Kolkata Court January 1948 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.
Ramani Mohan Sarkar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1948
ORDERChakravartti, J.1. The petitioner who is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a Bengali Newspaper called 'Swadhinata' has been convicted by the learned Extra Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, under Section 7 (3) of the Bengal Special Powers Ordinance (VI of 1946), read with Section 2, Bangal Ordinance Temporary Enactment Act (I of 1947) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The offence charged and found against him is that in the issue of his paper dated 14-12-1946, he published a prejudicial report which came within Section 2 (3)(a) and Section 2(3)(c) of the Ordinance.2. The Ordinance was promulgated on 1st October 1946 and so far as Section 88, Government of India Act, is concerned, it expired on 15-8-1947, But the Legislature, by Bengal Act, I of 1947 which came into force on 16-3-1947, continued the operation of the Ordinance on the footing that it would be treated as an Act of the Provincial Legi...
P.K. Paul Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1948
ORDER1. This is a Rule for quashing certain proceedings against the petitioner pending before an additional Presidency Magistrate under Ordinance III of 1946. The ground urged is that that Ordinance was ultra vires of the Governor-General.2. Mr. Chatterjee who appears in support of the Rule states that the foundation of his contention is that the provisions of the Ordinance are not covered by any matter in any of the lists in Schedule VII of the Government of India Act. He concedes that if he fails on this point he has nothing further to urge.3. In our opinion the provisions of the Ordinance are clearly covered by items 5 and 42 of List I of Schedule VII of that Act.4. The Rule is accordingly discharged....
Nakari Roy and ors. Vs. Upananda Karati and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1948
Chakravartti, J.1. The plaintiffs who are the appellants to this Court brought a suit for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of a ditch (doba), recorded as O.S. Plot No. 1616 of the settlement records of 1937. Their case was that this plot appretained to a jama of Rs. 16-13-3 comprising 8 bighas and 2 cottas of land, which at one time was a jama of Rs. 19-14-6 comprising 9 bighas aad 19 cottas of land. The larger tenancy originally belonged to one Sashi Bhusan Hazra who made a gift thereof to his nephew Anukul and plaintiff 1 and the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 acquired the lands by two purchases, one from Anukul and the other from the widow of Anukul's brother Sucharan who also claimed an interest in the gift. Thereafter the plaintiffs settled the lands in bhag with two persons named Umesh and Dayal and on a dispute having arisen with them, compromised it by relinquishing in their favour an area of 1 bigha and 17 cottas of land. The reduction of the original jama to i...
Arjun Singh Vs. Phani Bhusan Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1948
Chakravartti, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order dated 13th February 1947, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Midnapore, whereby he valued a suit brought by the petitioner at Rs. 7,550 for the purposes of court-fees. The question is whether this valuation is correct and it has arisen out of a series of facts which are rather complicated.2. It appears that the plaintiff originally brought a suit in the Court of the 2nd Munsif of Midnapore for recovery of possession of the lands of a certain holding on the allegation that the opposite party had wrongfully dispossessed him there from after serving a notice under Section 87, Ben. Ten. Act. It was alleged that the plaintiff had a right of occupancy in the lands and that he had never abandoned them. The cause-title of the suit described it as a suit for recovery of possession after declaration of the plaintiff's title and an appropriate prayer was included among the prayers made in the plaint. The suit was valued at...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›