Kolkata Court July 1972 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Radharam Sohanlal Vs. Abanindra Nath Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal213
Arun K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal has come up for hearing and disposal before this Full Bench upon a reference made by A. N. Ray and S. K. Mukherjea, JJ., under Chapter II Rule 1 (ii) of the Appellate Side Rules of this High Court. During the hearing of the appeal before their Lord-ships a question arose as to the interpretation of the proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 as amended by Act IV of 1968. The same point had been raised in another appeal heard by their Lordships, namely. P. A. No. 565 of 1965 = (reported in 0043/1973 : AIR1973Cal204 ). Jamuna Prasad Chowrasia v. Kishorilal Poddar. That appeal was also referred by their Lordships for a decision by a Full Bench. The short facts and circumstances of this appeal are as follows:2. The defendants M/s. Radharam Sohanlal were the plaintiff's tenants in respect of one Guddy room in the ground floor and 3 rooms on the top floor of premises No. 3-A, Mullick Street. Calcutta, at a ren...
Sm. Sabitri Devi Saraf Vs. Ramgopal Motilal Kajoria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal516,77CWN122
S. Mukharji, J. 1. On 7-3-1966 there was an agreement for tenancy between the petitioner and the respondent, herein in respect of suit No. 2 in the ground-floor of premises No. 6. Russel Street regarding four rooms, three baths, one pantry and one verandah at a monthly rental of Rs. 2,000/- according to the English calendar month. It is stated that the petitioner wanted to start a Nursing Home in the said premises in question. The petitioner's case is that the contract rent was fixed high because the landlord had agreed to renovate the rooms and to make certain additions and alterations, which, however, the landlord did not do. Shortly before the tenancy was created, it has been further stated, the premises in question had a monthly rental of Rs. 500/-, the previous tenant being National and Grindlay's Bank Ltd. On the 29th of June, 1966, the petitioner made an application to the Controller for fixation of fair rent. On the 14fh October, 1966, notice for ejectment of the petitioner was...
Madan Mohan Ghosh and ors. Vs. Sishu Bala Atta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal502,76CWN1058
M.M. Dutt, J.1. These are eight out of twelve Revision Cases referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench consisting of Laik and S.K. Mukherjea. JJ, by their Order of Reference dated April 30, 1968. The point which induced the learned Judges of the Division Bench to refer the Revision Cases to the Full Bench is whether the right of pre-emption under Section 26-F of the Bengal Tenancy Act survives the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act 1953 (West Bengal Act 1 of 1954] after Chapter VI thereof comes into force. In all these cases the reference has been made under Chapter VII, Rules 1, 2 and 4 of the Appellate Side Rules and consequently the Full Bench has to dispose of these Revision Cases also on merits. The point is involved in all these cases, but some of these involve other points which arise out of their respective facts and circumstances.2. Laik and S.K. Mukherjea, JJ. have differed from two earlier Division Bench decisions of B. N. Baneriee and D. Basu, JJ. -- one in the case o...
Sanjib Kumar Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Nathmal Rampuria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal524,77CWN30
Arun Kumar Mukherjea, J.1. These appeals make a group of altogether six appeals involving more or less the same questions. They were referred to a Special Division Bench under Rule 1, Sub-rule (ii) of Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules by a Bench consisting of the late Chief Justice D. N. Sinha and myself on 19th June 1968. The reference was made on the ground that they raise one or two common questions of law which are of great public importance. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice thereafter constituted the present Special Bench to dispose of these appeals. Since we have to dispose of the entire appeals we shall have to deal with them separately resolving the questions of law as they arise. This is what we propose to do as here-under.--Appeal No. 550 of 19622. The original defendant Satish Chandra Mukherjee was a tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of a shop room on the ground floor of premises No. 8-A, Lal Bazar Street. Calcutta at a monthly rental of Rs. 30.94 np. payable accordin...
Chaitanya Charan Nayak Vs. Manik Chandra Nandy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal520
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This Revision Case is one of the group of Revision Cases numbered as Full Bench Reference No. 1 of 1968 referred to the Full Bench bv Laik and S. K. Mukheriea. JJ. under Chapter VII, Rules 1, 2 and 4 of the Appellate Side Rules. The point which induced the learned Judges of the Division Bench to refer these cases to the Full Bench is, whether the right of preemption under Section 26-F of the Bengal Tenancy Act survived the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (West Bengal Act 1 of 1954) after Chapter VI thereof came into force. That point has been decided by us in our judgment delivered to-day in some other Revision Cases included in the Full Bench Reference No. 1 of 1968. The present Revision Case with which we are concerned, involves some other points and as such-it is being disposed of separately.2. This Rule has been obtained by the petitioner whose application for pre-emption under Section 2G-F was dismissed by the Munsif. First Court. Aram-bagh by his order d...
Haran Chandra Khalo and anr. Vs. Gopal Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal487
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This Rule has been referred to the Special Bench by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of P. N. Mookerjee and A. K. Dutt, JJ. under Chapter II, Rule 1, proviso (ii) of the Appellate Side Rules for the decision of the question as to the effect of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 including the Rules made thereunder, and the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956 on the provisions, relating to pre-emption, in the Bengal Tenancy Act. As the reference has been made under the above provisions of the Appellate Side Rules, the entire case has to be disposed of by the Special Bench.2. The question, as formulated by the Division Bench consists of two parts, namely, (1) the effect of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and the Rules made thereunder on the provisions relating to pre-emption in the Bengal Tenancy Act, and (2) the effect of the W. B. Land Reforms Act on the said provisions. The question obviously refers to the provision for pre-emption under Secti...
Jamuna Prasad Chowrasia Vs. Kishorilal Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal204,77CWN278
Arun K. Mukherjea, J. 1. This appeal has come up for hearing and disposal before this Special Bench upon a reference made by A. N. Ray and S. K. Mu-kherjca, JJ. under Chapter II, Rule 1 (ii) of The Appellate Side Rules of this High Court. The facts and circumstances under which this appeal arises are briefly as follows :--The defendant Jamuna Prasad Chowrasia was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff Kishorilal Poddar in respect of a shop-room on the ground floor of premises No. 31B, Banstala Gali, Calcutta. The rent that the defendant used to pay was Rs. 24/- per month according to the Hindi Calendar month commencing from Badi 1 to Sudi 15 of each month. The plaintiff terminated the defendant's tenancy by a notice to quit dated Magh Badi 2, 2020 S.Y. corresponding to 18 December, 1963. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent for more than four months within a period of 12 months since the month of Shravan 2020 S.Y. and that the defendant was not entitl...
Srikrishna Sukla Vs. Dist. Magistrate and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1619
Anil Kumar Sen, J.1. This Rule was issued on an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On November 12, 1971 the District Magistrate of Burdwan passed an order under Section 3(1) read with Section 3 (2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) directing detention of the detenu Shyamal Kumar Sukla. He directed such detention, as it appears from the order, because he was satisfied that such detention was necessary 'with a view to preventing him (detenu) from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order.' The order for detention rests on two grounds which are clearly relevant to the object of detention. This order, however, was not given effect to until April 3, 1972 on which date the detent was put to detention in execution of the aforesaid order of detention. Obviously the order of detention could not be executed at or about time it was made as the detenu was then in custody. It has not been d...
State of West Bengal and anr. Vs. Tarun Kumar Sen Gupta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Cal39
P.B. Mukharji, C.J.1. These are two appeals, one by the State of West Bengal and the other by the Union of India. The appeals are against the judgment and order of Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji dated the 18th April, 1972.2. The learned Judge held that the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, was ultra vires the Government of India Act, 1935, and as such was not law in force within the meaning of Article 372 of the Constitution. He, therefore, directed the two appellants the Governments or rather the Union of India and the State of West Bengal to forbear from giving effect to the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, in West Bengal and further directed them not to enforce the said Act in the State. He issued a writ in the nature of mandamus accordingly and made the Rule absolute. It is against this judgment that the appeals have been filed. Although there are two separate appeals, they are from the same judgment and order. I, therefore, propose to deal with the questions in the a...
Srinath Singh Vs. S.K. Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal28,77CWN84
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J.1. The petitioner in this application had been a dealer in foodgrains prior to 1964. After the enforcement of West Bengal Rationing Order. 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the said order), he was appointed a retail dealer having a ration shop at 10, Hastings Street. Calcutta being A. R. Shop No. 2598 and is carrying on business as such. The petitioner receives stock of foodgrains fromthe respondents and sells the same to persons who are ration card holders numbering 4100. According to the petitioner's case, in course of business, he complained to the authorities about bad quality of foodgrains. The petitioner's employee the respondent No. 8 who had earlier represented to the petitioner to part with Rs. 1,000/- as advance, inadvertently made on June 13, 1972 some cash-memos for NBSF rice though NMB rice was supplied. The petitioner immediately contacted the customers and returned the excess amount inadvertently realised and informed and explained the matter to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »