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.
Builders Supply Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented by th ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal26,59CWN1119,[1955]28ITR97(Cal)
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. At the earlier stages of the argument on this Rule, it appeared as if a broad question of fundamental importance would have to be decided, but a closer examination of the record revealed that the point actually calling for decision was a far narrower one. 2. The facts are these: Messrs. R. K. Das & Co., who are opposite party No. 2 to this Rule, obtained a building contract from Government in connection with the construction of the Mint and had to make a deposit of Rs. 50,000/- as security for the due execution of the contract. In connection with that undertaking, Messrs. R. K. Das & Co., obtained a supply of building materials from the petitioners, Messrs, Builders Supply Corporation. The petitioners appear to have been unable'to obtain payment for the goods supplied andthey Drought a suit for the recovery of their dues,tin that suit, they obtained an order for an attachment before judgment of Rs. 5,000/- out of thesecurity deposit of Rs. 50,000/- made by Messrs....
Builders Supply Corporation Vs. Union of India and Others.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1955
Reported in: [1955]28ITR797(Cal)
CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J. - At the earlier stages of the argument on this rule, it appeared as if a broad question of fundamental importance would have to be decided, but a closer examination of the record revealed that the point actually calling for decision was a far narrower one.The facts are these. Messrs. R. K. Das & Co., who are opposite party No. 2 to this rule, obtained a building contract from Government in connection with the construction of the Mint and had to make a deposit of Rs. 50,000 as security for due execution of the contract. In connection with that undertaking, Messrs. R. K. Das & Co. obtained a supply of building materials from the petitioners, Messrs. Builders Supply Corporation. The petitioners appear to have been unable to obtain payment for the goods supplied and they brought a suit for the recovery of their dues. In that suit, they obtained an order for an attachment before judgment of Rs. 5,000 out of the security deposit of Rs. 50,000 made by Messrs. R. K. Das. &...
Municipal Commissioners, Howrah Vs. Ful Chand Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal181,1956CriLJ612,59CWN1098
ORDERLahiri, J. 1. This Rule was obtained by the Commissioners of the Howrah Municipality against an appellate order of acquittal. The facts giving rise to this Rule may be briefly stated as follows: The accused opposite party runs a wheat grinding mill in premises No. 421 Grand Trunk Road, Howrah. He took out a licence for running the mill under the provisions of Section 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act as extended to Howrah for the year 1951-52 and that license was to expire on 31-3-1952. Some time in the year 1951 a co-tenant of the accused opposite party made a complaint to the Municipality alleging that the noise and vibration created by the running of the mill constituted a nuisance in the locality. On 6-12-1951 the Chairman of the Howrah Municipality informed the said complainant that the Chairman would hold a local inspection. On 24-4-1952 the Chairman with the Health Officer and the Sanitary Inspector inspected the premises and came to the conclusion that the licence should n...
Muchiram Chand Vs. Paresh Nath Maity and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal208
R.P. Mookerjee, J. 1. For a proper appreciation of the points in issue reference has to be made to certain proceedings which had taken place before the filing of the two suits out of which the present appeals arise. 2. The lands described in Khatian No. 238, situated in Mouza Harendranagore in Touzl No. 2858 in the district of 24-Pergannas belonged to the plaintiffs who will be hereafter described the Maitis as Chakdars. Certain persons who will be described hereafter as the Pramaniks were recorded as settled raiyats in respect of the said lands. The interests recorded in the subordinate Khatians Nos. 239 to 243 were entered in the name of other persons. The Maitis filed a suit for the realization of the arrears of rent for 1345 to 1349 B.S. in respect of the 'raiyati' holding. The persons impleaded as defendants were the Pramaniks as also Muchiram Chand on the allegation that it was being claimed by the latter that he was a co-sharer. This suit was decreed 'ex parte'. In execution of ...
Bhagat Ram Baika Vs. Prabirendra Mohan Tagore and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal357,60CWN1
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This Rule raises a point which was decided by S. R. Das Gupta J. and myself in the case of-- 'Khuda Bux v. Manager, Caledonian Press' : (1954)IILLJ13Cal but there has been a further argument before us which has enabled us to examine the matter afresh and look more closely into the relevant statutory provisions and authorities. I must, however, say at once that towards the end of the argument, we discovered a section in the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, which settles the controversy between the parties, but inasmuch as the point was argued at great length on general principles as well, we consider it right to record our opinion on that aspect of the matter also. 2. The facts are these: The petitioner holds a plot of land appertaining to Khatian No. 168 of mouza Dhakuria, situated in the suburbs of Calcutta. He holds it as a tenant under the opposite party. His case is that the land was originally let for agricultural purposes, but is now being used as a building si...
Sreenath Malakar and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal552,1955CriLJ1354,61CWN686
J.P. Mitter, J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of conviction and sentence under Section 46, Bengal Excise Act (Act V of 1909) for unlawful possession of a quantity of 'charas', an intoxicant. The petitioner was sentenced to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment and the intoxicant concerned was confiscated under Section 63 of the said Act.2. The prosecution case against the petitioner was as follows: On 17-5-1954; he was found carrying a leather portfolio which when opened was found to contain two cloth bundles, each containing 2 3/4 seers of 'charas'. Upon research of the person of the petitioner a paper packet containing 1/4 seer of 'charas' was recovered from his pocket. In respect of the said quantities of 'charas' a seizure list was prepared in presence of witnesses who signed it.The petitioner could not produce any license or permit when asked to account for his possession ofthe offending intoxicant. The samples taken of the 'charas' were sent to the Chemical Examiner who...
India Electric Works Ltd. Vs. Mrs. B.S. Mantosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal148
Sarkar, J.1. These five appeals arising out of the same judgment in three suits tried analogously have been heard together and this judgment will govern all of them. The facts out of which these appeals have arisen are not in dispute and may be briefly stated as follows:2. Premises No. 25 South Road, Entally, Calcutta, belongs to one Nripendra Nath Deb who granted a lease of the same in favour of Messrs. F.S. Sehan and Co. along with a two storied building and some outhouses. This Company constructed a very big shed with iron framework; iron joists and angles, brackets and corrugated iron rooting on pucca brick walls for the purpose of a factory. They, however, sold the leasehold interest to one P. S. Mantosh who thereafter became the lessee of the premises under the owner.On 1-12-1927, Mantosh took fresh lease of the premises for a term of ten years, and this was evidenced by a registered lease, dated 16-3-1928 (Ex. 1). Before this, however, Mantosh had sublet the entire leasehold pro...
Gosto Behari Das Vs. Smt. Rajabala Dei and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal449,60CWN57
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This Rule has raised a somewhat interesting point, but I think it ought to be decided in accordance with authority which is all one way. 2. The facts are these: A particular holding was sold in execution of a rent decree on 19-4-1945, and purchased by one Jyoti Prasad Mitra. Jyoti Prasad in his turn sold 15-1/2 acres of the larfd on 2-1-1950, to the petitioner. The kobala was executed on that date. On 27-3-1950, one Rajabala who is opposite party No. 1 to this .Rule purchased 32 acres of land from Jyoti Prasad, but this area did not cover, nor was it a part of the areas previously sold to the petitioner. The petitioner's kobala was presented for registrationon 30-3-1950, when certain preliminaries were completed, but the actual registration did not take place on that date. On the next day, that is to say, 31-3-1950, Rajabala's kobala was registered. The petitioner's kobala came to be registered only on 10-6-1950. It is said that no notice under Section 26-C of the...
Taher HossaIn and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal513,1955CriLJ1336,59CWN999
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Burdwan to show cause why the proceedings pending against the petitioners under Section 143, Indian Penal Code and under Section 6(6), West Bengal Security Act, 1950 should not be quashed.2. The petitioners who are 20 in number are taking their trial before Sri B. N. Chatterjee, Magistrate, 1st Class, Asansol, who after examining several witnesses framed two charges against the petitioners on 30-4-1954. The charges that have been framed read as follows:'(1) That you, on or about 9-11-1954 at Burnpur, P. S. Hirapur were members of an unlawful assembly the common object of which was to cause annoyance to the police officers on duty by violating order under Section 144, Criminal P. C. which was in force then over that area and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 143, Indian Penal Code.(2) That you on or about the same day at the same place loitered in the vicinity of Burnpur works decla...
Panchu Gopal Mullik and anr. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal524,1955CriLJ1343,60CWN47
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J. 1. This revision petition raises a rather interesting question of law.2. One Jagabandhu Mallick left two sons, one of them being the petitioner Panchu Gopal Mallick and the other Akshoy Kumar Mallick since deceased. Akshoy left behind two sons of whom Arun Kumar Mallick petitioner 2 is one. Akshoy had a daughter who was given away in marriage and she died sometime ago leaving behind one Shyamsundar, who is said to be an absconding accused forwhose apprehension proceedings fay way of proclamation and attachment have been taken.3. A plot of land was said to have been purchased quite a long time ago by the father of the petitioner Panchu Gopal Mallick where certain structures were later raised by the latter and in the house thus constructed the absconding accused Shyamsundar was permitted- to live. The petitioners' case is that Shyamsundar lived there as a licensee & that he had no interest, claim or title to the property in question,4. It appears that a Magis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »