Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1951]20ITR67(Cal)
DAS GUPTA, J. - This is an application on behalf of Hind Estates, Ltd., inter alia for a writ of mandamus or writ of like nature directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and each of them to forbear from giving effect to the notices issued by them to respondents Nos. 4 and 5 on diverse dates including 16th May, 1950, or from taking any further steps in pursuance of the said notices or taking or continuing any proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949.The case of the petitioner before me is as follows : The petitioner, Hind Estates, Ltd., is a private limited company incorporated in India under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The registered office of the company is situate at No. 220/1, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta. The respondents Nos. 4 and 5 by a registered lease dated the 13th December, 1948, granted in favour of the petitioner a lease for 99 years commencing from 1st January, 1949, of a number of properties situate in Calcutta at a rent o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal470,67CWN522
Bijayesh Mukherji, J.1. The judgment I render now governs two second appeals 67 and 68 of 1957 -- each by a tenant defendant arising out of actions in ejectment instituted in the Small Cause Court, Calcutta on December 22, 1954 concerning parts of 134/3A Cornwallis Street on the ground floor.2. In '67', the appellant is Prativa Pal who, it is said, was the tenant of a shop room on a rent of Rs. 35/-a month payable according to the English calendar month. In '68', the appellant is Prativa's father, Girish Chandra Ghosh, who, it is said, held the adjacent shop room in the same premises on the same terms as his daughter.3. The plaintiff in each of the two actions in ejectment is Janhabi Charan Chatterjee. Necessarily he is the sole respondent in each of the two appeals before me.4. The two suits for eviction -- one against the father and the other against the daughter -- were groundedon default in payment of rent from June 1953 to January 1954 -- a little more than three occasions of two ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1968Cal220,1968CriLJ604,71CWN508
Bijayesh Mukherjee, J. 1. This is a case laid before me under Section 439, Sub-section (1), read with Section 429, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 5 of 1898, with the divided opinions of Brothers Amaresh Roy and Alak Gupta, on the legality of steps taken to secure the extradition of one Jugal Kishore More from Hong Kong to India, and in particular to the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate. Calcutta.2. To begin from the very beginning of the matter now at issue, during the pendency, at the investigation stage, of Taltola police-station case No. 237 dated May 4, 1962, under Sections 120B/420/467/471 of the Penal Code against Suprokash Mukherjeeand others, before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, a Sub-Inspector of Police of the detective department, one Benoy Kr. Mukherjee, drew up a petition on May 11, 1965, to the address of the same Magistrate, stating inter alia: Jugal Kishore More and others 'were parties to a criminal conspiracy in Calcutta between May 1961 and De...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1973Cal83
ORDERRamendra Mohan Datta, J.1. This is an application for an order, inter alia, for stay of all further proceedings relating to and/or arising out of the ex parte decree dated March 28, 1964, passed in Suit No. 2678 of 1953 including the pending reference in respect thereto and/ or for stay of further operation of execution of the said decree. In the alternative, an order of injunction has been prayed for restraining the defendant, his servants and agents from taking any further or other steps in execution of the ex parte decree dated March 28, 1964 passed in Suit No. 2678 of 1953 and/or from proceeding with or continuing the said pending reference thereunder.2. This case has a very long history behind it.3. The suit being Suit No. 2678 of 1953 (Jagadish Prasad Tulshan v. Keshav Deo Tulshan and another) was instituted against the petitioner and against one Bharat Fira & General Insurance Limited. The said Jagadish Prasad Tulshan being a minor instituted the said suit through his next ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1977Cal199,(1977)1CompLJ175(Cal),82CWN252
M.N. Roy, J.1. This appeal from appellate decree is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 30, 1970, made in Title Appeal No. 337 of 1970 by Shri S. K. Dutta. Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Alipore, affirming thereby the judgment and decree dated January 30, 1970, made in Title Suit No. 234 of 1968, by Shri D. K, Panda, Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore.2. The plaintiff-respondent, being the owner of the premises in suit brought the Title Suit in question against the defendant appellant for recovery of khas possession by eviction and for mesne profits and also for compensation for damages Caused to the same. It was alleged that the defendant appellant was a tenant in respect of two bed rooms, one privy and one verandah at a monthly rent of Rupees 35/-, payable according to English calendar month. It was contended that the tenant defendant broke open a portion of the wall in between the bed rooms of his tenancy, made a hole in the wall of the privy and broke other portion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2006Cal102
ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. Both the aforesaid applications were heard together as the points involved in both the matters are identical. Both these two applications owe their origin to the judgment and order dated 17th March, 2004. This order was passed on settlement being arrived at by and between the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on the other. In view of the settlement and on the basis of suggestion given to the Court by both the parties this order was passed. In terms of this order the defendant No. 3 being the applicant of G. A. No. 3035 of 2004 was directed to transfer the property atJagmohan Village, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the said property) to the plaintiff in terms of the agreement dated 7th September, 2000 read with the agreement dated 12th September, 2002 for consideration of Rs. 21.10 crores. The plaintiff is directed to make ready at its own costs the stamp paper and complete all legal formalities require...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007(4)CHN842
S.S. Nijjar, C.J.1. On 15th of March, 2007 this Court passed the following order:1(a). In addition to the order passed in this suo motu petition, there shall be a further order in this writ petition in terms of prayer clause '1':1) An interim order restraining the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 preventing the petitioner organizations other NGOs and voluntary aid organization from reaching Nandigram to provide assistance to injured and deceased villagers.1(b). We further direct the District Administration to ensure that the unclaimed dead bodies are handed over to the appropriate authorities and the identified dead bodies are handed over to the lawful claimants after due legal formalities have been concluded, such as post-mortem and inquest report, so that the relatives are able to perform the last rites of the deceased.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Contempt)In the matter of: The Court on its own Motion1(c). All the newspapers throughout the Nation have today carried as a l...
Tag this Judgment!