Kolkata Court June 1981 Judgments
Smt. Nilima Ghosh and anr. Vs. Prakriti Bhusan Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal14,1981(2)CHN103,85CWN998
Anil K. Sen, J. 1. This is a revisional application arising out of a proceeding under Section 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as Title Suit No. 146 of 1980 of the Second Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Alipore and is directed against the order dated February 17, 1981 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge disposing of the said proceeding.2. Smt. Nilima Ghosh and her daughter-in-law Smt. Ira Ghosh are the petitioners before us in this revisional application. By a deed of trust dated Aug. 31, 1967 Smt. Nilima Ghosh settled premises No. 6, panditiya Terrace. Calcutta in trust making herself the sole trustee. Under the said trust the settlor retained unto herself a life interest in the said property with a further provision that on her death the property would vest absolutely in her daughter-in-law, Ira Ghosh or her heirs and legal representatives as the case may be. The trust contained no express provision authorising the trustee to sell the property of any...
Tag this Judgment!Jaynal Haldar Vs. Khorsed Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal118,85CWN984
ORDERSudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. This application for revision arises out of an order dated December 22, 1979 passed by Shri K. Ganguly, Munsif 3rd Court, Diamond Harbour, disallowing an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 72A of 1979.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil procedure may be summarised as follows :--The opposite party as plaintiff on 17-7-1973 instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 517/73 for specific performance of contract in the 3rd Court of the Munsif, Diamond Harbour, against the present petitioner. The plaintiff's case inter alia was that the defendant agreed to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 1500/- and accepted a sum of Rs. 1300/- and executed an agreement for sale on 9-3-1972 corresponding to 25th Falgoon 1378 B. S. that the transaction was to be completed within 15th Chaitra B. S. on receipt of the balance of RE. 200/- but in spite ...
Tag this Judgment!Debi Prasad Bagaria and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal587
Bimal Chandra Basak, J.1. The facts of this case as set out in the petition are as follows :--The petitioners are the President and Secretary respectively of the Managing Committee of Savitri Pathashala, a pri-mary school situated at No. 5/D, Mukla-ram Babu Street. Calcutta-7 (hereinafter referred to as the said School). The peti-tioners state that since 1933 prominent members of the Marwari Community in Calcutta made and collected donations from various persons from time to time for, inter alia, to take charge of, maintain, manage and improve a Girls' School known as the Savitri Pathshala together with its properties and to take the control of or establish any other schools for Girls elsewhere as might bo considered necessary or desirable and to spread education among and to promote the religious, moral and intellectual advancement of high caste Up-country Hindu Girls ond particularly Marwari Girls belonging to Sat Grihastha as. that is to say, respectable families professing the Sana...
Tag this Judgment!Bhakta Prosad Paul Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal254,85CWN959
Manas Nath Roy, J. 1. The Rule, in which the exceptions regarding the maintainability have been taken and the particulars whereof are mentioned hereinafter, was obtained on 18th Nov., 1980, against order dated 13th March, 1978, made by the Bhagchas Officer, Monteswar, Burdwan, in Bhagchas Case No. 40 of 1976, as affirmed in M. P. Case No, 154 of 1978 on 10th July 1980. The impugned orders are in Annexures 'E' and 'H' to the petition of motion.2. It was contended by the petitioner, on a reference to the impugned appellate order, that the same was bad, irregular, void, illegal and unauthorised, as firstly, the same was not a duly reasoned order or a speaking order,secondly the reference to Bhagchas Case No. 46 of 1976 in the order itself, which should have been Bhagchas Case No. 40 of 1976, proved and established non application of mind and thirdly, even though such point was not taken in explicit language, both the determinations as impeached, were perverse, as the facts and evidence as...
Tag this Judgment!Official Trustee, West Bengal Vs. Lal Chand Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal210
Ramendra Mohan Datta, J.1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal from the order of the Court below passed on Jan. 7, 1981.2. The matter relates to the trust estate created by Raja Debendra Nath Mullick by the deed of trust dated 28th Feb., 1919. It is a public charitable trust. The trust comprises of, inter alia, the premises No. 17 Sooterkin Lane, Calcutta now known as 22, Prafulla Sarkar Street, The object of the trust amongst other is for the eradication of leprosy. It is in respect of this trust estate that the order appealed from has been passed by the Court below in favour of a member of the settlor's family for his personal benefit. The Official Trustee of West Bengal is one of the trustees in respect of the said trust estate of Raja Debendra Nath Mullick. The Official Trustee wants to prefer the appeal herein but is late in doing so by a few days due to default or laches on the part of the dealing assist...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Miss Arati Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1981
Reported in: [1982]137ITR545(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J. 1. This is a reference by the Controller of Estate Duty, West Bengal, Calcutta, which arises out of the estate duty proceedings consequent on the demise of Smt. Charushila Dassi, widow of Aukshoy Kumar Ghosh, on November 13, 1959. Aukshoy Kumar Ghosh died on November 23, 1909 and before his death he disposed of his properties by a testament dated May 11, 1907. Letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed were granted to Smt. Charushila Dassi as the Administrative by the High Court on April 4, 1910. The estate was worth about Rs. 17.64 lakhs at that time.2. Under the said will the testator gave Smt. Charushila Dassi, for her life, a right of residence in the family dwelling house. She had to be maintained out of the estate in the same way as she was being maintained during his lifetime. While being so maintained, she was to receive Rs. 25 per month out of the estate for personal expenses and religious ceremonies. If she desired to have her maintenan...
Tag this Judgment!Sukumar Banerjee Vs. Dilip Kumar Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal17,85CWN1019
ORDERB.N. Maitra, J.1. The tenant-defendant filed an application under Section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The objection was filed by the plaintiff-landlords. The defendants' plea was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties regarding the premises in question. In the earlier Title Suit No. 534 of 1974 instituted in the Court of the third Munsif at Alipore, it was already decided that defendant No. 1 was a tenant regarding that property under plaintiff No. 2. That order remains unchallenged and operates as res judicata. He is not a defaulter. The plaintiff's objection was that the previous title suit was withdrawn with liberty to sue afresh and so there was no question of res judicata.2. The learned Munsif accepted the plaintiff's contention and stated that the previous decision did not operate as res iudicata. He, however, found that the defendant was a defaulter from October, 1973. Hence necessary order was passed in this resp...
Tag this Judgment!Shib Nath Paul Vs. Jaharlal Paul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal143
C.K. Banerji, J. 1. In this interlocutory application the appellant is asking, inter alia, for an injunction restraining the respondent No. 1, his servants, agents and assistants from parting with possession of the vacant portion of Lot 'B' of premises No. 203/4C, Bidhan Sarani, Calcutta, to Sm. Monika Ghose or to any other stranger to the family. 2. The short facts relating to the property in dispute may be briefly stated. By an Award dated 12th April, 1949 Mr. Hem Chandra Majumder, Barrister-at-law, divided the original premises No. 203/4, Cornwallis Street (now Bidhan Sarani) into four lots being lots A, B, C and D.Lot A was allotted to Ananda the respondent No. 2, Lot B was allotted to Jahar the respondent No. 1, Lot C was allotted to Manick and Lot D was allotted to Sushila Bala the mother. A decree was passed thereafter in terms of the said Award. The said lots were subsequently separately numbered by the Corporation of Calcutta whereby Lot A was numbered as 203/4B, lot B as 203/...
Tag this Judgment!Mohendra J. Thacker and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1981
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(Cal)1,[1983]139ITR793(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. These two references are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. In these references, the first one under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and the second under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, we are concerned with the assessment year 1964-65. The assessee filed the original return on June 25, 1965, and a revised return on December 5, 1967. The assessment was completed on the March 26, 1969. The assessee preferred an appeal before the AAC. It was urged before him that the demand notice dated May 30, 1969, was served on the assessee on June 3, 1969, and as such the assessment made was barred by time and should be cancelled. The AAC held that the assessment should have been completed by March 31, 1969. But the demand notice was dated on May 30, 1969, and it was received by the assessee on June 3, 1969. It would be appropriate in this case to refer to the order of the AAC. He observed in his order, inter alia,as follows:' I have carefully co...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chandra Naskar Vs. Hiranya Prova Moulick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal338,85CWN949
ORDERB.N. Maitra, J. 1. When the execution proceedings were pending, the applicants, who are heirs of the judgment-debtors, filed a Misc. Case under Section 47 of the Civil P. C. The objection was twofold. It was alleged that previously the execution case was dismissed for default. No prayer was made by the decree-holders to vacate that order or to restore the execution case to file. The Court suo motu vacated the order and restored the execution case to its original number. So an illegal order was passed. Secondly, the judgment-debtor died on the 21st January, 1966. whereas the application for substitution was filed by the decree-holders on the 15th May, 1978. So the allegation was that the execution case became time-barred. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected both the contentions. Hence this revisional application. 2. In this Court also those two objections have been pressed. It has been first stated that the order-sheet shows that on the 2nd September, 1967. decree-holders were d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »