Kolkata Court September 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.
Saha and Co. Vs. Ishar Singh Kripal Singh and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal321,60CWN471
Chakravartti, C.J.1. The facts out of which this Reference to a Full Bench has arisen, have been set out in full in the Order of Reference. Briefly stated, they are that after the notice of the filing of an award made against the Appellants had been served on them, they made an application to the Court which contained three prayers.Their case being that the alleged award had been made by a body other than the body named in the arbitration agreement, they prayed that the existence, validity and the effect of the alleged agreement upon which the award bad been made, might be determined by the Court, that it might be declared that there was no valid, binding, effective or subsisting agreement between the parties and that the purported award might be set aside.The learned trial Judge treated the application, so far as it asked for the first two reliefs, as an application under Section 33, Arbitration Act and held it to be barred by limitation; but he allowed the appellants to withdraw the ...
Barjiwandas Gujrati Vs. Mohini Mohan Shah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal425,60CWN312
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Judge of the Presidency Small Cause Court, rejecting two applications of the present petitioner, the first of which was filed on 11-9-1953 and the second on 2-4-1954. An application under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act hereinafter also referred to as the Act was made on 11-7-1949 by the landlord opposite party stating that this defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of premises No. 45, Nalini Sett Road, that the tenant's interest had determined on his failure to pay rent for three consecutive months and praying 'for recovery of possession of the said room from the defendant.' The defendant stated in his petition that he had been 'persuaded and coerced to consent to be a tenant' and in the same breath denied relationship of landlord and tenant and lastly said that there had been a prescriptive right of defendant's family'. On 20-124949 the Judge holding that the relationship of...
Kalu Babu Lalchand, Calcutta Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal588,[1956]29ITR281(Cal)
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This Reference comes to us on a supplementary case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in pursuance of an order made by us on 11-5-1953.2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family of the name of Kalu Babu Lalchand of which the. Karta is one Mr. B. K. Rohatgi. It appears that in the year 1930 Mr. Rohatgi became interested in a concern called the India Electric Works and promoted the formation of a company for taking it over. The actual incorporation of the company took place on 19-12-1930. Article 132 of the Articles of Association provided that the first Managing Director would be Mr. B. K. Rohatgi or 'his assigns or successors in business whether under his name or any other style or firm' and that he would continue to be Managing Director until he resigned or was found guilty of any act of fraud or dishonesty or was removed in the manner provided in the Article next following. The next Article laid down the procedure which would have to be followed if the ...
Bimalapati Banerjee Vs. Sailendra Nath Ganguly and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal249,1956CriLJ734,60CWN758
B.P. Mookerjee, J. 1. Joggeswar Banerjee, one of the opposite parties, had filed a suit in the Presidency Court, of Small Causes praying 'inter alia' that Bimalapati, petitioner in these proceedings, be ejected from premises No. 16, Blacquire Sq., Calcutta. The suit was dismissed by the trial Judge. On appeal a decree in ejectment was passed. The defendantpetitioner Bimalapati filed a Second Appeal (S. A. 513 of 1955) against the said decree. This appeal was admitted on March 11, 1955 after a preliminary hearing under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil P. C. On the same day the defendant-petitioner filed an application for restraining the plaintiff-decree-holder from executing the decree and also for an ad interim order pending the hearing of the Rule. A Rule was issued to show cause why further proceedings in execution should not be stayed. An ad interim order was passed on the following terms : 'Ad interim injunction is granted till 25-4-1955 for the present and will continue thereafter till t...
Sm. Bela Rani Chatterjee Vs. Bhupal Chandra Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal134,1956CriLJ526,60CWN214
J.P. Mttter, J.1. This Rule which has been referred to us by Debabrata Mookerjee, J. involves the construction of Sub-section (1) of Section 488, Criminal P. C. The question for decision is whether a wife is entitled to an order of maintenance under Section 488, Cr. P. C. merely upon proof that her husband has contracted marriage with another wife or keeps a mistress.2. The facts which give rise to the question are these: The petitioner Belarani Chatterjee was married to the opposite party on 8-2-1947. The marriage did not prove a success. According to the petitioner, while residing at Howrah, the opposite party, not only became unduly intimate with an unmarried girl but treated the petitioner with great harshness and cruelty.When, in December 1948, the position became Intolerable, the petitioner left the opposite party and went to reside with her relations. In 1950 the opposite party married again, making it impossible for the petitioner to live with the opposite party. On 28-7-1953, ...
Deb Narayan Chakraborty Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Cal251,1957CriLJ505,60CWN220
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J.1. The petitioner in this case lodged an information with the police charging certain persons with having committed offences under Sections 436 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The substance of the information was that on 21-3-1951 when the petitioner was reading in his hut he discovered that a cowshed in front of him was ablaze. People from near-about places came up to put out the fire when he was informed that the focal zamindar had come with miscreants in a motor vehicle and had been responsible for the arson. It was also stated in that information that one of the people had fired some blank shots.2. There was a police investigation consequent on this information which resulted in the submission of a final report. The police followed it up by a prayer for prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 211 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code. After the final report had been submitted, the petitioner challeng-ed it by means o a naraji petition. The naraji was e...
Syed Shah Jafrul Islam Vs. District Magistrate, Hooghly and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal543,60CWN416
ORDERSinha, J.1.The facts in this case are shortly as follows:2. The petitioner applied for and obtained from the District Magistrate, Hooghly, in 1934, a gun licence being licence No. 81/66 in respect of S.B.B.L. Gun No. 27232. This licence was being renewed from year to year. In the year 1953, the petitioner was also granted another licence No, 211, for a 32 Bore Revolver No. A-63460. This licence has also been renewed from year to year. On 20-8-1954, the petitioner was served by a notice issued by the District Magistrate, Hooghly, which is as follows:'Whereas it appears that you being holder of fire-arm licence did not come out and made no attempt to resist the dacoits who raided the house of Sri Ashutosh Pal of the same village on 13-7-54 though requested by Chowkidar Kishori Malik and another choukidar while the dacoity was in progress and if you would have come out this dacoity could have been averted. You are, therefore, directed to show cause before me within 15 days from the r...
Kumar Jagadish Chandra Sinha Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Beng ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal48,[1955]28ITR732(Cal)
Chakravartti, C.J.1. The points involved in this Reference are a little out of the common and have afforded some relief from the dreariness of the ordinary Income-tax Reference. The most interesting of the points raised by Dr. Pal had, however, to be ruled out, as it did not seem to us to arise out of the appellate order. Also, of the three questions referred, two were ultimately abandoned as it was conceded that, on the materials on record, they could not be answered.2. The assessee is one Kumar Jagadish Chandra Sinha, who is an individual resident and ordinarily resident in India. He owns a zemindary situated wholly in the district of Jessore which, as a result of the Partition, went to Pakistan with effect from 15-8-1947. The assessee observes the Bengali Calendar year in maintaining his accounts.In the accounting year 1354 B.S., corresponding to 14-4-1947, to the 13-4-1948, the assessee received from his zemindary in Jessore an income of 1,85,380/-.It is not disputed that the money...
Ganga Dutt Murarka Vs. Sm. Bibhabati Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Cal65,60CWN871
Guha Ray, J. 1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 Ganga Dutt Murarka who had purchased 5/6th share of the disputed property from one of the co-sharers from an order under Section 4, Partition Act. After the purchase of 5/6th share of the disputed property by defendant 1, Bibhabati who acquired 1/6th share of the disputed property under the Will of her mother instituted a suit for partition. There was a preliminary decree on 17-6-1952. Thereafter she made an application under Section 4, Partition Act. The application was opposed by defendant 1 on two grounds, namely, that the plaintiff was not a member of the undivided family to which the disputed property belonged, and, secondly that the application was not maintainable in law. The learned Court below overruled both the objections and allowed the application of Bibhabati under Section 4, Partition Act.2. Mr. Gupta on behalf of the appellant does not raise before us any of the two points taken before the trial Court, but raises a new poi...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›