Kolkata Court November 1972 Judgments
Royal Stationery Supply House Vs. Azizul Haque and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal363
Amaresh Roy, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant against whom a decree for ejectment has been passed in a suit for recovery of possession instituted by the plaintiff on the allegations that the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of premises in suit consisting of a shop-room with a godown in the ground floor of the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 110/- payable according to English Calendar month. The suit was instituted on the ground that the plaintiffs required the premises in suit for their own occupation for the purpose of starting a business for their own maintenance. The notice of ejectment was given, period of notice expiring on 30th April, 1964. The suit was instituted on 23rd June, 1964. This notice was issued by a pleader on behalf of 5 brothers who claimed to be the owners of the house. One of those brothers Mukhlaru Haque died before the date of expiry of notice and a suit was instituted by the four surviving brothers and the heirs of the deceased Mukhta...
Tag this Judgment!Paresh Chandra Roy Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal559
ORDERS.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia for the issue of Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order dated February 12, 1971 made by Respondent No. 2 and for directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application No. F/428 for stage carriage permit dated September 12, 1969 in accordance with the provisions of law. The application also seeks the issue of a Writ in the name of Certiorari for quashing the said impugned order dated February 12, 1971. The fact leading to the making of the present application are stated hereunder :2. The petitioner was granted a temporary permit to ply a stage carriage on Route No. 4 (Baranagar to Tollygunj) under the Defence of India Rules on December 13, 1966. The said permit was extended fromtime to time and was finally extended up to June 30, 1967. The Petitioner made another application being No. F/428 for gran...
Tag this Judgment!Mahammad Nazaharul Haque and anr. Vs. B. Bagchi, I.P.J.P. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Cal29,77CWN695
Laik, J. 1. It is a long-winded litigation. These two appeals are directed against a consolidated judgment and order passed by a learned Judge of this Court, on two civil revision cases, moved by one Mahammad Nazaharul Haque (Appeal No. 479/61) and the other by his wife Surrayya Begum (Appeal No. 480/611, which arose on two separate applications moved under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and heard together. These two appeals also have been heard one after the other. The facts and questions of law in both the appeals are almost similar. No separate argument was advanced in Appeal No. 480/61, excepting adopting the arguments made by the learned Advocate in Appeal No. 479 61. The State of West Bengal was represented by Mr. S. K. Roy Choudhury, learned Advocate. The two other respondents Nos. 1 and 2 viz., D. C., Special Branch, and the Civil Authority under the Foreigners' Order, being the same person, excepting the Union of India, appeared before us. The main ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Shyama Sundari Dasi 'Devi' Vs. Ramapati Chattopadhya and Anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal319
ORDERR.N. Dutt, J. 1. These two Rules are taken up together as they arise out of the same order. The petitioner in Rule No. 1508/72 are two defendants in the suit instituted by the petitioner in Rule No. 1759/72 as plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff filed the instant suit in the court of a Munsif at Alipore. The plaintiff has in the suit prayed for a declaration that the two documents dated November 9, 1966 and March 17, 1967, both executed and registered at Rampurhat were obtained by fraud and as such void and invalid and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession in the lands covered under those documents and from exercising any rights as shebaits of deity Shri Shyamrai Deb Thakur. 3. The deity represented by the plaintiff was made defendant No. 1 and the petitioners in Rule No. 1508/72 were made defendants Nos. 2 and 3. Defendants Nos.2 and 3 filed written statement and raised an objection that the Munsif at Alipore had no territori...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›