Kolkata Court December 1951 Judgments
Aswini Kumar Ghose and anr. Vs. Arabindo Bose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal178
Chakravartti, J.1. This Rule under Article 226 of the Constitution India was issued at the instance of two petitioners, one of whom may, for all practical purposes, be left out off account. The first petitioner is one Mr. Aswini Kumar Ghose who, besides being an Advocate of this Court entitled to practise both on the Original and the Appellate Side, is also an Advocate of the Supreme Court. The second petitioner is one Jnanendra Nath Chatterjee who is the defendant in a suit pending on the Original Side of this Court and on whose behalf the first petitioner made an attempt to file a 'warrant of power and appearance'. It is alleged that the said warrant was at first received by an Assistant in the Suit Registry Department, but was subsequently returned by the first respondent, who is the Suit Registrar in the Order Department of the Original Side, with the endorsement that it 'must be filed by an Attorney of this Court under High Court Rules and Orders, Original Side and not by an Advoc...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotirmoy Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. Chief Secretary to the Government ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal562,56CWN246
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. We issued this Rule on the Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal and the Superintendent; of the Berhampore Central Jail to show cause why the order directing withdrawal of certain, privileges from a particular detenu, confined at the Berhampore Central Jail, should not be set aside. The application for redress was-made to this Court by some of his co-detenus. At the hearing of the Rule it transpired that as the period, for which the order of withdrawal was effective, had expired, the privileges had been restored to the detenu concerned. By-lapse of time, therefore, the Rule had become, infructuous and, on that ground, it is liable to be discharged.2. During the hearing, however, one matter ergaged our particular attention. The application from Jail, upon which this Rule was issued, appeared to have been received by the Jail Superintendent on 31st of August 1951; According to usual practice the application was sent to the Secretariat at Calcutta on the 3r...
Tag this Judgment!Tarafatullah Mandal and ors. Vs. S.N. Maitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal919
Chakravartti, J.1. This is a Rule on five persons requiring them to show cause why they should not be proceeded against for contempt for having disregarded and disobeyed certain interim orders made by Bose J. while granting a Rule nisi on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Of the five persons, the first is Sri S, N. Maitra, Collector of 24 Parganas; the second is the State of West Bengal, represented by Sri S. Banerjee; the third is Sri S. N. Roy, Belief Officer of Basirhat; the fourth is Sri Prafulla Chandra Dob Boy, Superintendent, Refugee Camp, Basirhat; and the fifth is Sri Atul Krishna Gain, Kanungo at Basirhat.2. The petitioners are three in number and claim to be owners of certain lands in village Gokulpore in the District of 24 Parganas. It appears that on 20-8-1951, a petition was moved on their behalf and on behalf of certain other persons for various writs against the first opposite party and the State of West Bengal on the allegation that they we...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Prosad Vs. Jagadish Pada
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal149
G.N. Das, J. 1. This is an application in revision. The question in controversy between the parties is what is the nature of the relationship between the parties by virtue of an agreement which was entered into by them. The appeal court has held that there was letting within the meaning of the Rent Control Act. Dr. Sen Gupta appearing for the petitioner contends that on a true construction of the terms of the agreement the opposite party cannot be regarded as a lessee and the provisions of the Rent Control Act for fixing the rent would not be attracted. It would appear from the terms of the lease that the first party named therein who had been carrying on a business in cinema shows entered into an agreement with the second party who is the opposite party in this revision case, for the carrying on of the cinema business. According to Dr. Sen Gupta the arrangement merely provided for the further carrying on of the cinema business on a premium of Rs. 3000/-.2. The contention of the opposi...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Chunder and Co., Ltd. Vs. Ram Asis Ram Nonia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal336,(1953)IILLJ483Cal
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation granting the dependents of the deceased a sum of Rs. 1500/- as compensation with certain costs.2. The case for the respondent was that the deceased workman was in the employment of the appellants as an electric mistry and that whilst he was following his employment on 1-10-1948, he was electrocuted and died as a result thereof. The respondent was the father of the deceased workman and a dependent.3. The only point in the case was whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. There can be no doubt I think that the man was electrocuted and killed whilst in the factory. But it is suggested that he was there for his own purposes and not for the purposes of his employers. The case for the applicant was that the deceased workman with others was working overtime and that he was carrying an electric light the plug of which had been fitted into a socket in the manager's room...
Tag this Judgment!Ramhari Mandal Vs. Nilmoni Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal184,56CWN325
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by the owner of certain agricultural lands-for setting aside the decision of the Conciliation Board and of the Appellate Officer under the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950. The application is made under Article 227 of the Constitution. A rule was obtained by the petitioner against the respondent Bargadar or Bhagchasi to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside.2. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised four important issues in this application. His first contention is that the West Bengal Bargadars Act (Act II (2) of 1950) is ultra vires the Constitution. His second contention is that in any event the procedure prescribed by the Bargadars Act is ultra vires the Constitution. His third contention is that as the petitioner terminated the cultivation of the lands by the-Bargadar and rightly or wrongly got into possession, the Board had no jurisdiction to restore the Bhagchasi to possession of lan...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Lajuklata Vs. Nrishingha Prosad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal669
Chakravartti, J.1. The opposite party to this Rule Nrishingha Prosad Roy stands charged with contempt of this Court.2. He was the petitioner in Rule No. 1247 of 1951 which he took out against an order for possession made against him and which was disposed of on the 26th July, 1951. We found no reason to interfere with the order of the Small Cause Court Judge, but as an earnest prayer was made to us to allow the petitioner to remain on the premises till some further time in order that he might arrange for some suitable accommodation we acceded to his prayer and gave him time till the 31st of October 1951 on his giving an undertaking to us that he would vacate the premises with effect from the 1st of November. It will be seen that more than three months' time was given to the opposite party. He was present in Court and gave the undertaking not only personally but also through his advocate Mr. Shyarna Charan Mitter who was then representing him.3. The present Rule which directs the opposi...
Tag this Judgment!Makbul Ahmad Mallik Vs. Abdul Rahman Akhand and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal494
ORDERChunder, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of a person on whose complaint the sessions case was started. The case was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Extra Court of 24-Parganas, leading to a majority verdict of not guilty by the Jury, accepted by the learned Judge, and ended in an acquittal of all the accused opposite parties. The Rule was issued by my learned brother P. N. Mookerjee, J. against this acquittal though the local Government has not filed any appeal.2. As during the argument it appears that there is a good deal of confusion as regards the scope of a motion against an acquittal in a criminal case by the Court of Sessions, which might have perhaps resulted in further harassment of accused persons having to appear in this Court to defend themselves after they had defended themselves and spent money in the Magistrate's Court and the Sessions Court, I think it desirable that a few things must be printed out which are well established by uniform ...
Tag this Judgment!Nazir HussaIn Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal79
Harries, C.J. 1. This is an application to quash, certain proceedings now pending before a Presidency Magistrate.2. The petitioner is one Nazir Hussain, a Mahomedan by birth. According to the prosecution he is a Pakistani national and was given a permit to visit India for one year. The permit it is said expired on 21-2-1951 and he was found living in Calcutta in April of this year. Overstaying this permit is claimed to be an offence under Section 5 Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, Act XXIII of 1949.3. The whole prosecution is based upon the failure to return to Pakistan at the conclusion of the period permitted by this permit. The case for the defence apparently is that Nazir Hussain is an Indian national and required no permit at all to (visit India and never asked for this permit which is tile basis of tins prosecution.4. In these proceedings I am not concerned with whether Nazir Hussain is an Indian or a Pakistani National and I express no opinion whatsoever upon the question. Ho...
Tag this Judgment!Amalesh Chandra and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal481
Harries, C.J.1. The appellants Sunil Chandra Roy and Satyendra Chandra Roy were convicted of offences which arose out of an incident which resulted in the death of Col. S. C. Mitra. These two appellants are brothers and they were charged alongwith a third brother Amalesh Chandra Roy who was acquitted.2. Sunil Chandra Roy was charged with the murder of Col. S. C. Mitra and was further charged with causing simple hurt to Mrs. Sati Mitra. The appellant Satyendra Chandra Roy was charged jointly with his brother Amalesh Chandra Roy with causing simple hurt to Nirmal Kumar Mitra and all three were further charged with criminal trespass.3. As I have stated Amalesh Chandra Roy was acquitted on both the charges made against him. Sunil Chandra Roy was acquitted of murder and of causing hurt to Mrs. Sati Mitra but was found guilty of causing grievous hurt under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. He was further found guilty of criminal trespass.4. Satyendra Chandra Roy was found guilty of causi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »