Kolkata Court August 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.
Panchu Gopal Sadhu Khan and ors. Vs. Kunja Behari Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal150
1. This second appeal Involves the construction of a will executed by one Madan Mohan Adhikary who died on 9th Aswin, 1326 B.S., leaving widow Rangadebi Dassi. The will was executed on 30th Bhadra, 1326 B.S.2. The plaintiffs claim title to 8 annas share in three rooms -- a pucca room on the ground floor and two other rooms with corrugated iron sheet roofs. They also claim title to a passage for ingress and egress. Their case is that by the said will of 30th Bhadra, 1326 B.S. the testator gave only a right of residence to a man called Gostho, being the son of a distant nephew of the testator and after Gostho's death to his direct descendants. According to the plaintiffs, by the will concerned, should Gostho die without any children or the descendants of Gostho should cease to exist, the property concerned would revert to the testator's wife. It is no longer disputed that the plaintiffs have title to the property concerned, subject to such right of residence as was given to Gostho and hi...
Provakar Roy and ors. Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Pal Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal177,61CWN154
Lahiri, J.1. This second appeal is by the heirs of the deceased plaintiff Tarapada Roy, The facts which are relevant for the purposes of this appeal may be shortly stated as follows. One Jatindra Prosad Roy Choudhury (defendant No. 7) held a tenancy under defendants Nos. 1 to 5, the Pal Choudhury landlords, at an annual jama of Rs. 29/4 as. The Pal Choudhury landlords obtained a rent decree against Jatindra in Rent Suit No. 1045 of 1929 of the Munsif's Court at Katwa, and in execution of that decree the defaulting tenancy was solid in Rent Execution Case No. 202 of 1931 and purchased by the plaintiff Tarapada Roy on the 17th April, 1931. This sale was confirmed on the 30th May, 1931. On the 16th May, 1939, this tenancy was again auction sold at a certificate sale held under the provisions of now repealed Chapter XIII(A) of the Bengal Tenancy Act at the instance of the Pal Choudhury landlords, and the certificate debtor against whom this proceeding was taken was Jatindra Prosad Roy Chou...
Standard Tubewell and Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Jogendra Nath Sen and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1956
Reported in: AIR1959Cal461
J.P. Mitter, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order of a learned Subordinate Judge holding, upon a preliminary issue, that he had jurisdiction to try the suit as against the defendant company, defendant No. 2.2. The issue as to jurisdiction was raised at the instance of the defendant company which took the objection that as no part of the cause of action alleged against it arose within the jurisdiction of the Court and it did not carry on business within the said jurisdiction, the Court could not entertain the suit,3. The learned Subordinate Judge by a lengthy judgment held that he had jurisdiction to try the suit.4. The suit is, in substance, a suit for dissolution of partnership. So far as the defendant company is concerned, there is not only a prayer for a declaration that it is a mere benamdar of the partnership consisting of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, but also a prayer, in the alternative, for a declaration that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are equally entitled ...
Balihari Colliery Co. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal160,[1957]8STC194(Cal)
Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are very short and are as follows:2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. On the 18th November, 1933 it was registered at Bombay with its registered office situate at Bombay. By a Resolution dated 15th December, 1951, confirmed by the High Court of Bombay, the registered office of the petitioner was shifted to Calcutta with effect from 1st of April, 1952. The petitioner owns collieries in Kusunde in the district of Manbhum in Bihar. On or about 6th December, 1954 an application was made by the petitioner-Company to the Commercial Tax Officer, Lyons Range Charge, for registration of the Company, as required under Section 7/8 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The application was made in Form 1A which is appropriate for dealers with only one place of business in West Bengal. The business was stated to be situate at 14, Netaji' Subhas Road, Calcutta, where the Company carried on business as wholesale di...
Balurghat Kaliagunge Assn. and ors. Vs. S.T.A. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal186
ORDERSinha, J.1. There are three applications before me, viz., Civil Revision Cases Nos. 139 of 1954, 37 of 1955 and 38 of 1955. These three Rules are based on facts which are common. I shall now state them briefly.2. There is a Bus route, which starts from Balurghat in West Dinajpur and runs through Gangarampur-Baniadpur and touches Mehedipara which is on the border between the District of West Dinajpur and Malda. It then passes through Mehedipara and goes to Deutala and from there runs to Khejuriaghat, also known as Khejuliaghat, The distance from Balurghat to Khejuriaghat is 96 miles, being 56 miles in the Malda District and 40 miles in the District of West Dinajpur. The route also branches off within the District of West Dinajpur at Baniadpur and. proceeds upto the railhead at Kalia-gunj. Thus, a part of the two routes, namely, Balur-ghat-Khejuriaghat and Balurghat-Kaliagunj, is common.3. In or about February, 1952, the R. T. A., West Dinajpur, invited applications for a route perm...
Promode Kumar Roy Vs. Sephalika Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal631
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. The appellant before us was the applicant for revocation of a rant of Letters of Administration. The grant was made to the respondent Shephalika Dutta on 22-12-1952, and it was actually issued to her on 2-1-1953. The grant was obtained in respect of the alleged Will of the respondent's father-in-law Charu Chandra Dutta who died in or about November 1932. The Will is dated 3-10-1932. It is an unregistered Will which purports to disinheritthe testator's only living son Nayan Chand Dutta and to make a debuttar of all his (the testator's) movable and immovable properties and under the Will the testator's widow Sm. Durgabati Devi was to be the first shebait and after her his son's wife, if any, the son not having married till then, and thereafter their sons, grandsons etc., and in default the testator's other heirs in succession. In short, after the testator's daughter-in-law, the shebaitship was to follow the testator's line of succession and devolve upon his living he...
Gaya Nath Ghose Vs. Amulya Chandra Sarkar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal252,61CWN164
ORDERBachawat, J.1. The dispute relates to one room, in the ground floor of premises No. 22/1A, Ram. Chand Ghose Lane, Calcutta, The plaintiff instituted a suit for ejectment against several persons. Defendant No. 1, Dinesh 'Chandra Ghose, who was admittedly the tenant under the plaintiff was the principal defendant. The plaintiff im-pleaded five other defendants, alleging that they were either sub-tenants or trespassers. The petitioner Gaya Nath Ghose was defendant No. 2. He filed a written statement and asserted that he was a sub-tenant. Defendant No. 3, Badal, defendant No. 4, Rakhal alias Sukhendu, defendant No. 5, Gouranga and defendant No. 6, Rat Mohan, asserted that they were not sub-tenants and had no interest in the premises. Defendants 2 to 6 contended that they were not necessary parties to the suit. On the 13th January 1956, the plaintiff filed a petition stating that defendants Nos. 2 to 6 had asserted a sub-tenancy in their favour In a previous criminal proceeding' and th...
Sm. Arunima Das Vs. Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, West Beng ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal182,61CWN110
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Art 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate Writ directing the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 & the Respondents Nos. 14 and 15, being the Secretary and Administrator of the Board of Secondary Education & Appeal Committee of the Board of Secondary Education & the Board of Secondary Education itself, to hear the Appeal preferred by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Appeal Regulations framed by the Board of Secondary Education under the West Bengal Secondary Education Act 1950 (W. B. Act XXXVII of 1950) and forbidding the said respondents from dealing with the Appeal contrary to the provisions of the said Regulations.2. The case of the petitioner is that between 17-8-1953 and 31-3-1955 the petitioner functioned as the Head Mistress, of the Baranagore Victoria High School (Girl's Section) which is a secondary school for girls, affiliated to the Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal, and the petitioner was always the head of...
Sadhan Chandra Pal and ors. Vs. Kshetra Mohan Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1956
Reported in: AIR1958Cal65
B.P. Mookerjee, J. 1. This is a defendants' appeal and is directed against a decree passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Hooghly declaring that a sale which had taken place on the 18th October 1944, in a certificate case by the Certificate Officer of Hooghly was without jurisdiction and null and void. It was further declared that the plaintiff's interest in any portion of the disputed property had not been affected. The plaintiff was entitled to recover possession.2. It is not necessary to refer in detail to the allegations made in the pleadings or to the different issues which were raised. The only question which requires consideration by this Court in the present appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred under Section 37 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act.3. Allegations were made in the plaint that the sale in question was affected by fraud. The Court below has found against the plaintiff on this point. On the materials in the record that conclusion appears to ...
Prasadi and anr. Vs. Works Manager (M) Lillooah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal4,61CWN1,(1957)ILLJ272Cal
Chakravartti, C.J.1. The two appellants before us used to be blacksmiths employed in the Railway Workshop at Lil-looah under the Eastern Railway. On 9-2-1932, a criminal prosecution was launched against them on the allegation that between the hours of 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. in the previous night, they had indulged in gambling, while they should have been attending to their duties. The prosecution, which was under Section 15, Howrah Offences Act, failed, because the learned Magistrate found that the section only punished gambling in the public streets, but not gambling inside any premises. Accordingly, he acquitted them. The Railway Administration, however, thought that the acquittal was only a technical one and that the appellants had been guilty of conduct which called for disciplinary action. They, therefore, started a proceeding.2. The acquittal was on 17-3-1952. On the 24th of March following, the appellants were served with a charge sheet which set out a charge to the effect that the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »