Kolkata Court May 1957 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.
Balharshah Timber Depot Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal246,[1958]9STC675(Cal)
ORDERH.K. Bose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate Writ quashing an order of assessment dated the 6th February 1954 made under the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the said assessment order and to the notice issued in connection with the said assessment proceedings.2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm carrying on business in timber as wholesale and retail dealer since 8th August, 1952 at 40 Chetla Road, P. S. Alipore, in the district of 24-Parganas. It is alleged that on the 7th November, 1952 the petitioner applied before the Commercial Tax Officer, Bhowanipore, for a registration certificate after the taxable quantum in respect of sale of timber in the said business exceeded the limit specified under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941 but the authorities concerned delayed in granting the registration certificate and it was after the...
Parbati Debi Bagla Vs. Lachminarayan Biswas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal551
Mallick, J.1. This suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the Hindusthan motor car No. WBD 194 and for wrongful detention and conversion.2. The plaintiff's case is that on December 1, 1953, the defendant Biswas sold the car to the plain-tiff for Rs. 4,000/-. The said sum of Rs. 4,000/- was paid to the defendant Biswas in cash. The payment is evidenced by a receipt granted by Biswas to the plaintiff. The entries in the account book of the plaintiff have been tendered to corroborate the fact of payment of the said sum of Rs. 4,000/-. Further, oral evidence has been tendered by the plaintiff's husband Satyanarain Bagla and other witnesses to prove the payment. I have no reason to reject all this documentary and oral evidence in support of the sale of the car by the defendant Biswas to the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 4,000/-, which was paid at the date of the sale. As is usual and required by the Motor Vehicles Act and/or the rules made thereunder, the defendant Bisw...
Nilmoni Haldar Vs. Sri Upendra Nath Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal651,61CWN875
Lahiri, J. 1. This case raises a question of court-feces payable by the plaintiff in a suit which is ostensibly a suit for partition. The plaintiff who is the petitioner before us instituted a suit for partition of certain immovable properties described in schedule Ka of the plaint and of a Biri business described in schedule Kha and also of certain moveabled described in schedule Ga of the plaint. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the two brothers of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 3 is the son of defendant No 1. The controversy with regard to court-fee Centres round the biri business. In the plaint the plaintiff alleges in para. 6 that the biri business was started with the income of the joint family consisting of the plaintiff and his two brothers; that biris used to be actually prepared in the ancestral house of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and at village Patua Mohanpur but the biris used to be sold from a shop in Kasba. Defendant No. 1 used to live near the shop for...
Anil Kumar Saha Vs. Pranada Chakrabarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal146,1958CriLJ373
K.C. Das Gupta, J. 1. On 24th of October, 1953, the petitioner Anil Kumar Saha, lodged a complaint before the , Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Lalbagh against the opposite parties, accusing them of having committed various offences. The main allegations were that when the opposite party No. 1, Pranada Chakrabarty, went to the complainant's father's house on 23rd of October, 1953, he demanded from his father, Bistu Pada Saha, the original Ekrarnama which one Samsher had executed in his favour; but as Anil Kumar Saha, on being asked by his father to make a copy of the same for being made over to the Sub-Inspector, went into an inner compartment, the Sub-Inspector along with two constables trespassed into the inner compartment, demanded the original Ekrarnama and while two constables -- whose names do not appear to have been mentioned in the petition of complaint, though they have been mentioned in the petition here -- held up the petitioner, the Sub-Inspector, opposite party No. 1, threate...
Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway Vs. Surendra Nath Chatterje ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Cal574,1959CriLJ1066
ORDERS.N. Guha, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Serampur in a proceeding under Section 133 of the Cr. P. C. 2. It appears that on behalf of the Eastern Railway a letter was written to the Sub-divisional Officer on 11-12-1956, by the Divisional Superintendent, Howrah. In this letter he invites a reference to certain other letters mentioned at the top and asks him to direct the owners Mrs. Sailabala Debiof Panchanantala Baidyabati and M/s. Surendra Nath Chatterjee and Bros., Panchanantola Biadyabatim to dismantle the walls immediately so as to ensure safety to running trains, the allegation being that these walls are in an extremely dilapidated condition and may collapse at any time causing danger to running trains. On the record I find with this letter a copy of memorandum, dated 15-11-1956, from the Assistant Engineer, No. 2, to M/s. Surendra Nath Chatterjee and Bros., Panchanontola, Baidyabati, Howrah, and it runs as follows: 'Th...
Sm. Billabasini Datta and ors. Vs. Dulal Chandra Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal472
1. Prayer (j) of the summons is opposed and raises an interesting question as to the construction of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The rest of the application is not opposed. The dispute relates to the properties belonging to the estate of one Debendra Nath Datta who died on 8-12-1947 leaving behind him as his heirs a widow the plaintiff Billabasini Datta and four sons, named, Dulal, Balai, Lakhshminarayan and Rajnarayan and two daughters named Sm. Sabitri and Sm. Namita.2. This is a suit for a declaration of the shares of the parties and for partition of the estate of Debendra Nath Datta and was instituted on 10-4-1954. On 21-12-1954 a preliminary decree was passed in this suit. By that decree it was declared that the widow Billabasini and each of the four sons Dulal, Balai, Lakshminarayan and Rajnarayan was entitled to one equal fifth part or share of the immovable properties belonging to the estate and that the daughters Sabitri and Namita were entitled to have provisions made for...
Hiralal Roy Choudhury Vs. Kumud Behari Roy Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal571
ORDERMallick, J.1. This is an application for addition of a party in a partition suit and a very interesting point of law on the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has been canvassed.2. The suit in which the present application is made is a suit for partition of the estate left by Sashi Bhusan Roy Chowdhury, who died intestate in 1922, leaving him surviving Indu Bhusan, a son by his pre-deceased wife, and a second wife and three sons by her. We are not concerned in this application about the second wife and her sons. Indu Bhusan died in 1946, leaving him surviving his widow Sarajubala, a son Ramani Bhusan and a daughter Bidyutlata. The present suit for partition was instituted on 24-7-1953. On 10-2-1956, a preliminary decree for partition was passed by me, declaring the shares of the parties and appointing a Commissioner of Partition to work out the preliminary decree. The preliminary decree declares Sarajubala's share In the joint properties to be that of a Hindu widow as prescribed by Hindu ...
Bholanath Rakshit and ors. Vs. Bisweswar Rakshit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal683,1957CriLJ1251,61CWN715
Mitter, J.1. The petitioners who are accused in a case under Section 323, I. P. C., pray for setting aside an order of the trial Court discharging prosecution witnesses before their cross-examination and, in the alternative, for transfer of the case to some other Court.2. On the 30th December, 1955, the date fixed for the appearance of the accused, petitioner Benoy Rakshit was present but Bholanath and Satya Kinkar were absent on the ground of illness. For each of the absentee accused was filed a medical certificate with a prayer for an adjournment. Bholanath was said to be suffering from pneumonia and Satya Kinkar was alleged to have been suffering from typhoid. The complainant's version was that both the accused were hale and hearty, and the learned Magistrate was of the view that the physicians who gave the certificates were not reliable. Why the learned Magistrate regarded the physicians as unreliable we cannot say. The learned Magistrate adjourned the case to 13th January, 1956, b...
Probhat Kumar Dutt Vs. Rammohan Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal177
Mallick, J.1. This is a suit for partition. The properties sought to be partitioned are two valuable immovable properties and some movables. Of the two immovable properties, premises No. 78/1 Nimtala Ghat Street is the family dwelling house for the last 100 years. It is a four storeyed building on land measuring about 5 cottahs. The other immovable properties is premises No. 15, Pageyapatti Street, Calcutta, which is let out to tenants, yielding a very substantial rent. It is also a four storeyed building on land measuring about 3 cottas. There are 23 co-sharers having small fractional interests in the properties. Some of the co-sharers who are well off have acquired houses of their own and have left the family dwelling house. The remaining others are some how living in the family dwelling house. Plaintiff Is comparatively well off and has his own separate house, but is living in the family dwelling house,2. The shares of the parties in the two immovable properties are different. The r...
The State Vs. Sudhir Ruhidas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Cal450,1959CriLJ833,61CWN658
ORDERS.N. Guha Ray, J.1. This is a Reference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recommending that an order of a Magistrate taking cognisance of an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of the Sessions Judge be set aside.2. The facts briefly fire that on the 24th September, 1955, Jiban Krishna Haldar filed in the Court of the Suburban Police Magistrate, Alipur, a petition under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the members of the second party. On the 11th November, 1955, the learned Magistrate found that there was an apprehension of the breach of the peace and immediate prevention was necessary, and he accordingly ordered proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be drawn up against the second party requiring them to abstain from going upon the disputed land. The order of injunction was served on the members of the second party on the 19th November, 1955, and on the 24th November, 1955, Jiban fil...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »