Kolkata Court July 1954 Judgments
Bhupat Singha and ors. Vs. Jnanendra Kumar Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal341,58CWN1049
Lahiri, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 5, Court-fees Act. The plaintiffs who are the appellants in this Court filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Midnapore, praying for (a) a declaration that they had an occupancy right in the disputed land on the strength of a settlement and also on the ground of possession for more than twelve years; and (b) for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession on the strength of a decree which had been obtained by them, In para. 14 of the plaint the plaintiffs allege that the present market value of the properties in dispute is Rs. 5500/- and the net profits from the properties amount to Rs. 175 and fifteen times the net profits will be equivalent to Rs. 2625/-. The aforesaid amounts were mentioned for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the Court, but the plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed lands and that defendants 1 and 2 were merely t...
Tag this Judgment!Gajadhar Shaw Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1954
Reported in: AIR1959Cal21
ORDERS.N. Guha Ray, J. 1. This is an application by the plaintiff Gajadbar Shaw for revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, of an order passed by a Small cause court Judge of Howrah, dismissing a suit for compensation against the B. N. Rly. for non-delivery of a part of the goods consigned by him. It appears that on 10-6-1950 the plaintiff consigned from Ghatsila 18 tons 10 cwt. of scrap iron which was despatched in one wagon and reached the destination, namely, Saliinar on 3-7-1950. On weighment on route at Kharagpore the goods were found to weigh 18 tons 10 cwt. On arrival at the destination on 3-7-1950 when delivery was taken the goods were found to weigh 13 tons only, so that there was a short delivery of 6 tons, 10 cwt. The plaintiff asked for compensation for this short delivery. The suit was first instituted in the Small Cause Court at Sealdah on 4-8-1951, hut on 30-1-1952, on the prayer of the plaintiff himself, after hearing the lawyer of the partie...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmal Kumar Mitra Vs. Monoranjan Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal192
S.R. Das Gupta, J. 1. This is a petition for revision of an order of the Subordinate Judge, 24 Parganas. By the said order the learned Subordinate Judge held that the opposite party was a pauper and allowed his application to be adjudged as a pauper with costs. 2. The suit out of which this application arises was filed on 21-7-1953 and there was a prayer that the plaintiff should be adjudged a pauper. The application for permission to sue as a pauper did contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits and there was a schedule attached thereto setting out the properties which according to the petitioner belonged to him with the estimated value thereof. The application was also signed and verified in the manner prescribed for the signing and verification of plaints. The value of the properties as given in the said Schedule which was schedule 'B' was only Rs. 30/- and it consisted of a bed, utensils and sundry articles. At the hearing before the learned Subordinate Judge th...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Sri Narayan Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal371,59CWN254
K.C. Das Gupta, J. 1. The question in this case is whether the Government of India can escape liability to pay compensation for loss caused by non-delivery of an article it received for carriage and delivery when the article has not been lost by the Government. The Opposite Party delivered to the Darjeeling Bazar Post Office a parcel under the value payable system for delivery to one Sitaram Gupta at Happy Valley Sub-Post Office, Shillong in Assam. This was never delivered. The present suit was brought on a claim of Rs. 450/- of which Rs. 400/- was claimed as compensation for the non-delivered article and Rs. 50/- on account of costs of notices and correspondence. The defence taken was that this particular parcel was taken away by thieves along with other things from the Shillong Post Office. The trial Court disbelieved the story of theft but also held that even if there had been theft this was due to the omission of the postal authorities to take sufficient precaution against theft. H...
Tag this Judgment!Arbn. SatyanaraIn Biswanath Vs. Harakchand Rupchand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal225
Bachawat, J.1. This is an application to declare void and set aside the Award of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce. The dispute relates to a contract dated 30-11-1951, which contains the usual arbitration clause for reference of the disputes under the contract to the arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce under the rules of its Tribunal of Arbitration. The respondent referred the disputes relating to the contract to the arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce. The relevant rules of the Tribunal of Arbitration are as follows:'V. (1) In every case where a dispute or difference has arisen between parties who have agreed that such dispute or difference shall be referred for decision to the Chamber or the Tribunal, an application for arbitration may be addressed by either party to the Registrar which application, In the case of disputes relating to piece-goods shall be in such form as the Committee of the Chamber may from time to time prescribe. (2) On receipt of such application,...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Ranjan Roy and ors. Vs. Commr. of Police, Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal417,59CWN215
ORDERSinha, J. 1. The facts in this case are briefly as follows: Tollygunj is a suburb of Calcutta. Prior to 31-3-1953, it had its own Municipality. By notification No. M--IM-79/52(1), dated 31-3-1953, issued by the Government of West Bengal, it was brought within the jurisdiction of the Corporation of Calcutta. Under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 (Bengal Act 1 of 1919), every 'Hackney Carriage' in Calcutta is required to be annually registered by a Registering Officer, who is a Deputy Commissioner of Police appointed by the State Government. Under Section 70 (read with the provisions of Chap. VII) of the said Act, the provisions are applicable to Rikshaws under Section 2(b) of the said Act, the Government is empowered to include in or exclude from, Calcutta (or any town or local area to which the Act is extended), any local area in the vicinity. By notification No. 4073-P1 dated 10-8-1935, various Municipalities in the vicinity of Calcutta including the Tollygunj Municipalit...
Tag this Judgment!Fateh Chand Murlidhar Vs. Juggilal Kamlapat
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal465,59CWN223
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of S.R. Das Gupta, J., dated 29-6-1953, by which the learned Judge set aside an award in favour of the appellants on the ground that in making it without any evidence in its support, the arbitrators had misconducted the proceedings.2. The facts are as follows. On 3-11-1951, the appellants, Messrs. Fatehchand Murlidhar, agreed to sell and the respondents, Messrs. Juggilal Kamlapat, agreed to buy, 15,000 pieces of Wool Packs at the fate of Rs. 11/12/- per piece. The goods were to be delivered in three equal instalments of 5,000 pieces each on 25-11-1951, 15-12-1951, and 7-1-1952, respectively. Delivery of the first two instalments was duly given and no question arises with regard to them.With regard to the third instalment due to be delivered on the 7-1-1952, shipping instructions were given on 20-12-1951, for placing the goods alongside a vessel, called 'Pantakota'. Admittedly, the goods were not delivered and ordinarily there would b...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnath Sarma Vs. Baidyanath Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal620
S.R. Das Gupta, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Birbhum, holding that the decree-holder shall not be able to execute the decree personally against the respondent. The appellant before us is the decree-holder and the appeal arises out of an objection under Section 47, Civil P. C., filed by the respondent in Money Execution Case No. 3 of 1951.2. On 8-6-1950 a decree was passed in favour of the appellant for the sum of Rs. 13,833/1/0 against the firm of Contractors' Syndicate and seven partners thereof, one of whom is the present respondent. The decree-holder put the decree into execution by attachment and sale of the personal properties of the partners of the said Syndicate and of the partnership property. The said application for execution was made on 6-5-1951. On 14-11-1951, the respondent before us put in an objection to the said execution. The respondent raised various grounds of objection before the executing Court, One of such grounds w...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Kumar Maity Vs. Narendra Nath Jana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal224,59CWN136
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. The question in these cases is whether the bar junder Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 69 Partnership Act, which is extended by Sub-section (3) of the same section 'to a claim of set-off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract' applies to defence taken in the written statement that the properties to which the plaintiff claims an exclusive right is the joint property of the plaintiff arid the defendants on the plea that they are all partners of the property belonging to the Firm.2. Primarily the bar in Section 69 is. against the plaintiff, the result being, if a partnership has not been registered, no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract will be entertained either on behalf of the firm against a third party or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to have been a partner in the firm. These are the consequences of the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2). The first effect of t...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Mondal Vs. Kazi Golam Bari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal526,59CWN513
ORDERRenupada Mukherjee, J. 1. This Rule was issued at the instance of one Syed Ali Mondal under the following circumstances.2. Syed Ali Mondal was the purchaser of some properties sold at a Court sale held in Rent Execution Case No. 649 nf 1952 in the Court of the 2nd Munsif, Baraset. Thereafter the judgment-debtors filed an application on 17-3-1953 for setting aside the sale under Section 174(3), Bengal Tenancy Act. An objection was filed to that petition by auction-purchaser Syed Ali Mondal on 2-5-1953.Notices were thereafter issued to the persons who were made opposite parties in the sale set aside case.But it appears that the notice was duly served en opposite party No. 5 who was subsequently made a party in that case. The result was that on 3-10-1953, the Court recorded an order, in the order-sheet directing the petitioner to take steps for fresh service of a registered post card upon the above opposite parties by 14-11-1953. On that date the petitioners filed hajira but did not ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »