Kolkata Court January 1950 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.
Jageswar Sow and ors. Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal565
Chunder, J.1. This is an appeal against the conviction of the three appellants under Section 304, part II read with Section 34, Penal Code, and a sentence of eight years' rigorous imprisonment and further of the appellant Balabhadra Sow under Section 323, Penal Code, with rigorous imprisonment for three months, the sentences to run concurrently in his case. The verdict of the jury was unanimous and was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Midnapore. 2. One Mahadeb Pal is said to have been attacked by the three appellants and others and such injuries were inflicted as subsequently resulted in his death. A first information report was made to the thana by a chowkidar which was entered in the general diary. Subsequently, another local man Janmanjay gave a further information and it appears that this was not rightly allowed to go in evidence in view of Section 162, Criminal P. C., as the police had already started investigation. It further appears that when the Sub-Inspector came t...
Sarat Chandra Sadhukhan and ors. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal423,54CWN480
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. These are three rules against orders passed by the Municipal Magistrate under Section 421, Calcutta Municipal Act. They relate to a large quantity of mustard oil which the Superintendent of Police, 24 Parganas, purchased from different contractors and had for sale to the numbers of police force under him in a ration shop. The only reason that there are three separate cases is that the total quantity of oil with the Superintendent was divided up according to the contractors from whom he had bought it. Nevertheless though this division has been made, the main point before me is an objection by the contractors that they were not allowed to be heard.2. The circumstances are certainly very peculiar. The Superintendent himself, after first having some analysis made by the Public Analyst, moved the Municipal Magistrate for the orders in question to be made. He himself informed the contractors of the proceedings and they duly appeared before the Magistrate. The Magistrate h...
Sashi Bhusan Singha Vs. Sankar Mahato
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal252,54CWN936
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is an application in revision against the orders passed by the lower Courts allowing an application under Section 26F, Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The opposite party made an application on 17th September 1948 under Section 26F, Bengal Tenancy Act on the allegation that he was a cosharer with one Kshirode Das in respect of an occupancy holding which had been sold on 22nd March 1947 under the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act. Sasi Bhusan Singha, the petitioner before this Court, was a creditor of Kshirode Das and had obtained an award under the provisions of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The payments directed to be made under the award not having been made within the due dates steps were taken by the creditor under Section 28, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The certificate sale which followed was confirmed on 23rd May 1947 but the opposite party alleged that he had no knowledge of the sale before 9th September 1948. The application for pre-emptio...
Dominion of India and anr. Vs. Ashutosh Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal212,54CWN254
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This is a Rule obtained at the instance of the Dominion of India representing the East Indian Railway Administration and the Divisional Accounts Officer, E.I. Rly., Asansol, against an order of a Munsif of Burdwan, dated, 25th August 1949, appointing a Receiver in the following terms:'In view of the circumstances it is considered just and proper that the entire provident fund money of the judgment-debtor lying in the hand of the Divisional Accounts Officer, Asansol, do vest in the Receiver. The Receiver shall deposit the entire sum in Court. The judgment-debtor shall get the balance of the money after deduction of the decretal dues and costs, receiver's fees and incidentals.'2. The circumstances of course were that the decree-holder was unable to attach the provident fund money in question as the judgment debtor at the time was still in service. Under Section 3(1), Provident Funds Act No. XIX [19] of 1925,'a compulsory deposit in any Government or Railway Provident ...
Sati Prasanna Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Md. Fazel
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal320
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a suit for the recovery of premises No. 47A, Ripon Street, Calcutta, on the ground that the plffs. bona fide require the said premises for their own use & occupation & for the purpose of building & re-building.2. The defence taken in the written statement is two-fold: one is that the lease was for manufacturing purposes, & the other is a denial of the bona fide requirement of the plffs. upon the grounds mentioned in the plaint.3. Mr. Modak, learned junior of Mr. Meyer, raised two issues as follows:1. Was the lease for manufacturing purposes?2. Do the plffs. require the premises bona fide -(a) for their own use & occupation;(b) for building & re-building? These issues have been accepted by Mr. S. K. Basu appearing for the plffs.4. Evidence has been adduced on behalf of the plffs. The first witness was Uma Prasanna Mukherji, the son of plff. 1 Sati Prasanna Mukherji; & the next witness was the plff. Debi Prasanna Mukherji, & the third witness was Sachin Bhatta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›