Kolkata Court February 1972 Judgments
Mrs. Eishu Chugani Vs. Ranglal Agarwala and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal64
ORDERS.C. Ghose, J.1. This is a vendor-purchaser's summons taken out by the plaintiff Mrs. Eishu Chugani. The purchaser under an agreement dated the 24th January, 1967 agreed to purchase the premises No. 3, Hunger Ford Street, situated in Calcutta within the Original Jurisdiction of this Court. The defendants are the partners of the partnership firm M/s. Arun & Co. carrying on business at No. 38, Indian Exchange Place. The defendants are the vendors under the said agreement dated the 24th January, 1967. The facts leading to the filing of this O. S. suit are stated hereunder.2. By an agreement in writing dated the 24th January, 1967 the defendants agreed to sell to the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed to purchase from the defendants the premises No. 3, Hunger Ford Street, at and for the sum of Rs. 9,74,000/- besides a sum not exceeding Rs. 47,000/- for the building material, free from all encumbrances subject to the defendants making out a marketable title to the said premises. The te...
Tag this Judgment!Radhyshyam Shaw and ors. Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal278,76CWN457
ORDERAmiya Kumar Mookerji, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the learned Additional District Judge refusing the petitioners' application under Section 151, Civil P. C., simply upon the ground that, as on appeal lay from that order in respect of which the application under Section 151 was moved, that section had no application to the case.2. The petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of late Ram Nath Shaw who died on the 16th April, 1970. The said Ram Nath Shaw was the sole appellant in Title Appeal No. 827 of 1969 in the Court of the Second Additional District Judge at Alipore. The said appeal came up for hearing on the 28th April. 1970 before the learned Judge along with two others appeals in which the said Ram Nath was not a party but the Corporation of Calcutta, the opposite party herein, was the respondent in all the appeals. In ignorance of the death of the sole appellant, the said Title Appeal along with the other appeals were heard and dismissed on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Gokulananda Roy Vs. Tarapada Mukharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal233,76CWN411
B.C. Mttra, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated June 22, 1970, by which the appellant's application for a Rule Nisi for appropriate Writs and orders against certain notifications, appointing a Commission of Inquiry to enquire into certain matters, was dismissed. Although no Rule was issued, notice was directed to be served on the second and third respondents, who appeared at the hearing of the application and contested the s;tme. The appellant claims to be a member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and as such contested a by-election from Raina, District Burdwan and was elected a Member of the Legislative Assembly in 1969.2. On March 16, 1970, Shri Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, who was the Chief Minister of the then United Front Ministry resigned. This resignation was followed by a Hartal, called by the appellant's party. The call for Hartal was opposed by a number of political parties who constituted the then United Front. This call for Hartal, and the oppo...
Tag this Judgment!Subhas Chandra Awan Vs. the District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1089
Anil Kumar Sen, J. 1. An order of detention dated May 12, 1971 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Hooghly in exercise of his powers under Section 3(1) read with Section 3 (3) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act 1970 hereinatfer referred to as the said Act and the consequent detention of the detenu Subhas Chandra Awan is the subject-matter of challenge in this Rule. It appears that the Additional District Magistrate passed the aforesaid order being satisfied that such detention was necessary with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner 'prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.' The grounds of detention as served on the detenu under Section 8 of the said Act recite as follows 'that you have been acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order as evidenced by the particulars given below:(1) On 26-1-1971 at about 17.00 hrs you demanded subscription of Rs. 50...
Tag this Judgment!Kokarmal Gurudayal Vs. Sagarmal Bengani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal430,1973CriLJ162,76CWN486
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Sixth Subordinate Judge, Alipore, being Order No. 56 of the 10th November, 1970, in Title Suit No. 3 of 1964 (Sagarmal Bengani v. Pokarmal Gurudayal) rejecting the defendant's application under Section 17-B (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The facts briefly are as follows:On January 21, 1964, Sagarmal Bengani filed Title Suit No. 3 of 1964 before the Subordinate Judge, Sixth Court, Alipore against Messrs. Pokarmal Gurdayal for ejectment of the defendant from a godown at premises No. P-3, Brojodayal Saha Boad, Cossipore, on the ground of default in payment of rent since April, 1963. Onthe 27th March, 1965, the Court passed an order under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, striking out the tenant's defence against delivery of possession. On May 5, 1965, the tenant applied for relief against forfeiture under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!i.S.P. Trading Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal74
T.K. Basu, J. 1. The facts of this case lie within a narrow compass.2. According to the plaintiff on or about the 21st April, 1964 one M. J. Patel and Company of 177, Nagdevi Street, Bombay-3 delivered to the Central Railway at Wadi Bandar (Bombay) 200 pieces of Seamless 1/2' M. S. Pipes C Class measuring 3870 feet for carrying them to Shalimar on the South Eastern Railway. The Railway Receipt bearing No. 822386 was issued on the 21st April, 1964 in which M. J. Patel and Company were shown both as the consignor and the consignee.3. On the 2nd May, 1964 the Union Bank of India Limited, Clive Road, Calcutta as an agent of M. J. Patel and Company endorsed the Railway Receipt to the plain-tiff for valuable consideration.4. According to the plaintiff, the goods ought to have arrived at Shalimar between 12th May, 1964 and the 19th May, 1964. The plaintiff duly presented the Rail-Way Receipt to the Railway Administration at Shalimar but failed to obtain delivery of the goods. It is in these c...
Tag this Judgment!Malhati Tea Syndicate Limited Vs. Revenue Officer, Jalpaiguri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal78,[1973]43CompCas337(Cal)
B.C. Mitra, J.1. The appellant is the owner of a tea garden in the district of Jalpaiguri. On December 9, 1937, the then Governor of Bengal granted a lease of 1268.85 Acres of land in Touzi No. 410, in the district of Jalpaiguri, commonly known as Malhati Tea Estate, under Chapter V of the Bengal Waste Lands Manual, 1936, in favour of the appellant, for a term of 30 years with effect from April 1, 1932, on yearly rent of Rs. 2760.12. Some other note lands were also settled with the lessee as a part of the tea estate. On expiry of the term of 30 years, the appellant obtained renewal of the lease from year to year, the last of such renewal having been made in March 1965, for the year 1965-66. Under these yearly renewals, the appellant is entitled to renewal of the lease for a further period of one year or such period as the State Government may think fit, subject to the reservation that the decision of the State Government under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Pratima Baul Vs. Indu Bhusan Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal255
ORDERAmiya Kumar Mookerji, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the plaintiff-landlady and it is directed against an order of the learned Munsif holding that the tenant defendant's application under Section 17-D of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was maintainable for setting aside a consent decree.2. Plaintiff brought a suit for ejectment against the opposite party from a portion of premises No. 21/2. Belgachia Road, on the ground that the opposite party was a defaulter in payment of rent since December 1964. The opposite party in his written statement denied that he was a defaulter. On or about March 12. 1968, the plaintiff and the opposite party filed a joint petition of compromise and in terms of the same, the learned Munsif passed a decree. In terms of the said compromise decree the tenant undertook to vacate the premises within December. 1969. In default, execution might be started for recovery of possession. While continuing in occupation of the premises in suit in terms of ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Bauria Cotton Mills and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal406,76CWN791
Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J. 1. This appeal is by the defendant, -- the Union of India, representing the South Eastern Railway and it arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff company for declaration of a right of easement and a right of passage over the disputed land as described in the schedule to the plaint and for a permanent injunction. 2. The plaintiff's case, in substance, was that the plaintiff No. 1 and its sister company plaintiff No. 2 had been running mills in Fort Gloster mouja. A district board road known as 'Damjur Road' runs upto the mills, at one end crosses the Railway lina of South Eastern Railway over a level crossing to the east of Bauria Railway Station and continues towards the north. To meet the requirements of heavy vehicular traffic, the plaintiffs constructed a wider one mile long private road upon their own land at a considerable cost and linked up the same with the said District Board Road at the level crossing. At the time of construction of the said road,...
Tag this Judgment!Madanlal Chowdhury Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1972
Reported in: [1979]119ITR351(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This is an application challenging a notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The notice appears at page 47, annex. 'G'. The notice was addressed to Messrs. Surajmal Behadurmull, I, Convent Road, Calcutta. The notice was in respect of the assessment year 1957-58. In the said assessment year, there were two HUFs by the said name for the two periods--one was for the period from November 14, 1955 to December 31, 1955, and the other was for the period from January 1, 1956 to November 2, 1956. During that period it is also said that there was disruption of the smaller HUF which formed into a partnership firm. That position, however, had not been accepted by the Tribunal. The notice having been issued, the partnership firm made an application challenging the notice. The income-tax department made a statement before T.K. Basu J. that the said notice was not intended to be used against the partnership firm. Two points were urged in support of this application;...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »