Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-07-1953
Reported in : AIR1955Cal257
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from an order passed by Bachawat J. on 5-5-1953, sitting- singly. By that order he directed that, all matters in difference between the petitioner, the Union of India, and the respondent be referred to the arbitration of Mr. K.K. Basu, Barrister-at-law. The petitioner asks for a certificate from this Court to prefer an appeal from that order.2. In view of the several patent objections to the petition, it is surprising that such a petition should have been filed at all. . The petition purports to ask for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and it must be presumed that the said prayer was intended to be made under the Constitution of India. But the Constitution is not even named in the petition. The petitioner refers only to the Indian Arbitration Act and seems to have been advised that even under that Act, this Court could be asked to grant a certificate for the purposes of leave to the Supreme Court....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-04-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Cal424,58CWN31
Chakravartti, C.J.1. The petitioner, a company, is the defendant in a suit and prays for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against an order of this Court, passed in second appeal, by which the case was remanded to the Court of appeal below for disposal in accordance with certain directions given.It claims that the order is a final order and accordingly it is entitled to appeal as of right-under Clause (a) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution.Alternatively it claims that the case comes under Clause (c) and a certificate that it is a fit case for appeal ought to be granted. The argument advanced on the petitioner's behalf has raised certain fundamental questions as to the true scope of Article 133 and its relation to Sections 109 and 110, Civil P. C., as adapted to the Constitution.2. The suit concerned was brought by the opposite-parties as owners of a certain Touzi which had been created on the resumption of certain lands, previously held under an invalid: lakheraj grant. They clai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-27-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Cal412
Lahiri, J.1. This appeal by the defendant under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against a judg-ment and decree of Mr. Justice Das dated March 24, 1948 whereby he has decreed a suit for eviction of the defendant.2. The facts leading up to this litigation are broadly these. On 7-6-1857, the predecessor of one Bibhuti Bhusan Roy granted a Mokarari Mourashi lease to the predecessor of one Jatindra Nath Bose in respect of 1051 bighas and 13 cottas of land in the Sunderban area. Out of this total area, 1000 bighas were actually assessed to rent at a progressive rate. On 12-7-1936, Jatindra Nath Bose granted a mokorari mourashi lease in respect of 8 bighas and 10 cottas out of the lands of his tenancy in favour of the defendant, Sushil Kumar Chakra-varty, at an annual rent of Rs. 17/ . The estate of Bibhuti Bhusan Roy was taken over by the Court of Wards and in execution of a certificate for arrears of rent, the tenancy of Jatindra Nath Bose was sold on September 5, 1938, under th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-26-1953
Reported in : AIR1955Cal52
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This application raises the very Important question of jurisdiction of this Court to grant a certificate for refund of Court-fee when a suit is transferred to this High Court under its Extra-Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent. The law and the practice on this point have been at variance, and the practice of the Court itself has not been uniform.2. This suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 21-12-1951 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore, Murshidabad for a declaration that the Debenture of Trust Deed dated 29-6-1938 constituted a first charge on the properties and assets of the defendant company and for other incidental reliefs for the enforcement of the Trust Deed and the Mortgage created thereunder. The suit was valued at Rs. 15,00,000/- and the Ad Valorem duty of Rs. 10,000/- was paid' thereon in Court-fees. Thereafter an application was made by the defendant company by its Liquidator for a transfer of that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-30-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Cal6
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. The central point of dispute in this application is attorney's right of rateable distribution under Section 73, Civil P. C., where he has attached in execution of an order for costs made in his favour under Rule 48 of Chap. 38 of the Original Side Rules.2. The application is made by the decree-holder plaintiffs for an order that the Sheriff of Calcutta do pay out of the sum of Rs. 2371/4/- being the net amount lying in his hands out of the sale proceeds of two mud kothas at No. 59, Mechuabazar Street, Calcutta, belonging to the judgment-debtor after deduction therefrom the commission of the Accountant-General, payable to the plaintiffs' attorneys the costs of and incidental to the execution proceedings of the decrees dated 30-4-1948 and 4-4-1949, including those of levying their respective attachments and costs of all proceedings in connection with, the sale of the attached properties and also of costs of and incidental to this ap-plication and of costs to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-18-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Cal138
ORDERSinha, J. 1. This is a rule calling upon the respondents, to show cause why a writ in the nature of Mandarnus should not be issued directing them to rescind, cancel or recall the Notification No. PH2209/2A-9/52 and the notice dated October 22, 1952, served upon the petitioner as mentioned in the petition or from forbearing to act thereon or from giving effect thereto.2. The petitioner is the proprietor of an institution called the 'Nature-Cure Clinic', situate at 43/1 Boy/bazar Street, Calcutta. It is stated in the petition that the object of the establishment is 'to treat patients suffering principally from rheumatism and deformity of limbs in Scientific methods by recourse to Bath and massaging and other methods available for Physic-therapeutics including treatment by light, heat, electricity and hydrotherapy and other allied methods.'3. He has another such institution at 5 Dhurrumtollah Street, but that is not the subject matter of this application.4. The institution, being a P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-30-1953
Reported in : AIR1953Cal695
Bose, J. 1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs who are five share-holders of a company known as the Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., for selves and on behalf of the other share-holders of the said company against the said Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and 8 other persons who are directors of the said company for a declaration that an ordinance known as The Iron & Steel Companies Amalgamation Ordinance 1952 (8 of 1952) and an Act replacing the said Ordinance being Act No. 79 of 1952 are void and inoperative and the Scheme of Amalgamation and merger contained therein is illegal and void and for an injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect to or acting upon the said Scheme of amalgamation and merger, and for certain other reliefs (2) The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant company being the Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act on or about 11-3-1948 and its business is, inter alia, the manufacture of iron and steel. The authorised c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-27-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Cal305,57CWN962
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a proceeding which commenced in August, 1950 and which has, in the course of its progress from stage to stage, suffered certain vicissitudes.2. The proceeding had its origin in an incident which occurred on 11-8-1950 and involved the death of one Col. S. C. Mitra. In connection with that incident, the two appellants before us, Sunil Chandra Roy and Satyendra Chandra Boy, who are brothers, were sent up for trial along with a third brother named Amalesh Chandra Roy. Sunil was charged under Section 302, Penal Code for the murder of Col. Mitra and further charged under Section 323 of the same Code for causing simple hurt to Mrs. Sati Mitra, a daughter-in-law of the deceased Colonel. Satyendra was charged jointly with Amalesh under Section 323, I. P. C. for causing simple hurt to Nirmal Kumar Mitra, a son of Colonel Mitra. All the three were further charged under Section 447, I. P. C. for criminal trespass into premises No. 18, Bondel Road, Cal...
Tag this Judgment!