Kolkata Court January 1956 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.
Rabindra Nath Banerjee Vs. Harendra Kumar Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Cal462
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application on chamber summons by Sunil Kumar Mukherjee of No. 4/5, Hem Kar Lane, Calcutta for an order setting aside the sale of premises Nos. 21/B and 31, Gokul Mitra Lane, Calcutta, held by the Sheriff on 24-8-1955 in execution of the decree passed in this suit.2. The application is on summons to the plaintiff decree-holder, the defendant judgment-debtor and the two purchasers. The plaintiff states that his decree has been satisfied by the applicant. The defendant has not appeared. Of the two purchasers one Ranjit Ghose appearing through an attorney has neither supported nor opposed this application and his only submission is that in case the Court set aside the sale he should be allowed to withdraw the deposit that he had made without a further application, a course to which there is no objection from any of the parties. The opposition is from the other purchaser Kanak Ghose who is himself an advocate of this Court and who has appeared in person....
Sm. Saraswati Bala Samanta and ors. Vs. Surabala Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal57,60CWN400
Bachawat, J.1. This revisional application arises out of a suit for partition. The plaintiff claimed to be a co-sharer of several properties and prayed for partition allotment and exclusive possession of the property allotted. The suit was originally valued at Rs. 16,000/- for the purposes of jurisdiction and was also valued at Rs. 15/- for the purposes of court-fees. The plaint was subsequently amended by the introduction of several new items of property of which also the plaintiff claimed partition and on such amendment the suit was valued at Rs. 18,000/-. There was a protracted hearing of the suit. Evidence was adduced for twenty days and argument was heard for another four days. At the close of the argument the plaintiff' found that he could not possibly succeed in the suit and thereupon he applied for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit. This application was rejected. The plaintiff moved a further application for withdrawal of the suit. On this applicatio...
Benoy Kumar Mondal Vs. Panchanon Majumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Cal177,60CWN598
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the grant of letters of administration to the respondent Panchanon Majumdar alias Panchanon Mondal in respect of the estate of one Sm. Sarojini Mazumdar, deceased.2. It has been found by the Court below that the deceased Sarojini was a Christian by religion. That finding is not challenged before us by either party. Respondent Panchanon who was the applicant for the letters of administration was related to Sarojini in the manner as will appear from the following genealogy; BHARAT | Gobindo | Bilashini (daughter) | _________________________________________________________ | | | Mokshada Santabala Trailokya (husband-Sahadeb) (husband-Rajkumar) | | Sarojini Jashoda (deceased) | Panchanon (Plaintiff-applicant) Respondent.Taken along with the fact that Sahadeb and Rajkumar were two brothers; or, to put it more succinctly and in a direct form, the relevant genealogy under which the respondent Panchanon claims would stand as follows; ______...
Dasarath Singh Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Cal260,1956CriLJ738; AIR 1956 Cal 260
Debabrata Mookerjee, J. 1. The appellant was tried by a Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta upon two charges under Sections 420 and 486, Penal Code. He was acquitted of the charge of cheating under Section 420, but was convicted under Section 486 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The facts briefly stated are that on 6-7-1954 the appellant's shop at Raja Katra styled Sinha Bros. was searched in the presence of witnesses. Two cartons of Sunlight Soap marked Exts. II and III containing the cakes in waxed paper bearing label 'Sunlight Soap -- Lever Bros. (India) Ltd.' were recovered.At the time of the search there was an Expert from Lever Bros. to help test whether the cakes were genuine or not. It appears the cakes were later sent for chemical examination and report was received in due course which revealed that they were not genuine Sunlight cakes it having been considered that they were inferior stuff and attempted to be...
Damodar Das Vs. Kashi Prosad Agarwalla (Khaitan) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Cal112
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P. C. for revision of an order of a Subordinate Judge of 24-Parganas dated 30-3-1955 by which the learned Judge rejected the petitioner's contention that the opposite party No. 2 Radhakishan Agarwalla was not entitled to rateable distribution oi certain assets held in Court and that he having withdrawn his share was liable to refund the same.2. In Money Execution Case No. 33 of 1953, the application of the petitioner to which I have just referred was filed. The holder of decree in that case was one Kashi Prasad Agarwalla against the judgment debtor K. L. Knight, opposite party No. 3. In Money Execution Cases Nos. 13 and 42 of 1954 the decree-holder was the petitioner Damodar Dass, while the opposite party No. 2 Radhaklshan Agarwalla was the holder of the decree in Execution Case No. 15 of 1954.3. On 27-4-1954 a sum of Rs. 2,365/3/- was received in Money Execution Case No. 33 of 1953. This amount, it appears,...
Jiban Krishna Roy and Another Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income- ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR611(Cal)
CHAKRAVARTTI, C.J. - This is another case of assessment of agricultural income where the partition of Bengal and the inadequate provision made for the adaptation of the old agricultural income-tax law of the undivided province presented a problem of some complexity. The facts are such that questions far more difficult than the one raised by the taxing authorities might well have arisen, but the question actually raised by them and now referred to us almost answers itself.The reference is somewhat unusual in from. It comprises two separate cases of two different assessees who are co-shares in respect of some agricultural land situated in what is now East Pakistan. The share of each is one held. As the point involved in their assessments was the same, their appeals to the Tribunal were consolidated and so were their applications for reference to this Court. As a result only one reference has been made and only one statement of case submitted.The two assessees concerned are one Shri Jiban...
Chairman, Barrackpore Municipality Vs. Labanya Prova Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Cal179,1956CriLJ609
Debabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This is a reference made by an Additional Sessions Judge of 24-Parganas recommending that certain proceedings under Section 453/500, Bengal Municipal Act be not treated as proceedings in prosecution of the person proceeded against.2. A complaint was filed before the Sub-divisional Officer, Barrackpore, by the Commissioners of the Barrackpore Municipality that a certain nuisance had been caused by the accused person Labanya Prova Debi. Information of the nuisance having been received by the Commissioners and the Commissioners being obviously satisfied that the nuisance existed, served a notice on the lady requiring her to remove it within a specified time.There having occurred failure to comply with the requirements of the notice, the Commissioners of the Municipality caused a complaint relating to such nuisance to be made before the learned Sub-divisional Officer; the latter on receipt of it directed the issue of summons on the lady to appear before him and wh...
R.K. Das and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Cal161,[1956]30ITR439(Cal)
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. The assessee at whose instance this Reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act has been made is a firm. In maintaining its accounts, it observes the calendar year. Admittedly during the year 1945, the assessee earned a taxable income, but it did not file any return in response to the general notice issued under Section 22(1) of the Act, nor did the Income-tax Officer issue any notice to the assessee under Section 22(2).By the time he discovered the omission, the assessment year which was the year 1946-47 had already expired. At that stage, therefore, he could issue a notice only under Section 34 of the Act and he did so on 23-8-1948. As Section 34 stood at that time no sanction of the Commissioner for the issue of a notice under the section was required and consequently none was obtained.2. It appears that the assessee did not file a return in compliance with the notice. Instead a partner appeared before the Income-tax Officer on 8-11-1948, & asked for ti...
Administrator, Howrah Municipality Vs. Sm. Kalidasi Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Cal180,1956CriLJ610
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order of acquittal made by the Municipal Magistrate of Howrah on 31-3-1955. The opposite party was prosecuted for unauthorised construction and completion of masonry structure on the 1st floor of her premises ignoring a notice served upon her under Section 365(1), Calcutta Municipal Act as extended to Howrah. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution but no one was called on behalf of the defence. The learned Magistrate thereafter proceeded to judgment by which he acquitted the opposite party, not on the merits, but upon a view of the law which he took to which I am about to refer. 2. The defence attempted to avail of two objections to the validity of the proceedings. In the first place, it was held that the present prosecution was barred by time; and it having been instituted beyond the period limited by the law for prosecution of an offence under the Municipal Act, the proceedings were not maintainable....
Fakir Das Dutt Vs. Gaya Dhar Jana and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal225,1957CriLJ444,60CWN404
Debabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 250(3) of the Criminal P. C. against an order of a Presidency Magistrate by which the appellant was directed to pay compensation to the two respondents in the sum of Rs. 50/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days each.2. It appears that there was a case and a counter-case tried by the learned Magistrate both of which ended in acquittal. It is not necessary to refer to the facts' of those cases for the purpose of dealing with the disposing of the present appeal; suffice it to say that the learned Magistrate did not believe the allegations made by the present appellant in the case which he brought against the respondents. On the date the learned Magistrate delivered judgment in the case in which the appellant figured as the complainant he called upon him to show cause Under Section 250 of the Criminal P. C. why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to each of the respondents who were the accused i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »