Kolkata Court December 1955 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.
Sudhir Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Majumdar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal668,60CWN222
ORDERP.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This Rule arises out of a proceeding for ejectment of a thika tenant under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act. The ejectment was allowed by the Controller under Section 3(1) and (4) read with Section 4 proviso (ii), Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act and there was the usual order for payment of compensation by the landlord to the tenant as required by the statute.2. This order was affirmed by the learned appellate authority and the tenant being dis-satlsfi-ed has moved this Court and obtained the present Rule.3. The objections of the tenant, inter alia, were that there was really no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that the tenant was not a thika tenant under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act and no proceedings were available against him under the said Act; and that the notice to quit served in the case was illegal and defective. All these contentions were concurrently overruled by the Tribunals below and their concurrent findings have been that the s...
Niren Basu and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Cal74,1957CriLJ172,60CWN464
Mitter, J.1. These are petitions for the issue of writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus in respect of the detention of the petitioners under the Preventive Detention Act (4 of 1950) as amendmed by the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act (Act 2 of 1954).2. The petitioners are all associated with what is known as the Dock Mazdoor Union, Port Commissioner, Calcutta. In view of the arguments addressed to us in respect of each one of the several cases before us, it will be necessary hereafter to deal with the case of each individual petitioner. There was, however, a point of law raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners which affects all these cases. We must, therefore, first deal with, the point which concerns all these applications.3. Mr. S. K. Basu appearing on behalf of the petitioners impugned all the orders of detention as being illegal and without jurisdiction on the ground that the orders concerned on the face of them indicated that the satisfaction required u...
Ramesh Chandra Dutta Vs. Surya Properties Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Cal198
Lahiri, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a decree for ejectment passed by the Special Bench of the Presidency Small Cause Court, Calcutta, affirming the decree made by the Fifth Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta.2. The plaintiff came to Court with a case that he was entitled to a decree for ejectment against the defendant and the defendant was not entitled to protection of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, because he 'was a habitual defaulter in the payment of rent from February, 1952 and has not paid two months rent legally payable by the defen-fendant to the plaintiff on three occasions within a period of 18 months. This statement made in the original plaint was amended by an order dated 2nd May, 1953, and after the amendment the allegation in paragraph 5 of the plaint stands as follows:'The defendant is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent and has not paid rent since August, 1952'.The second sentence in this paragraph is the same as in the origi...
Rabindra Nath Mukherjee Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal116,1956CriLJ522
Debabrata Mookerjee, J.1. The appellant Rabindra Nath Mukherjee, a constable attached to Ranaghat Government Railway Police Station, was tried upon a charge under S. 161, Penal Code under the provisions of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949, by Sri N. Banerjee, Judge, Special Court, Nadia. As a result of the trial thus held he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. He appeals against this order of conviction and sentence.2. The facts briefly are that on 25-4-1954 the appellant was on duty on the Ranaghat Station platform at about 10-30 A.M. when Baidyanath Kundu (P. W. 10), a resident of Eastern Pakistan arrived at the station by the down North Bengal Express. After getting down from the train he proceeded to the Third Class waiting room. He had two mats with him which he was taking to his sister-in-law's house at Santipur.In the waiting room there were other passengers one of whom...
Indian Trade and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Cal190
G.K. Mitter, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 4096/8/- for damage caused through fire to a consignment of jute despatched from the railway station Bhabta on the East Indian Railway to Cossipore Road Station. The consignor as well as the consignee was one Saraogi Trading Co., a firm carrying on business at 46, Strand Road, Calcutta, On the 5th January, 1950 the said firm delivered 84 bales of jute weighing 294 maunds to the Railway Administration at Bhabta under railway receipt No. 105356 dated the 5th January, 1950. The goods were despatched, under railway risk. The wagon containing the goods was attached to a goods train 743 Up, which was on its way to Kri-shnapur, at a distance of 140 miles from Calcutta. Bhabta is situate at a distance of 108 miles from Cossipore Road. It is the case of the railwey that smoke was noticed coming out from the doors of the wagon when it was about to get into Cossimbazar Station. The train was stopped at a distance of 100 yards outside the said s...
Arathoon Mackertoon Arathoon Vs. Corporation of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Cal79,60CWN406
ORDERSinha, J. 1. A common question of law arises in this application and in five others, which have all been heard together. (Matter No. 135 of 1954 Karhani Properties --v-- The Corporation of Calcutta Matter No. 67 of 1954 -- Dr. Subodh Kumar Ganguly --v-- Assessor Calcutta Corporation and ors; Matter No. 29 of 1955 Pataki Chandra Muttylal --v-- The Assessor, Corporation of Calcutta and ors; Matter No. 45 of 1955 Bepin Behari Sadhukhan --v-- Corporation of Calcutta and Matter No. 59 of 1955 Sankar Narayan Gooptu --v-- The Corporation of Calcutta. The point arises in the following manner. Both under the Calcutta Municipal Acts 1923 and 1951, the unit of assessment is either 'land' or where there is a structure upon it, the 'land' and 'building'. The word 'building' has been denned (See Section 5 (6)). This unit is commonly referred to as 'Premises' although, the word 'Premises' is not itself defined. Thus, when we speak of a municipal premises, we generally mean, a building which incl...
Basanta Kumar Gon Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal118,1956CriLJ524
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J. 1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 448, Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months. The trial was held by a Magistrate of Kalna upon two charges under Sections 186 and 448, Penal Code.The charge of offence relating to obstruction to a public servant under Section 186 I. P. C. was found unsustainable by the learned trying Magistrate on the ground that a proper complaint had not been made in accordance with the provisions of Section 195, Criminal P. C.The result was that the learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioner of the charge of offering obstruction to the public servant concerned in the discharge of public functions and the petitioner was convicted of the other charge under Section 448, I. P. C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months.2. The case for the prosecution briefly stated was that at an Attestation Camp ...
FazaladdIn Mandal Vs. Panchanan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Cal92
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment of Guha J. dismissing in second appeal the plaintiff's suit for specific 'performance. On 26-5-1943, the plaintiff Fazaladdin Mandal and his two brothers gave maurashi lease of .57 acre of land to Panchanan Das, the defendant, on receipt of a selami of Rs. 50/-, the rent reserved being Rs. 3/- per year. The three lessors executed a potta 'in favour of Panchanan while Panchanan in his turn executed on the same day a kabuliat in favour of the three lessors. Both thesedocuments were registered on that very day. The appellant brought this suit on the allegation that simultaneously with the lease there was an agreement between him (Fazaladdin) and Panchanan that if within six years from that date, namely, 26-5-1943, Fazaladdin paid Rs. 50/- to Panchanan, Panchanan would convey the leasehold interest acquired by him' in favour of Fazaladdin; but that in spite of repeated requests to pirn thereafter to convey the leasehold On accepting ...
Bahadur Singh Chhetri and anr. Vs. Bir Bahadur Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal213
Mookerjee, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal out of a suit brought for a declaration that a certain kobala which had been executed by one Bir Bahadur Singh 'alias' Kalika Singh Chhetri was a void one as the alleged vendor was a person of unsound mind and did not fully comprehend the effects of the acts done by him. The suit had a chequered career.2. The mother of the alleged lunatic had filed a suit making herself and her son plaintiffs. She had applied for leave to sue as a pauper. She was allowed to do so. No formal leave was at the initial stage taken for the proper representation of the alleged lunatic. Such defects were cured when the suit came up for hearing before the final stage.The suit had been dismissed at one stage as no proper steps were taken. An application for rehearing was subsequently filed and the suit was revived. This is how the suit had been pending from the end of 1947 till the end of 1949 when the trial came to an end in the Lower Court. The declaration, as pray...
Rajendra Nath Ghose Vs. Brojabala Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal135,1956CriLJ527
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This Rule raises a question of some importance as respects the manner of enforcement of an order made by a Magistrate under the provisions of Section 488, Criminal P. C.2. By an order dated 7-3-1955 a learned Magistrate of Howrah directed payment of a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 30/- by the petitioner to his wife. There was a further order as respects the payment of costs of hearing of the maintenance application which amounted to Rs. 40/-.On 12-4-1955 the wife in whose favour the order had been made applied for enforcement of the order. Notice by registered post requiring the payment of maintenance allowance of Rs. 30/- as also a further sum of Rs. 40/- by way of costs was issued upon the petitioner but the notice having been refused a distress warrant was directed to issued upon the general manager of the National Iron and Steel Works Ltd., of which the petitioner is an employee, requiring the manager to attach Rs.70/- from the pay of the petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »