Kolkata Court May 1965 Judgments
Mrigendra Kumar Majumdar and ors. Vs. Sidheshwar Shit and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal310
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs. It is directed against an order of remand by the lower appellate court, sending the case back to the trial court for a fresh trial in the light of certain observations, made in its judgment. 2. The order is plainly one under Order 41, Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore not appealable under Order 43, Rule 1, Clause (u) of the Code. The remand was, obviously, under Section 151 of the Code. It is difficult to hold that such a remand is appealable, particularly when the lower appellate court, in making this order, did not fully decide or conclusively determine anything on the merits or any of the disputes between theparties or any of their disputed rights but left the entire matter for decision to the trial court in the light of certain directions, given in its Judgment. It is difficult to hold that such an order would amount to a decree under the Code to attract to it the appeal provisions therein. Upon that view, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Shamsuzzoha Vs. Superintendent of Police (D.i.B.) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Cal402
Masud, J.1. This is an appeal from the Judgment and order of Banerjee, J., dismissing the appellant's application under Article 226 of the Constitution by refusing to issue a Rule. The substantial relief which the appellant sought to obtain in the said application was for cancellation of the order dated 20th March, 1965, passed by Sri. S. Neogi, Sub-divisional Magistrate, Kandi, District Murshidabad. The circumstances under which the said order was made are stated as below :--2. The appellant was born in the ancestral home at Telduma, P.S. Barwan, Murshidabad on April 1, 1937. After finishing his primary education at Sabolda, he continued his studies at Panchthupi T.N. Institution in Murshidabad from 1947 to 1950. He appeared in the Matriculation examination from the Panchthupi T.N. Institution in 1951 but failed to pass. The same year he was taken to Pabna, East Pakistan by his elder brother who was serving in Pabna District Board as a clerk, for educating him at Pabna. In 1953, the a...
Tag this Judgment!Manibala Dassi Vs. TamizuddIn Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal307,69CWN829
ORDERD. Basu, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of dismissal of an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has been affirmed by the learned District Judge. Howrah. 2. The original suit, namely, Title Suit No. 79 of 1959 was m-ought by the plaintiff, a lady, for setting aside a kobala on allegations of fraud. The date fixed for peremptory hearing of the suit was February 8, 1960. On the 6th of February, the plaintiff tiled a petition for adjournment or, rather, for shifting the date of peremptory hearing on the ground that the lawyer already existing on the record, Shri Jitendra Nath Chowdhury, was unable to conduct her case owing to old age and ill health and that she had engaged a senior lawyer Shri Kanai Lal Ghose for the purpose; but, because Shri Ghose was engaged in other cases fixed on the date ofhearing of this case, that is, February 8, 1960, the plaintiff was seeking for a postponement of the date of hearing. On the 6th, nobody appeared ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishanlal Agarwalla Vs. Collector of Land Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Cal80,69CWN864
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of Binayak Nath Banerjee, J. dismissing the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and discharging the Rule against the Collector of Land Customs, Calcutta.2. The appellant is Kishanlal Agarwalla carrying on business under the name and style of 'Shree Katihar Jewellery' at Katihar in the district of Purnea. A servant and an employee of the appellant by the name of Dharam Chand Jain was going from Katihar to Calcutta. He was following a rather devious route, it being from Katihar by train to Raiganj, thereafter, by bus to Kaliaganj and then he Intended to proceed by bus to Balur-ghat from where he wanted to travel by air to Calcutta. This was the appellant's case.On the journey at Kaliaganj this Dharam Chand Jain was caught red-handed carrying 41 gold bars bearing No. 999.10 and weighing 412 tolas 1 anna and 4 ratis, on the strength of an information, received by the Land Customs Authorities from a source. Dharam Chand...
Tag this Judgment!Kalachand Naskar Vs. Dwijendra Lal Chakraborty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Cal172,70CWN462
C.N. Laik, J.1. This Second Appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, 5th Court, Alipore passed in an appeal against the decree of the learned Munsif dismissing the plaintiff appellant's claim for khas possession of the disputed property and for mesne profits. 2. What is contended for, by Mr. Abinash Chandra Ghosh, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, an authority in the tenancy laws, is, that the Courts below committed an error of law in holding that the order of conversion passed by the Collector, 24-Parganas on July 11, 1952 under the provisions of Section 72, chapter X of the West Bengal Non-agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, had the effect of converting the land of the under-raiyati holding in suit into a non-agricultural tenancy, in consequence of which it was no longer open to the plaintiff-appellant to treat the suit land as agricultural land amenable to the provision of Chapter VII of the Bengal Ten...
Tag this Judgment!Nani Gopal Sarkar and ors. Vs. Sitanath Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal502
C.N. Laik, J.1. The points raised in this appeal (sic) whether the villagers of a village are fluctuating body of persons; whether they as such can acquire a right of way; if so, what would be the nature of such right and what would he the quality of the evidence by which such a right was capable of being supported; how can it be acquired viz., whether by custom, lost grant, prescription or adverse possession. It had led to other questions; viz., whether such a customary right would be like all other local customs. If so, would such a custom be reasonable? Again, what should be the length of the user and the period of enjoyment from which a reasonable inference could be drawn as to the acquisition of such a right of way i.e.. whetherthe theory of 'time immemorial' would be incumbent in all such cases; and lastly whether the villagers, could in such cases give a common consent.2. Several decisions are cited on respective, points. Many of them are Bench decisions. Some of them, as has be...
Tag this Judgment!Menokabala Dasi Vs. Panchanan Seal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal228,69CWN938
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Ray J., dated 25th June 1963. The facts in this case are as follows: On or about the 24th June, 1953 the appellant filed a suit against the respondent, her husband, being Suit No. 2190 of 1953 for maintenance and other reliefs. On the 24th June, 1954 a decree was passed by G.K. Mitter J., directing the respondent to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs 40/- per month as maintenance. In the said decree, no liberty was given to the decree-holder to apply from time to time for increasing the amount of maintenance due to change of circum-stances. In December, 1955 the appellant made an application before Mitter J., for enhancement of her maintenance. On 27th February,1956 the learned Judge passed an order increasing the maintenance from Rs. 40/- to Rs. 50/-per month. In February, 1960 the appellant made another application asking for the enhancement of her maintenance from Rs. 50/-to Rs. 100/- per month. On the 18th March, 1960 this application...
Tag this Judgment!A.H. Magermans Vs. S.K. Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal552,70CWN82
B.C. Mitra, J.1. The appellant, a Belgian national, came to India on November 23, 1947, as a Roman Catholic Missionary and discharged his duties as such, at Ranchi and Calcutta. In February, 1952, he gave up his missionary activities and commenced a secular life and held serveral posts in commercial organisations. The Department of Registration or Foreigners was informed in writing by the Jesuit Mission in Calcutta, that the appellant had ceased to be a Christian Missionary and had given up his missionary activities. The appellant came to India on a Belgian passport with a visa for his visit to India given by the Visa Section of the British Embassy at Brussels. The period of the appellant's stay in India, on the visa issued as aforesaid having expired, he applied for extension, but this was not granted. Proceedings were started against him under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. On September 22, 1956, the appellant was ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Om Prakas Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1965
Reported in: [1965]16STC935(Cal)
B.N. Banerjee, J. 1. The petitioner, Om Prakas Gupta, carries on business, under the trade name of Messrs S. D. Gupta & Co., in camphor cubes. He says that he purchases camphor in powder form from the market, converts camphor powder into camphor cubes and sells such cubes in the market, under brands---'Elephant', 'Moon' and ' Arati '.2. The petitioner says that he was registered as a dealer under Section 7 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and that the Commercial Tax Officer, Jorasanko Charge, assessed him to sales tax, under Section 11(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, for the period 15th November, 1955, to 30th June, 1958, by an order dated 9th February, 1959. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an application before the Commercial Tax Officer for cancellation of his registration as a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, on the plea that camphor was not a taxable commodity under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act and he, as a dealer in camphor, need not rem...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta Vs. Khaitan Sons and Co. (T ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal190,69CWN881
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of A, N. Ray, J., decreeing the suit for the sum of Rs. 8415 in favour of the plaintiff against the Port Commissioners, Calcutta with interest and costs. The only point involved is a point of limitation arising on Section 142 of the Calcutta Port Act. 2. The facts briefly are as follows: On the 14th January, 1957 an American Company called Steel Merchant of New York, shipped 51 metal containers tinplate Waste by Steamship 'City of Birmingham' owned by Ellerman and Bucknall Associated Lines, a shipping company of New York. The Shipping Company issued to the shipper a bill of lading No. 30 dated 14th January, 1957 in relation to the said cargo. The plaintiff claims to be at all material times and still is the owner of the said goods and the endorsee or the holder of the said bill of lading, The vessel arrived at the Port of Calcutta on the 24th March, 1957. She started discharging her cargo on or about the 8th April, 195...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »