Kolkata Court March 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.
D.L. Miller and Co. Ltd. Vs. Daluram Goganmull
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Cal361
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by D.L. Miller and Co. Ltd. to set, aside Award No. 11 of 1955 of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry dated 4-1-1955 and to declare it null and void. Mr. Meyer on behalf of the applicant has, urged only three grounds and no others.2. His first point of objection is that the Court of Arbitration which has given the Award in this case was not a properly constituted Court on the ground that it violated' the consent order remitting the previous Award. His second point of objection is that on 3-1-1955 the Arbitrators received a written statement from the respondent which the applicant was given no opportunity to answer. His third point of objection is that on 3-1-1955 when evidence was being taken, the applicant's representative was denied the right to cross-examine the evidence of the respondent's representative.3. No other objection has been urged before me.4. Before discussing these objections and determining them; the facts of the ...
Saradish Ray Vs. Municipal Commissioners of Suri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Cal456
ORDERSinha, J. 1. This is an application which relates to the election of the Municipal Commissioners of the Suri Municipality in the district of Birbhum. This election is scheduled to be held on 19-3-195S. The petitioner is a voter residing within the precincts of the said Municipality. It is admitted that his name is in the electoral roll. This Eule was-issued at his instance on 7-3-1956 upon the opposite parties to show cause why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not issue directing the opposite-parties Nos. 1 to 4 to cancel, withdraw and/or forbear from giving effect to the electoral roll of the said Municipality and to prepare the preliminary electoral roll afresh and/or why a Writ in the nature of Certiorari should not be issued setting aside the said electoral roll already prepared or why such further or other order or orders should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. 2. As I have just now stated, the election has been fixed on Monday, the 19th March 1956...
Darjeeling Himalayan Rly. Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Jetmull Bhojraj and an ... Overruled
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Cal390,60CWN683
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The plaintiff firm Jetmull Bhojraj filed a suit for the realisation of damages suffered by them as a portion of a consignment of textile goods had been received in a damaged condition. The claim was preferred against the Dominion of India as it then was representing certain railways systems under State management and the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway Company Ltd. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's claim in part against the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway Company Ltd., and dismissed the suit against the Do. minion of India.2. The Darjeeling Himalayan Railway Company Ltd., referred the present appeal to this Court. During the pendency of the appeal the appellant Company went into liquidation and the liquidators have been duly brought on the record.3. A Memorandum of cross objection was filed on behalf of the plaintiff firm. From the grounds taken in the memorandum it appeared that the plaintiff intended to contend that the portion of the claim disallow...
Ajit Kumar Pal Vs. Sadhan Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Cal654,60CWN567
K. C. Das Gupta, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment and decree of Guha-Ray, J., by which he remanded a suit for ejectment which had been instituted by the present respondent, to the trial Court, for disposal with certain directions. It may be mentioned at once that it is no longer disputed that the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal is a thika tenant within the meaning of the words defined in the Calcutta Thika Tenancy, 1953, and it was on that basis that Guha Ray, J., gave the directions.2. The suit for ejectment was brought by the respondent landlord on 8-8-1946, on averment that The defendant was a monthly tenant and that tenancy had been determined by a 15 days notice to quit. One of the defences taken was that the notice was insufficient. The learned trial Court took the view that notice was sufficient and decreed the suit. The judgment was delivered by him on 4-9-1948. Against that decision the tenant took an appeal to the District...
Ranjit Kumar Banerjee Vs. Gour Hari Mukherji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Cal655,60CWN752
Das Gupta, J. 1. This Rule was directed against the order of the learned District Judge of Howrah, refusing an application made by the present petitioner, who has obtained two separate decrees for ejectment and has put them into execution in. two different Courts, for transferring the same to one of these Courts.2. It appears to us that whatever might have been said on the merits, the position in law is that such a transfer cannot be allowed under Section 24, Civil P. C. The relevant provisions of Section 24, Civil P. C. arc that the High Court or the District Court may withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court tubordi-nate to it and transfer the same for trial to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same. The question is whether an execution proceeding is within the words 'suit or other proceeding.' In several other High Courts, the view has been taken that an execution proceeding is really a part of a suit and consequently an exe...
S.K. Srivastava Vs. Gajanand Patriwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Cal609,1956CriLJ1396,60CWN1073
ORDERSen, J.1. This revisional application by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta, is directed against an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, dated 24-1-1956, for the return of the document seized in execution of two search warrants under Section 172, sea Customs Act, 1878, to the opposite party Gajanand Patriwalla on his executing bond for Rs. 10,000/-.2. The facts are briefly as follows: On 8-11-1955, the Assistant Collector of Customs made an application before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, for the issue of a search warrant with respect to premises No. 14, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, under Section 172, Sea Customs Act, stating in the application that he believed that dutiable, prohibited, restricted and smuggled goods and documents relating thereto were secreted in the premises, and a search warrant was issued on the same day for search ana seizure of illicitly imported goods and documents relating thereto. On 9-11-1955, on another application...
Jata Bhusan Chatterjee Vs. Sm. Krishna Bhamini Debi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal204,60CWN1080
Guha Ray, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are not ill dispute. They are briefly as follows:2. Respondent No. 1 Krishna Bhamini Debi, widow of late Bibhakar Chatterji, obtained a decree against respondent No. 2 Amal Krishna Chatterji, her step-son, in Title Suit No. 268 of 1945. The decree was modified on appeal and this decree, so modified, is in the following terms:''The appellant, namely, Krishna Bhamini Debi will recover past maintenance for three years at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month or Rs. 630/- in all. She will also get maintenance at the same rate since Jaistha, 1351 B.S. The amount of court-fees payable by the appellant in the two courts should be recoverable by the Government from the respondent No. 1 alone and will farm a first charge on the property left by Bibhnkar Chatterji. There will also be a' second charge on the one-third share of the plaint lands for the maintenance of the appellant'.It is this last sentence of the decree with which we are concerned ...
Sm. Kishori Bala Sahai Vs. Bhagawandas Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Cal266,1956CriLJ741
ORDERGuha Ray, J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order dated 8-8-1955 passed by a Magistrate Sri M. N. Pramanik directing that the accused should appear personally on 18-8-1955.2. The facts of the case are briefly that on 26-2-1954 the accused was summoned under Section 406, Penal Code on the complaint of the opposite party and on 7-4-1954 she was allowed to appear through a lawyer upto the stage when a charge under Section 406, I. P. C. was framed against her, after the examination of 3 witnesses for the prosecution on 27-9-1954.On the 3rd of December the Magistrate who was trying the case recorded an order that he was under orders of transfer and the record should be put up before the Sub-divisional Officer. On 17-12-1954, the Sub-divisional Officer withdrew the case to his file and transferred it to another Magistrate. On 20-1-1955 the complainant prayed to the Magistrate to whom the case had been transferred for directing the accused to appear personally in Court.The Magis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›