Guwahati Court September 1952 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.
Lal Mohan Paul Vs. State of Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-08-1952
Lakshmi Narain, J.C.1. The petitioner Lal Mohan Paul has come to this Court on the Revision Side for setting aside his conviction and sentence passed by Sri C. Singh, Magistrate first class, Sadar, under paragraph 26 (A) read with paragraph 4 of the Tripura State Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order 1353 T.E. and Section 176, I.P.C., which was upheld in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Agartala. He has been awarded 6 months' R.I. and Rs. 250/- as fine or in j default 1 month's further R.I. for the aforesaid former offence, and 15 days' simple imprisonment under Section 176, I.P.C.2. The prosecution case as given in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is as follows:Accused Lal Mohan Paul is the proprietor of a shop called Ananda Bhander situated in the Bazar in Agartala town. The shop deals in cloths. Accused Monomohan Dey is the employee of Lai Mohan Paul in the shop. Accused Lai Mohan Paul is the holder of a licence for dealing in mill-made and handloom cloths under the Tripura St...
Digendra Chandra Pal Vs. Radha Ballav Pal
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-04-1952
Ram Labhaya, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an ejectment suit. Plaintiff's claim for ejectment was decreed. Defendant's appeal was dismissed. He has appealed to this Court. 2. The decree is challenged only on the ground that the appellant was not liable to ejectment as he had acquired occupancy rights in the property in suit. The findings arrived at against the appellant on other points are not challenged. 3. When the appeal of the defendant was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, the appellant and his counsel were not present. The appeal was not dismissed in default; it was disposed of on the merits despite the absence of the appellant and his counsel. Under Order 41, Rule 17, C. P. C., the Court could dismiss the appeal by reason of the absence of the appellant, though it was not obligatory on it to dismiss it. The only other course open to it was to adjourn the appeal. It had no power to proceed to decide the appeal on the merits in the absence of the appellant or...
Krishna Kanta Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-04-1952
Ram Labhaya, Ag. C.J. 1. Krishna Kanta Bagh, petitioner was detained under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950, as amended by Act 4 of 1951, by the order of the District Magistrate, Nowgong, dated 8-8-1951. He has challenged the validity of his detention, by a petition to this Court. 2. The grounds of detention supplied to the petitioner were as follows : 1. That you have been doing smuggling business in rice and paddy from the cordoned area (Hojai, Kampur, and Jamunamukh) of Nowgong District since the beginning of 1951, with the active help of your associate Biswanath Agarwalla. For this purpose, you have engaged labourers on high wages who carry rice and paddy from the cordoned area and sell the same at a much higher rate. 2. That on 31-5-51, you were detected while transporting one maund of rice without permit from the cordoned area and though the case is sub judice, yet you have not been corrected. 3. That on 16-6-51 it is reported you transported some rice to outside the cor...
Suresh Chandra Bhowmik Vs. Suresh Chandra Kapali
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-02-1952
Lakshmi Narain, C.J.1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar dropped the proceedings Under Section 145, Cr.P.C., pending in his Court on 15.3.51 and released the disputed property from attachment. The crops of the land having been auction-sold during the proceedings the amount was deposited in Court. On an application made of the second party, the Magistrate, however, ordered that as the second party had grown the paddy, he is entitled to the deposited amount. The learned Sessions Judge has forwarded this Criminal Motion No. 66 of 1952 arising out of the Criminal Case No. 46 of 1950 of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, with recommendation Under Section 438, Cr.P.C. that the amount in deposit in Court should be kept intact until the party entitled to it establishes its right in a proper way.2. The record of the case shows that the proceedings Under Section 145, Cr.P.C. were dropped on 15.3.51. After about 3 months on 3.6.52, the S.D.M. passed the following order on appl...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›