Kolkata Court June 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.
Kshetramoni Dasi Vs. Surendra Mohan Kundu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal553,60CWN200
Chakravartti, C.J.1. In our opinion, this Rule should be made absolute. The petitioner wanted to take steps against art order passed in a partition suit by which defendant No. 3 was allowed to purchase her own share and that of defendant No. 1. She was advised that an application in revision would lie to this Court and under that impression she came and interviewed Mr. Janah with the necessary papers. Mr. Janah, who is appearing for the petitioner in this Rule, informed her that she had been mis-advised and that the order against which she wanted to take steps was an appealable order and that such an appeal would fie before the learned District Judge.The petitioner then went back and filed her appeal, but when she did so eleven days had already expired from the last day or limitation.2. The petitioner made an application under Section 5, Limitation Act, as she was bound to do and the sufficient cause relied upon by her was that she had acted bona fide throughout but that she had been m...
Kanai Pal and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal600,1955CriLJ1487,59CWN913
Mitter, J. 1. This is a petition for transfer of a criminal case now pending before Sri B. M. Chaklanabis, Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranaghat.2. Divers grounds were urged in support of the application. The ground that the learned Magistrate did not properly record the evidence has not been substantiated. In our view, the learned Magistrate was right in omitting such matters as were either inadmissible or irrelevant. We accept the learned Magistrate's explanation as to this.3. The next ground appears to us to be a ground of substance. It is said that the learned Magistrate summarily convicted the petitioners of contempt of court on the ground that they insisted upon taking their seats during the hearing of the case. It is common case that there is no dock in the court room. According to the petitioners, they had had permission, from the previous Magistrate to remain seated during the hearing of the case.It also appears from the learned Magistrate's own explanation that on the day previous ...
Mir Ali Newaj Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal579
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J. 1. These are two petitions for revision of two orders made by a Magistrate, Erst class, Kandi, whereby ho made absolute under Section 139 Criminal P.G. two conditional orders requiring the petitioners, Mir Ali Newaj and Choudhury Golam Martuza, in Cri. Rev. Cases Nos. 260 of 1955 and 342 of 1955, respectively, to desist from carrying ort the trade in hide and to remove their godowns at Salar, on the ground that the continuance of the business was injurious to public health and physical comfort of the community. 2. The petitioners then applied to the Sessions Judge of Murshidabad for a reference to this Court under Section 438, Cr. P. C., but the learned Judge by an order dated 17-1-1955 disposed of the two applications in the two cases by one order. In the result the learned Judge declined to interfere, whereafter the petitioners applied to this Court and obtained these two Rules which have been heard together and are disposed of by one order. 3. The facts ...
Biswanath Dey Vs. Kishori M. Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal1
G.K. Mitter, J.1. This is an application for rest-oration of a suit which was heard in part' on 5-4-1955 and disposed of on the day following.2. The suit was one -for recovery of money lent and advanced, for interest and costs. On 6-4-1955, the suit was taken up; the plaintiff was examined-in-chief and was being cross-examined by counsel for the defendant when the Court rose for the day and the matter had to be adjourned till the next day. After the disposal of some interlocutory matters the suit was called on again on the 6th April at about 11 a.m. or shortly thereafter.Mr. De, learned counsel for the plaintiff,made a statement to Court to the effect that theplaintiff was not present to be cross-examinedfurther. There is some dispute as to the further statement made by him. It is stated in the affidavit in opposition of Kishori Mohan Pal, the defendant, that Mr. De had stated that he did not want to proceed with the suit whereas in his affidavit-in-reply the plaintiff deposes to the e...
Tulsiram Shaw Vs. Rambadal Sambhunath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal17
ORDERG.K. Mitter, J.1. This is an application for setting aside an ex parte decree passed on 6-4-1955, and for restoration of the said suit to the peremptory list to be re-heard by this Court.2. In this suit the plaintiff claimed a decree for Rs. 8,100/- on account of arrears of rent, Interest and costs. The suit was instituted in 1950. It appeared in the warning list on 2-4-1955, according to the applicant and on 1-4-1955 according to the respondent. The defendant had also filed a suit against the plaintiff herein in the year 1951 being suit No. 1124 of 1951, claiming a sum of Rs. 22000/-.On 2-4-1955 the attorney for the defendant Sri B. B. Ghose wrote a letter to the Registrar of this Court as follows:'The above suit, I find is appearing in the warning list of His Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. K. Mitter. The above suit as also the suit No. 1124 of 1951 (Rambadal v. Tulsiram) filed by my client against the defendant Tulsiram Shaw, are cross suits and as such the same should toe ...
Manindra Nath Pal and ors. Vs. Municipal Commissioners of Baranagore M ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal291
ORDERSinha, J.1. This application raises a point of public importance namely the right of a rate payer in a municipality to get a sufficient amount of filtered water for his domestic purposes. The facts are shortly as follows. The petitioners, who are ten in number, are all residents of Baranagar, in the district of 24-Parganas.They are all rate payers of the Baranagar Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the 'Municipality') and are owners of residential houses, premises and holdings within the precincts of the said Municipality. The Commissioners of the Municipality have imposed a water-rate and the petitioners pay water-rates at the rate of 7 per cent. of the annual valuations of their holdings.The petitioners allege that in spite of the statutory duty on the part of the Municipality to provide them with an adequate supply of filtered water for domestic purposes, the supply is miserably insufficient, and is dwindling down progressively, until they cannot get even a few gallons of...
Metropolitan Structural Works Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal396,[1955]28ITR432(Cal)
Chakkavartti, C.J.1. The short point involved in this case is a point of limitation. It appears that the petitioner was assessed to a certain amount of tax and in respect of the amount so assessed, a demand notice was issued on 29-9-1948. The petitioner appealed against the assessment and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ordered a reduction of the tax. Thereupon a fresh notice of demand in respect of the sum to which the tax was reduced was issued on 14-10-49. The petitioner was still not satisfied & preferred a further appeal to the Tribunal. He was again successful and the tax assessed on him was further reduced. Thereupon, a third notice of demand in respect of the amount of which the tax was finally reduced was issued on 31-3-1952.2. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer took action under Section 46(2) of the Act and sent a certificate to the Collector. The petitioner raised an objection that the proceedings initiated by such certificate were barred by limitation, inasmuch as acco...
Abdur Rahaman Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal631,1955CriLJ1583
Mitter, J.1. There are three Rules before us, the first to show cause why an order of confiscation of 34 bundles of yarn should not be set aside, the second as to why a substantive sentence of imprisonment should not be imposed in respect of the offence said to have been committed by the petitioner, and the third as to why the petitioner's conviction and the sentence imposed upon him should not be set aside.2. The petitioner was at all material times a dealer in yarn holding a 'D' Group license under the West Bengal Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1948. The prosecution case against, the petitioner was that on 25-6-1954, he sold a quantity of yarn to P.W. 2 for which no cash memo was either prepared or given to the purchaser. Soon after the purchase, the petitioner was challenged but he was unable to produce the relative cash memo for the sale in question.In the shop were found 34 bundles of cotton yarn which were seized by the Police. On the above facts the petitioner was charged ...
Adhar Chandra Mondal Vs. Bistu Pada Gure and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal497,60CWN351
Guha, J. 1. These two rules at the instance of the Defendant petitioner are directed against two orders passed by a Small Cause Court Judge decreeing the Plaintiff's suits for the recovery of Rs. 500/-as the price of barga produce on the basis of a registered Kabulayat. The rules were heard analogously.2. The short point that has arisen for decision is whether the Court concerned had jurisdiction to try the suits.3. Under Section 7(1), West Bengal Bargadar's Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) every dispute between a bargadar and the owner regarding the division or delivery of the produce shall be decided by a Board established for the local area within which the land concerned is situated. Under Section 9(2) of the same Act no Court shall entertain any suit in respect of a matter required under Section 7(1) to be decided by a Board referred to in that sub-section. Under Section 18 the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other la...
Akshoy Kumar Mondal and ors. Vs. Jatindra Nath Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal612,60CWN166
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. The appellants wore the defendants in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession on partition. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below. Hence this second appeal by the defendants. 2. The disputed properties are described in Schedules A and B of the plaint They originally belonged to the parties' admitted predecessor Babu Ram Mondal. The principal parties, namely, the plaintiffs and the principal defendants, all claim to be sons of Babu Ram, but, while the plaintiffs claim 3 bighas 4 cottahs out of the A Schedule properties exclusively on the strength of a deed of gift from their father Babu Ram and one-third share in the remaining suit properties as his legitimate sons, the defence denies the story of gift and alleges that the plaintiffs are illegitimate issues of their father Babu Ram, their (the plaintiffs') mother Dayamoyce, pro forma defendant 5, not being the legally married wife of Babu Ram. 3. As to the deed of gift, both the Cour...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »