Kolkata Court July 1972 Judgments
Piru Charan Pal and anr. Vs. Minor Sunilmoy Nemo and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal1,76CWN1048
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This appeal was referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench consisting of D. Basu. J. and myself for decision on the following two questions :--(1) Whether the reversioner of a Hindu widow or a limited heir, is a person claiming under the Hindu widow or the limited heir within the meaning of the expression 'the transferor or any person claiming under him' as contained in Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act ?(2) Whether the case of Bhopal Chandra Sarkar v. Jagad Bhusan Sarkar, ILR (1943) 1 Cal 66 = (AIR 1943 Cal 344) was correctly decided 22. As the instant appeal 5s a Second Appeal, under Rule 2 of Chap. VI of the Appellate Side Rules, the entire appeal was required to be referred to the Full Bench for the disposal of the same by the Full Bench; the reference was therefore, defective. Under these circumstances, this Full Bench remitted back the appeal to the Division Bench and the Division Bench consisting of Arun Kumar Mukherjea, J. and myself have now refe...
Tag this Judgment!Ahindra Nath Mukhopadhyaya and ors. Vs. Manmatha Nath Kurmi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal168,77CWN129
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. This appeal hat been referred to the Special Bench by aDivision Bench consisting of P. N. Mookerjee and Amiya Kumar Mookerji, JJ. under Part I, Chapter II, Rule 1, Proviso (ii) read with Chapter VII, Rule 2 of the Appellate Side Rules. The point of law which induced the learned Judges of the Division Bench to refer the appeal to the Special Bench is as follows:--Whether, in the case of a tank fishery, (that is, a tank which is being used for pisciculture or for fishing), where the right of pisciculture or fishing is, at the date of Vesting under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, held under a lease from the owner intermediary, Section 6(2) proviso Of the Act will have any application, and, if so, what will be its effect and what will be the rights of the particular intermediary and the particular lessee in respect of the said tank fishery including the right of pisciculture or fishing under the relevant provisions of this Statute, namely, Sections 5, 6(1) and 6(2...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India and anr. Vs. the National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal354
ORDERRamendra Mohan Datta, J.1. The defendant company (hereinafter culled NISCO) hypothecated with the plaintiff bank about 4500 pieces of Special Graphite Stopper Heads imported from West Germany with intent to create security for the repayment of a sum of Rupees 28,85,978.16 p. due on an overdraft account. For the recovery thereof the plaintiff filed the suit herein in this Court.2. On February 26, 1968, on the application of the plaintiff Bank Mr. B, K.Chakravarty, Barrister-at-Law was appointed the Receiver, inter alia, over the whole of the stocks of iron and stores of NISCO whether then manufactured or in the process of manufacture and goods or moveablc properties of any kind stored in the premises and/or godown of NISCO or whereever situate or in transit as mentioned in the deed of hypothecation dated September 21, 1959. Mr. Chakravarty took possession thereof. He was directed by an order of this Court to sell the hypothecated goods which included the said about 4500 pieces of S...
Tag this Judgment!Nurul Hoda and ors. Vs. Amir Hasan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal449,76CWN1039
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. On 16th February, 1945 suit No. 260 of 1945 was tiled by the plaintiff, inter-alia for a declaration that the partnership business of Haji Qudabux Mohammed Ibrahim stood dissolved on and from 16th February, 1945, in the alternative, for dissolution of the said partnership, for appointment of Receiver, accounts, enquiries, injunction and other reliefs. Messrs. N. C. Bural & Pyne were the Solicitors for the plaintiff at the time of the filing of this suit On 6th of March, 1945 by an order in the said suit, the defendant. Zahir Hasan was appointed Receiver over the said partnership business. On 29th March. 1945 another suit being suit No. 507 of 1945 was filed by Nurul Hasan against his mother, brothers and sisters, inter alia, for partition and allotment in severalty of the properties and estates of Shaik Mohammed Ibrahim, since deceased. On 22nd May, 1945 by an order in suit No. 507 of 1945, Mr. P. K. Sen, Barrister-at-Law was appointed Receiver of the estate a...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Deb Roy Vs. Byomkesh Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal397
A.K. Sinha, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against an appellate judgment and decree of affirmance. 2. The appellant filed a suit for a declaration that the disputed properties were the absolute Debuttar Properties and by virtue of transfer the plaintiff acquired the Shebaiti right to the extent of six annas odd gandas to the exclusion of the defendant respondents Nos. 1 and 3 who claimed underthe same shebaiti right by virtue of a Will left hy same transferor one Satish Chandra Roy and for permanent injunction and for other reliefs. 3. I need not repeat the facts of the case which are fully set out in the judgment of the appellate court. The controversy centres round the question whether by the deed of transfer named as 'Arpannama' dated 12-6-1935 the transferor Satish Chandra Roy who was admittedly a Co-shebait of the family Deity of Roys 'Sri Sri Radhakanta Jew Thakur' transferred absolutely his Shebaiti right to the present plaintiff. It is admitted in this case tha...
Tag this Judgment!Purusottam Lalji and ors. Vs. Ratan Lal Agarwalla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal459,76CWN983
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. Ratan Lal Agarwalla and Lakshmi Chand Agarwalla. are the owners of three-fourth share and trustees for remaining one-fourth share in premises No. 21. Hanspu-kur First Lane, Calcutta. The adjoining premises No. 20-A. Hanspukur First Lane is a trust property of which the trustees are mentioned in paragraph 3 of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to this Court. It was alleged in the petition that at the back of premises No. 20-A, Hanspukur First Lane, there was a space in which there existed a structure with Raniganj tiled sloped roof. It has been further alleged that the owners of the premises raised the height of the walls and constructed a roof thereon without any sanction by the Corporation of Calcutta. On a complaint by the petitioners action was taken by the Corporation of Calcutta. A notice was issued under Section 416 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, and thereafter the matter came up before the Commissioner under Section 414 of the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Sriniwas Sureka Vs. Madanlal Sekhsaria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal13
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The appellant in this case is a tenant. A suit was filed against him for ejectment on the ground of default. The appellant resisted the suit on the ground that there was no default and the appellant took certain other points, namely, defects in the notice to quit. Before the trial Court the suit was heard and it was found that there had been default for more than 4 months within a period of 12 months prior to the institution of the suit. It has been further held by the learned trial Judge that the notice to quit was valid and had been properly served. A decree for ejectment was passed. The defendant tenant appealed therefrom. The main, ground of appeal is based on en amendment introduced in Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Previous to the amendment the law was that if there was more than 4 months default within a period of 12 months prior to the suit then the tenant lost his right of protection, even though he had co...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhu Dayal Marwari Vs. Tinkari Bala Dassi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Cal35,77CWN110
Amaresh Roy, J. 1. There are two appeals. These two appeals arise put of two suits between the same parties. In one, which was Title Suit No. 55 of 1962, the predecessor of the present respondents was the plaintiff and the present appellant was the defendant. In the other suit, which was Title Suit No. 86 of 1963, the present appellant was the plaintiff and the predecessor of the present respondents was the defendant. Both the suits were over the dispute between the parties regarding a property which was the common disputed property in both, the suits. The background of that dispute was the undisputed fact that Gour Chandra Das, who was the predecessor of the present respondents was the owner of the suit land and he inducted the present appellant Prabhu Dayal Marwari into possession of the suit land as a tenant by a contract of tenancy which has been brought in the evidence in the case as Exhibit F. In it there was a stipulation that the tenant will pay a monthly rent at first fixed at...
Tag this Judgment!Prafulla Kumar Dutta Vs. Ganesh Chandra Bose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal106,79CWN203
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs filed ejectment suit No. 1691 of 1963 in the City Civil Court. Calcutta for recovery of posses-sion of premises No. 43. Serpentine Lane, Calcutta. The plaintiffs purchased the premises by a conveyance dated 11th September. 1962. The defendant attorned the tenancy and paid rent to the plaintiffs upto the month of October, 1962. According to the plaintiffs they reasonably required the entire premises for their own occupation. The plaintiffs further contended that the deposits of the rent from the months of December. 1962 to June, 1963 were invalid and the defendant was not entitled to protection against eviction. The plaintiffs further alleged that they had determined the tenancy by serving upon the defendant by registered post a combined notice of ejectment and notice of suit dated 22nd August, 1963 requiring the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises on the expiry of the last day of September, 1963. ...
Tag this Judgment!Manindra Nath Bose Vs. Balaram Chandra Patni and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal145
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. This appeal has been referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of S. K. Chakravarty and S. K. Datta, JJ., for the decision of the question whether an exclusive right to ferry can be acquired by prescription. The reference has been made under Rule 7, Chapter VII of the Appellate Side Rules.2. The plaintiffs instituted the suit against the defendants for a declaration of their exclusive right to ferry across the river Kalindi and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their said right. The defendants were sued in a representative character under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure as representing the boatmen community of the village Hingulganj, within P. S. Hasnabad, in the district of 24-Parganas.3. Kalindi is a public navigable river to the east of Hingulganj market situate at the village Hingulganj. The case of the plaintiffs is that their predecessor-in-interest Ramchand Patni acquired this...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »