Kolkata Court January 1971 Judgments
Sailendra Nath Ghosal and ors. Vs. S. Ena Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal331,75CWN331
Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J. 1. The above cases have been heard by us on the preliminary point, involving consideration of the vires of Section 4, read with Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1969, whereby new Sub-section (3A) was inserted in Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, with retrospective effect so as to apply to pending proceedings. 2. The constitutional validity of the above Sub-section (3A) has been challenged before us on the ground that it offends Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. It has been contended further that, even if the said provision be not ultra vires in itself, it will be ultra vires under the said Articles, when read with Section 13, as Section 13 of the Amending Act makes provisions of Sub-section (3A) (Section 4 of the Amending Act) retrospective and applicable to pending suits and appeals. 3. It is contended on behalf of the landlords that the impugned sub-section is ultra vires under Article ...
Tag this Judgment!Gouri Shankar Nevatia Vs. Sm. Mrinalini Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Cal410
ORDER1. This Rule is directed against an order of the learned trial Judge, allowing the opposite parties' application under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, striking out the petitioner's defence in the connected suit for ejectment.2. The opposite parties' application under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was opposed by the petitioner on several grounds.3. In the first place, it was contended that the instant suit, not being a suit for ejectment on the ground of default, Section 17 (3) had no application to this case. This objection was rejected by the learned trial Judge and, in our opinion, rightly. A look at the language of Section 17 (1) would be enough to convince one that it applies in all cases of ejectment on grounds, contemplated by Section 13 of the Act, the ground of default being only one of those grounds. In that context, Section 17 (3) would be available in suits for ejectment on grounds, mentioned in Section 13 including...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupati Bhusan Dalal Vs. Registrar of the Original Side
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal519
ORDERD. Basu, J. 1. The Petitioner in this Rule is an Advocate enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961. In his petition filed on 16-4-1969, he challenged the validity of Rule 22 of Chap. I of the 'Rules of the High Court of Calcutta (1914) --Original Side', on certain grounds. During the pendency of the Rule, the High Court, on 3-10-1969, amended Rule 1 of Chapter I of the said Rules, by inserting a Proviso to that Rule, which was published by the Registrar, Original Side, on 16-10-1969 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the 'proviso to Rule 1), with the leave of this Court, by order dated 29-9-1969. Since by that order the Registrar was also given permission to give effect to the said Proviso, corresponding leave was granted to the petitioner to so amend his petition as to comprehend the Proviso within the sweep of his petition.2. The Petitioner having accordingly amended his petition, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner at the hearing may be summarised as follows:(i) Rule ...
Tag this Judgment!Radheshyam Kamila Vs. Sm. Kiran Bala Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal341,75CWN391
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of affirmance granting specific performance of a contract of purchase in favour of two minors entered into through their guardian.2. The admitted facts are that the plaintiffs are heirs of one Kudiram Das who died on July 1, 1961. To meet the expenses of his Sradh, the plaintiffs sold the suit property to the defendant by a deed executed on July 9. 1961 on receipt of Rs. 1699/- as consideration. The deed was registered on July 11, 1961. on which day the defendant agreed by another deed to reconvey in favour of the plaintiffs the property on receipt of the said amount of Rs. 1699/- within July, 1965. The defendant was thereafter repeatedly asked to convey the property to the plaintiffs but the defendant failed and neglected to reconvey the property in breach of the contract although the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiffs in the circumstan...
Tag this Judgment!E.H. Tippoo and Anr. Vs. the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and Or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal354
ORDERD. Basu, J.1. The Petitioners who are citizens of India, challenge the constitutionality of the Letters Patent of 1865, the Calcutta High Court (Jurisdictional Limits) Act, 1919 and Section 34(2)(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961 on the ground that they offend Article 14 of the Constitution. In substance, the prayer of the Petitioners is that (a) the division of the jurisdiction of this High Court into Original and Appellate, in so far as they are founded on the foregoing laws, should cease to exist and (b) the classification of legal practitioners into Advocates, Barristers and the like should be replaced by a single integrated class of legal practitioners, namely, Advocates.2. In view of the seriousness of the questions involved, instead of issuing a Rule nisi on the ex parte motion on behalf of the petitioners, the application was directed to be heard after serving notice upon the Opposite Parties. None of the Opposite Parties preferred to file any Affidavit-in-Opposition. The Atto...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagbati Devi Goenka and anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Ganguly
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1003
ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J.1. This Rule is at the instance of the two accused-petitioners and is against an order dated the 13th April, 1970 passed by Sri P.C. Chakrabortv. Presidency Magistrate, 4th Court. Calcutta, rejecting the petitioners' prayer for staying the criminal proceedings pending against them Under Section 628 of the Companies Act. 1956 and 628/109. I. P, C, respectively being case no. C/. 3179 of 1966, till the disposal of the civil suits nos. 1871 of 1966 and 2304 of 1966 in the High Court.2. A short point is involved in the Rule as to whether the criminal proceedings pending in the Presidency Magistrate's court should be stayed till the disposal of the civil suits pending before the High Court. The background of facts leading on to the Rule though chequered can be put in a short com pass. The complainant opposite party. Sunil Kumar Ganguly filed a petition of complaint in the court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate. Calcutta Under Sections 120B, IPC and 628 of the Compani...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Chandra Ghosh Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal389
Bagchi, J. 1. These three appeals at the instance of three different set of claimants, in a proceeding under the L. A. Act read with the relevant provisions of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 arise out of the three awards, rendered by the Improvement Trust Tribunal, covered by the one and same judgment delivered by the President of the said Tribunal. 'These three valuation references Involving common questions of fact and law were heard together at the desire of parties. They arise out of the acquisition of three premises for the purpose of the Calcutta Improvement Trust Scheme No. VII (Manicktolla) published on May 25, 1950 under Section 43(2) of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911. For valuing the disputed premises. May 25, 1950 shall be treated as the material date, and not September 2. 1954 which was the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The subject-matters of Cases Nos. 35, 36 and 38 are respectively premises Nos. 34, 35 an...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Shaw Vs. Ram Chabika Mishra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Cal362,75CWN314
ORDERAmiya Kumar Mookerjee, J.1. A short point that arises for determination in this Rule is, whether the Full Bench of the Presidency Small Causes Court has jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act to interfere with an order passed under Section 41 of the said Act.2. The plaintiff-opposite party instituted a proceeding under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the Small Causes Court, Calcutta, praying for an order directing the bailiff of that Court to put the petitioner in possession of the disputed land on the ground that licence granted in favour of the opposite party to possess the said land had been revoked. The opposite party denied that he was a licensee. He asserted that he was a thika tenant. The learned Trial Judge allowed the opposite party's said application. The petitioner, aggrieved against the said order of the Trial Judge, filed an application under Section 38 of the Act before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chinmoy Das Vs. University of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal428
ORDERAnil Kumar Sen, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition, Chinmoy Das appeared at the B.Sc. (Part 1) Examination of the Calcutta University held in May, 1968. He was appearing with Honours in Geology. Shri Souren Sen. Head of the Department of Geology, University of Calcutta, was appointed Examiner in respect of the Geology Honours First Paper. The said Shri Sen while examining the Geology Honours First Paper of different candidates apprehended that the petitioner having Roll No. Cal H 1021 had answered three questions and a part of the fourth in consultation with another candidate Baidyanath Raha bearing Roll No. Cal H 1022. He was further of the opinion that in respect of the three questions and a part of the fourth the aforesaid two candidates had copied from each other. Accordingly Shri Sen submitted a report on July 1, 1968.2. On the basis of this report the result of the petitioner as also that of Baidyanath Raha was withheld being 'reported against' and the matter was refe...
Tag this Judgment!Josoda Nandan Mukherjee Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1332
ORDERS.N. Bagchi, J.1. In this revisional application only one substantial point of law was argued by Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court of appeal below was unsustainable in law only on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to allow additional evidence to be taken at the appellate stage disregarding the two decisions of the two Division Benches presided over by Harries, C. J.. one in Special Bench case in Ramananda Agarwalla v. The State : AIR1951Cal120 (FB) and the other in Ramanlal Rathi v. The State : AIR1951Cal305 . As the facts stand the principles established by those two decisions of the Special Bench and the Division Bench of this Court presided over by Harries, C. J. are aptly applicable. What happened was this. On the last date of the examination of the prosecution witnesses the medical officer who examined the alleged victim was not produced by the prosecution a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »