Kolkata Court August 1959 Judgments
Mukunda Das Nandy and ors. Vs. Bidhan Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal77,64CWN52
Lahiri, C.J.1. This is an application for a certificate under Article 133(1)(a) at the Constitution that the amount of value of the subject matter of dispute in the Court of first instance and still in dispute on appeal is not less than Rs. 20,000/-; and also under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.2. The facts which are relevant for the purposes of the present application are as follows:3. One Krishnadas Nandy was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 at a monthly rent of Rs. 450/- payable according to English Calendar in respect of premises No. 33 Rowland Road. On June 23, 1955 the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 instituted a suit for ejectment of Krishnadas Nandy alleging that he reasonably required the premises for his own occupation. In the plaint the suit was valued at Rs. 6,400/-, Rs. 5,400/- for ejectment and Rs. 1,000/- for mesne profits. On August 10 1956, the suit ended in a decree in favour of the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Singh Rampuria and ors. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal172,64CWN401
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: Premises No. 39, Strend Road situated within the jurisdiction of the Corporation of Calcutta belonged to Messrs. Rampuria Properties Ltd. It is a multi-storied building with a large number of rooms in each storey, Rampuria Properties Ltd. went into voluntary liquidation on or about 7th May, 1957. Two Joint Liquidators were appointed. The petitioners state that they have now become the joint owners of the said premises. The premises, ever since its erection, has been let out to tenants. It appears from a statement, being Ext. 'B' to the petition that at the relevant time the groundfloor of the said premises was let out to tenants named therein. It is stated that the rooms have been let out to different tenants and except in one instance, there are separate tenants in each room. According to the petitioners, 19 of these rooms are used as shops, 9 are godowns and 10 are offices. On the 9th September, 1957 the Corporation...
Tag this Judgment!Nirpendra Nath Banerjee Vs. Senior Deputy Accountant General, Posts an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal283
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows : On the 18th August, 1948 the petitioner was appointed as an Upper Division. Assistant in the office of the Deputy Accountant General, Posts and Telegraphs, Calcutta. In September, 1954 while serving in that post the petitioner stood for election and was elected as a Councillor of the Corporation of Calcutta from Constituency No. 77 (Tollygunge). Certain proceedings were taken against the petitioner in 1954, hut for the purpose of this application it is not necessary to refer to them. It is sufficient to say that on 7-3-1955 the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1955 were framed and came into operation. It is admitted that these Rules apply to the petitioner. The Rules have been set out in Annexure 'A' to the petition and the relevant Rules are as follows:'(4) No Government servant shall canvass or otherwise interfere or use his influence in connection with, or take part in, an election to any legislature or loca...
Tag this Judgment!Chowringhee Properties Ltd. Vs. Bright and Mc Ivor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal294
A.N. Ray, J. 1. This is a suit for the recovery of possession of premises No. 16A Chowringhee Road, Calcutta. The suit was filed against the defendant described as Bright Mc Ivor carrying on business at 16A Chowringhee Road in the town of Calcutta within the aforesaid jurisdiction. 2. Mr. Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the defendant raised only two issues : 1. Has the defendant been properly served in accordance with law? 2. Is the suit maintainable? 3. There was an application by the plaintiff on 3-2-1954 for an order that the returnable date of the writ of summons be extended by one month from the date of the order to be made and an order that leave be granted to the Sheriff of Calcutta to serve the duplicate cooy of the writ together with the copy of plaint on R.N. Poddar on behalf of the defendant firm. In that application in paragraph 2 it was alleged, 'the business of the defendant firm is being carried on by one R.N. Poddar who is also in complete charge and management ...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Bonwarilal Agarwalla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal469,64CWN89
Banerjee, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned District Judge of Purulia, exercising jurisdiction under the Provincial Insolvency Act. By that order, the learned District Judge allowed an application by one Kaluram Lodha, alias Kalooram Marwari, for including himself as a creditor, in respect of a debt under a decree amounting to Rs. 5381/-, in a pending insolvency proceeding.2. There is no dispute about the facts herein-below stated:Kalooram, the father of respondent No. 1, was an assignee of a promissory note, executed by the appellants Nos. 2 and 3. He instituted a suit, in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Purulia, on the said promissory note, on 31-7-1936, and obtained a decree. The debtors, who are the present appellants Nos. 2 and 3, preferred an appeal against the aforesaid decree in the court of the District Judge at Manbhum-Singhbhum. The learned District Judge reversed the decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the claim made by Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Haradhon Bose Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal44,1960CriLJ58,63CWN1001
ORDER1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer a further period o imprisonment for six months. He has now surrendered and is in jail, hut he has not paid the fine. The question that has arisen before us is whether his application for a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution can be brought to hearing, even if he has not paid the fine of Rs. 1,000/-.2. The case really hinges upon a true construction of Rule 59 of Chapter VI of the Appellate Side Rules. The Rule runs as follows :'It shall be a condition precedent to the entertainment of an application under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution that the petitioner must submit to the order sought to be appealed from, by surrendering himself in the case of a sentence of imprisonment, and/or by paying the fine in the case of a sentence of fine, before such a...
Tag this Judgment!Benoy Krishna Rohatgi and ors. Vs. Surajbali Misra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1963Cal100
S.P. Mitra, J. 1. This is an application for review under the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 13th March, 1951 the plaintiff instituted this suit, inter alia, for the recovery of possession of the land at premises No. 12/1/1A, Khangraputty Street, in Calcutta. The suit appeared in the appropriate Prospective List C on the 17th November, 1956. Mr. M. R. Bose, a Solicitor of this Court was appearing on behalf of the defendants but in the Prospective List the name of Messrs. Mitter and Bural appeared as the defendant's attorneys. On the 12th February, 1952 the suit appeared in my Warning List. Here, again, Messrs. Milter and Bural were stated to be the defendant's solicitors. The suit was placed in my Peremptory List on the 14th February 1958. The same mistake was committed in the Peremptory List as well. On the 14th February, 1958 the suit was passed over twice and on the third occasion an ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiffs was made by me. On the...
Tag this Judgment!Rekhab Chand Somani Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal152
G.K. Mitter, J.1. This is a suit against the Union of India for recovery of Rs. 2500/- as the value of the contents of a steel trunk made over to the East Indian Railway at Fairlie Place Booking Office for safe carriage to Napasar. The said parcel was covered by a receipt L. L. Ticket No. 274819 dated 12-6-1948. The plaintiff alleges that the parcel met despatch on Tune 13, 1948 in G. I. P. Wagon No. 15157 to Delhi but it was never delivered to him. He states in his plaint that by letter dated 19-2-1949 the servants of the defendant informed him that enquiries were being instituted and a report would be made on the subject but no such report was made in spite of reminders. This suit was instituted on September 6, 1951 after the service of notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Particulars of the contents of the trunk and their value are given in paragraph 8 of the plaint totalling Rs. 2504/8/-.2. In the written statement which' was fi...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Atmaram Wara Wadekar Vs. Land Customs Officer-in-charge and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal452
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is a suit far a declaration that the collection of export duty paid by the plaintiff amounting to Rs. 4320/-, 6840/- and 5490 was illegal and void and for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 10,406/4/- from the defendants.2. The plaintiff's case is that on 22-11-1951 the plaintiff submitted to the Land Customs Officer-in-charge, Land Customs Station, Calcutta, three applications for exporting mustard oil to Eastern Pakistan, The export duty payable to the Customs Authority on mustard oil for export to Pakistan prevailing on 22-11-1951 was eight annas per pound and on such basis the duty on the quantities amounted to Rs. 4320/-, Rs. 6840/- and Rs. 5490/-. The Land Customs Officer-in-charge directed and/or ordered the plaintiff 22-11-1951 to pay or de-posit the aforesaid sums as a condition precedent to (he issue of the necessary permits for exporting the goods.3. The plaintiff's contention is that the Customs duty on the goods could be levied ...
Tag this Judgment!Gem and Co. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1959
Reported in: [1959]10STC537(Cal)
1. The petitioner in this case is Gem and Co. In the petition it is stated that the petitioner is a firm having its business premises in Old China Bazar Street and that Sri Kali Charan Saksena is its proprietor.2. We next come to the names of two other business concerns. The first is the 'West Bengal Paper House Private Limited'. It is stated in the petition that this company was established in 1948 with Saksena as one of the founder-directors. The next business with which we are concerned is 'Sri Kali Paper Mart'. It is stated in the petition that this is the personal business of Saksena and was established in 1953. All these concerns carry on business in paper. In the petition it is stated that Gem & Co. was not concerned in the matter of sale of any goods, because all that it did was to obtain financial facilities for these two concerns. Even on the facts as stated in the petition, the entire case made out is complicated enough. It is said that Saksena used to hypothecate goods with...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »