Kolkata Court September 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.
Haripada Dutta Vs. Ananta Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal526,56CWN124
Chakravartti, J.1. This Rule raises a fundamental question under the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950. It was contended that a Conciliation, Board established under the Act or an Appellate Officer appointed under it, was not a 'tribunal' within the meaning of Article 227 of the Constitution and therefore this Court had no jurisdiction under the Article to interfere with a decision of either of those authorities. The Rule was issued under Article 227 and is directed against certain orders passed under the Bargadars Act.2. If We could accept the contention as correct, it would obviously be unnecessary to proceed further and refer at all to the facts of the case. But as, in our opinion, the contention is not sound, it is necessary to state the facts.3. The opposite party is an inhabitant of village Sudhangsupur in the District of 24 Parganas and the petitioner is a Nayeb in the employment of the Sir Daniel Hamilton Estate which owns an extensive area of 'khas' lands in the locality. On the...
Shri Mahadeo Jew and anr. Vs. Balkrishna Vyas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal763
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is a suit for setting aside a consent decree in Suit No. 4156 of 1948, for a declaration that the second plaintiff Ratan Bala was and is still a trustee of the estate of Ranubala Dassi, and if necessary for a decree for administration of the trust estate and for a scheme. The plaintiffs are the Deity Sri Sri Mahadev Jew and Ratan Bala Dassi. Originally there were three defendants, defendant 1 was Dr. Benode Bahari Sen who was appointed the Managing Trustee under the said consent decree but who has since retired during the pendency of this suit. After the necessary amendment there are now two defendants, the first one being Bal Krishna Vyas and defendant 2 is Pran Ballav Saha. The amendment, was made under order of Court dated 15-3-1951.2. The facts of the case are briefly these. One Banubala Dassi a woman of the town died on 22-6-1946 after leaving a Will of the same date in which she appointed the two present defendants as trustees of the trust created by the...
Parbati Debi Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal831
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The appellant Parbati Debi was convicted at the criminal sessions of this Court under Section 120B read with Section 366, Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years.2. The case for the prosecution is that Kishori a minor girl between 13 and 14 years of age lived with her parents Bhanulal.and Earn Dassi at 42 Brojodulal Street. This premises belonged to Harnam who lived with Parbati on the top floor. It is not material for us to consider which of the two stories viz, whether Parbati Avas the married wife or the mistress of Harnam has been made oat. It is alleged that on 6-4-1950, Parbati took out Kishori in a ricksaw to the Howrah Station. Parbati asked Kishori to board a train and when it was about to start the former got down on the plea of purchasing betal leaves. Shewnath who was also living at 42, Brojodulal Street and on the 3rd floor thereof was in the compartment when the train steamed off without Parbati in the train. Kishori and ...
Parbati Devi Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal835; 1952 Cri LJ 1672
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. After we had heard Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1950, Parvati Devi v. The State, and came to the conclusion that the evidence on the record was not sufficient to sub stantiate a charge as against Parvati Debi under Section 120B read with Section 366, Penal Code, it led us to consider the case of Shew Nath Shaw, the alleged conspirator with Parvati Devi. As Shew Nath had not appealed, we thought it propgr to issue a Rule suo motu on the State to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on Shew Nath should not be set aside or such further or other order or orders made as to this Court might seem fit and proper. 2. The case as made before the Criminal Sessions was that there had been criminal conspiracy between Shew Nath and Parvati. There was no allegation, far less any evidence of any conspiracy between either of these persons with any other or more persons. We have already delivered our judgment in Parvati Devi v. The State, Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1950 (ca...
Nazir HussaIn Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal853
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of Bose J. dated 16-8-1951 dismissing an application for writs in the nature of mandamus. The appellant is at the moment being prosecuted in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta for an offence of staying in India longer than a permit which he had been granted permitted him so to stay.2. The defence is that the petitioner is a subject of the Indian Republic and that he is entitled to remain in British India. Further it is said that the statute and rules under which he is being prosecuted can have no application to him whatsoever and further that they are ultra vires the Constitution of India.3. The petitioner therefore moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ or order in the nature of a mandamus calling upon the State of West Bengal not to proceed with this prosecution. The matter came before Bose J. who dismissed the petition holding that there was no force whatsoever in it. From th...
Nrisingh Prosad Paul Vs. Steel Products Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal15
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. I have no hesitation in dismissing,this application for amendment of the writtenstatement. 2. In this application the defendant asks for amendment of its written statement after about, five years. The suit was filed in 1946 and so was the written statement. I am satisfied that this application is not bona fide and the unusual delay is not explained by the affidavits.3. An attempt to explain the long period of five years is made in paras. 3 and 4 of the petition of the defendant company. The substance of that explanation is that some of the officers of the defendant company were alleged to have committed certain offences under the Defence of India Act and the Iron and Steel Control Order and in connection with the investigation of the case all books, papers and documents including the files relating to the disputes in the suit were taken over by the police. But even then these cases ended in the acquittal of the officers in July1950. For the period from July 195...
Birendra Nath Banerjee and ors. Vs. Shibaram Aditya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal473
Lahiri, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the reversionary heirs of their maternal grandfather, Surendra Nath Mookerjee (deceased) and that their mother Avista Karini Debi (Defendant No. 8) had' only the limited interest of a Hindu daughter in the properties left by Surendra Nath Mookerjee arid described in Schedule Ka of the plaint and as such the auction-sale held at the instance ol defendant No. 1 against defendant No. 8 in respect of one of the properties and certain other alienations made by defendant No. 8 in favour of defendants 2 to 7 in respect of other properties are not binding on the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs' case is that their maternal grandfather, Surendra Nath Mookerjee died on the 23rd January 1910 (corresponding to the 12th Magh 1316) leaving a widow named Rakhal Dasi and a daughter named Avistakarini by another wife. Avistakarini had five sons named Ramendra, Khagendra, Birendrat Nirendra and Debendra...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›