a final mortgage decree. The preliminary decree in the mortgage suit was passed on 30-8-1939 and it was made final on 9-12-1939. It was first put into execution in 1941 in Title Execution Case No. 100 of that year. The said execution case was dismissed on part satisfaction on 22-6-1943. On 19-7-1946, the mortgagee decree-holder again applied for execution alleging that limitation had been saved by a payment made towards the decree on 10-4-1944. In that execution case (Title Execution Case No. 70 of 1946) notices were served upon the judgment-debtors under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P. C., but none of them appeared in pursuance of the notices on the date fixed, viz., 6-1-1947. On this last mentioned date the court recorded an order to the following effect;'Notice under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P. C. served. The judgment-debtors do not appear, process fee filed but written process not filed...
Abanindra Kumar Maity Vs. A.K. Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal355,58CWN573
Lahiri, J. 1. This is a Rule under Article 227, Constitution of India obtained by the petitioner against certain proceedings pending against him before the Certificate Officer, Midnapore. The facts giving rise to this Rule may be stated as follows :2. In 1950 the Income-tax Officer, Midnapore, assessed the petitioner to pay an income-tax to the extent of Rs. 6,613/- for an alleged concealed income of Rs. 28,101/- for the year 1946-47 in Income Tax Case No. 162-M of 1946-47 and against that assessment order the petitioner filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax which is still pending.3. On 26-3-1952, at the instance of the Income Tax Officer, Midnapore, the Certificate Officer of Midnapore started a proceeding under the Public Demands Recovery Act against the petitioner which was registered and numbered as Certificate Case No. 62-P/8 of 1951 and 1952 and directed a notice under Section 7 of the said Act to be issued. On receipt of the notice under Section 7...
Bejoy Krishna Vs. Sree Sree Iswar Damodar Jew
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal400
Renupada Mukherjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant and it arises out of a suit instituted by one Ram Rakhal Ghosh as 'sebait' of three Deities for a declaration that the two items of properties described in schedules Ka and Kha of the plaint are 'debottar' properties and are not liable to be attached or sold in execution of a personal decree against the above 'sebait'.2. The Trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit in so far as it related to the property of Kha schedule of the plaint, but dismissed the claim in respect of the property of schedule Ka. The defendant has preferred this appeal from the above judgment and decree of the Trial Court. No cross objection has been filed by the plaintiffs in respect of the portion of the claim dismissed by the Trial Court.3. The facts which have given rise to the present suit are almost undisputed and the decision of the suit turns mainly on a question of law.The defendant appellant obtained a personal decree against Ram Rakhal Ghose, th...
Debajyoti Burman Vs. Dr. Nalinakshya Sanyal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal216
ORDERChunder, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of an accused in a criminal case under Section 500 or the Indian Penal Code which is being tried by Sri H. N. Sen, Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. When the accused was called upon to enter into-his defence, he asked the court to call for a document called the 'Reviewer's Report' which he considered necessary for the purpose of his defence-of justification and 'bona fides'. It appears that the learned Magistrate took no objection to summoning the document and issued a summons onthe Secretary of the Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal, to produce the document. It appears that at first the Secretary seemed to have claimed privilege by verbally speaking to the Magistrate but I need not go into tile matter at length for the very simple reason that the learned Magistrate had not given this contention about privilege as his reason for subsequent action. If privilege is claimed for any document, it has got to be claimed in accordan...
Asta Bala Dasi Vs. Bejoy Kumar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal253
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. The principal point -- or I would rather say the only point -- which requires consideration in this appeal is whether a suit by the mortgagor under Section 26-G, Sub-section (8), Clause (a), Bengal Tenancy Act is governed by Article 148, Limitation Act. The question is not one of much difficulty but it is not wholly without importance.2. On the 12th Chaitra 1333 B. S., corresponding to 27-3-1927, the respondent No. 1 Bejoy Kumar Das and his uncle Natobar Das, the father and father-in-law respectively of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, mortgaged by an appropriate registered instrument an occupancy raiyati holding to the appellant for securing a loan of Rs. 1000/-. It was a composite mortgage combining in itself a mortgage by conditional sale and a usufructuary mortgage.Its relevant terms were that the mortgagee would possess the mortgaged property in lieu of interest & in default of repayment of the principal money within 11 years from the date of the mortgage bond the tr...
Sailendra Nath Komar and ors. Vs. Chillar Ram and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal251,58CWN807
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of three of the defendants, in a suit brought by the plaintiff for the dissolution of a partnership business, for taking accounts and for the appointment of a Receiver for the collection and distribution of the assets of the partnership. The suit has been decreed. Hence this appeal.2. As the learned Subordinate Judge has disposed of the case on a short point that the observation by this Court in -- 'Sailendra Nath v. Chittar Ram', A. P. O. O. No. 151 of 1949 (Cal) (A) is binding on the 'Court at this stage the suit has to, be decreed accordingly; many of the points which arise for decision were not accordingly considered on the merits. It will not be necessary, therefore, to refer at this stage to all the points raised in the pleadings.3. To appreciate the point in issue we may refer to the salient facts only. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4 were partners in a business for running a talkie house - called the 'Mahalakshmi Talkie H...
Raju Singh and ors. Vs. Nagendra Nath Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal219
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent and the defendants are the appellants before me. The tenancy in question is an under-raiyati one. That tenancy was held under another under-raiyat Dharmadas whose under-raiyati was recorded under the raiyat Bama Sundari. Bama Sundari, however, granted an ijara to the plaintiff whereby in view of the terms of that ijara the plaintiff himself became an under-raiyat. The resultant position, there-fore, was that Bama Sundari was the raiyat, the plaintiff was the under-raiyat of the first degree, Dharmadas was an under-raiyat of the second degree and the defendants were under-raiyats under Dharmadas. The plaintiff's ijara expired in 1349 B.S. but, before that, in execution of a decree for rent lie had acquired the interest of Dharmadas, viz., his under-raiyati which was also with occupancy rights.The present suit for rent was for the period 1350 to 1353 B.S., i.e., for a period subsequent to the date of expiry of the plaintiff's...
Sudhangsu Bhattacharjee Vs. Ruplekha Pictures
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal281
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This appeal can be disposed of on a short ground. It is an appeal against a judgment and order of Bachawat J. dated 27-6-1952, by which the learned Judge, acting under Section 34, Indian Arbitration Act, directed further proceedings in a suit brought by the appellant to be stayed. He did so on the ground that the subject-matter of the suit lay within the ambit of an arbitration clause. 2. In view of the ground upon which we aregoing to base our decision, it is not necessary to state the facts at any great length. It will suffice to' say that the appellant brought a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 40,189-6-3 on the basis of an account stated which he annexed to his plaint. That account, according to him, had been signed and accepted on behalf of the respondent-firm by one of its partners. The plaint proceeded to state that the respondent-firm had failed and neglected to pay the amount or any part thereof in spite of demands and asked for a decree for the amou...