Kolkata Court February 1951 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.
Indian Quarter Master's Union and Ors. Vs. P.R. Dutt and Anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal570
Bose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondents to cancel the endorsement on the Certificates of Seamen regarding their unfitness for services in foreign vessels and to refrain from holding pre-entry medical examinations of Seamen or making endorsements on their certificates as a result thereof and also for a writ in the nature of quo warranto requiring the respondents to exhibit the authority under which they are entitled to hold the office for assumption and to pass the orders and do the acts complained of. Sinha J. issued a Rule Nisi on 22nd August 1950.2. The petitioner No. 1 is the Indian Quartermasters' Union consisting of Quartermasters popularly known as seacunnies and the petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are Seamen. All the petitioners hold certificates of service issued and registered at the Port of Calcutta under the provisions of the Indian Merchant Shipping Act (Act XXI [21] of 1923)...
Maharathi Prosad and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal122
ORDER1. The petitioners were convicted under Section 4 of the Bengal Criminal Law (Industrial Area) Amendment Act of 1942 (Bengal Act IV of 1942) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month. The prosecution case was that at about 7 O'clock in the morning on the 7th of January, 1948, when Lorry No. B.G.J. 841 was found being driven from Ichapore side it was stopped by the Police near the Barrack-pore railway gate and it was found that the petitioner Maharathi Prosad was driving the lorry while Ful Mahammad and another person, not before us, one Altaf Hossain, were also on the lorry. In the lorry there were 30 bundles of white and brown paper and a number of paper board. The prosecution case was that there is reason to believe that this paper and paperboard were either stolen or fraudulently obtained and these two persons ware in possession thereof and have not been able to account for this possession.2. On behalf of Ful Mahammad it was argued before us that there is nothing to ...
Haripada Singha Vs. Sailesh Chandra Mitra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal141,55CWN492
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. Premises No. 4/D Mohanlal Street belongs to defendant No.1. He had let out the entire premises to defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 had obtained a decree in ejeet-ment against defendant No. 2 some time in 1848. When execution of the decree was started objections were taken by certain persons claiming to be sub-tenants under defendant No. 2. Subsequently in 1949 different suits were filed by the different sets of such sub-tenants for declaration that in spite of the decree in ejectment obtained by defendant No. 1 against defendant No. 2, the plaintiffs were not liable to be ejected. The present appellant had filed one of those suits. We are concerned here only with regard to the claim of the present plaintiff as the matters arising out of the other suits are not before me in connection with the present appeal. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal may be shortly stated. Defendant No. 2 s...
Sripati Duley and ors. Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal10
ORDER1. This Rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Bankura to show cause why the order passed by a Magistrate committing these petitioners to the Court of Session for trial for offences under Sections 147 and 436, Penal Code, should not be quashed. 2. It appears that information was lodged at the Thana on 20-8-1949, by Rashik Dome alleging that offences under Sections 143 and 436, Penal Code had been committed by a number of persons. The police after an enquiry sent up charge sheet only under Sections 147, Penal Code, against all these petitioners. After examination of 6 of the prosecution witnesses the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the evidence disclosed a case under Sections 436, Penal Code, and apparently he expressed his decision to enquire into the matter under the provisions of chap, XVIII Criminal P. C. There was a prayer on behalf of the de-fence that as the charge sheet had been submitted under Sections 147, Penal Code, they were not prepared for cross...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›