Guwahati Court June 1956 Judgments

Firm Radhakishen Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Guwahati

Ram Labhaya, J.1. This order shall dispose of First Appeals Nos. 12 and 13 of 1952. Messrs. Radhakishen Bhagawati Prasad are the appellants in Doth these appeals. These appeals arise from two suits, Nos. 35 and 36 of 1949, instituted by Messrs. Radhakishen Bhagawati Prasad, appellants. Both the suits were dismissed. Suit No. 36 of 1949 has given rise to appeal No. 12 of 1952, and suit No. 35 of 1949 has led to appeal No. 13 of 1952.In suit No. 38, the plaintiffs claimed a sum of Rs. 7,401/- from the Union of India. The plaintiffs asserted that they were endorsees for value of invoice No. 10 B009391, dated 27-9-1948. By this receipt, a consignment of 'Jogree' was booked from Shamli Railway Station on S. S. Light Railway to Tinsukia. The consignment consisted of 216 bags weighing 426 maunds. It was further stated that the consignment should have been delivered on 27th October in the ordinary course. It was not delivered.Notices under Section 80, C. P. C. and Section 77 of the Indian Rai...

Promode Ranjan Roy Vs. the State

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1956CriLJ1393

ORDERSarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted under Section 112, Indian Railways Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days, His conviction and sentence has been upheld on appeal by the learned sessions Judge. He was tried on the above charge mainly on a com- plaint filed against him by a Travelling Ticket Inspector of the Railway. The complaint shows that he was found travelling in a first class compartment from Mariani to Simaluguri without any proper authority and he was so detected at Simaluguri and produced before the Mobile Court Magistrate.The petitioner is a Guard of the North Eastern Railway and it is said that at the relevant time he was going to join his duty and had an authority to travel in the second class. In the petition he says that he boarded a first class compartment as he had been fasting, the day being 'Ekadashi', and being in full uniform because of excessive heat of the day he felt uneasy with vomiting tendency. He all...

Durga Prasad Goenka Vs. Rameswar Goenka

Court: Guwahati

Ram Labhaya, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the Court of the Sessions Judge, L.A.D. The reference arises out of a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The facts leading to the reference may briefly be stated. 2. On 22-1-53, Rameswar Goenka, the first party, petitioned (Ex. 7) to the Officer-in-Charge, Shillong Police Station, alleging that holding No. 122 an south-east Mowkher Ward of the Shillong Municipality, then in occupation of the Tip Top Hotel, belonged to him, and that the second party, Durga Prasad Goenka, who was the owner of the adjoining holding to its north-west, was taking forcible possession of a portion of land out of the said holding No. 122, by cutting earth thereform and by removing all boundary marks between the two holdings, in spite of the first party's protest. He asserted that if the encroachment went on, there was danger of a breach of the peace. The Officer-in-Charge directed a Sub-Inspector to enquire i...