Kolkata Court March 1952 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.
Nur Mohammad Vs. Seraj and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal216,56CWN775
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. Three brothers Kalu, Chand and Tufani were the admitted original owners in equal shares of an occupancy raiyati holding comprising 10 decimals roughly six cottahs of land of c. s. plot No. 1109 of mouza Jagadishpur.2. According to the plaintiffs, Kalu orally sold his share to Tufani some twenty years back so that Tufani became owner of two-thirds share of the above 10 decimals -- that is, of about four cottahs out of the above area of roughly six cottahs of land. On 16th Chaitra 1352 B.S. Tufani sold his above land roughly four cottahs to defendant 1 Nur Mohammad Shaik for a consideration of Rs. 700/-. Thereupon the plaintiffs who were the heirs of Chand and thus co-sharers of the above holding applied for pre-emption under Section 26 F, Bengal Tenancy Act in respect of defendant 1's said purchase. They duly made the necessary deposit (which I shall hereafter call the pre-emption money) and succeeded in getting an order in their favour. The plaintiffs, however, wer...
Manicklal Mondal and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal341,56CWN551
S.R. Das Gupta, J.1. The petitioners before us are two in number. The petitioner No. 1 has been convicted under Section 353 and Section 332, Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to rigorous imprisonment for three months respectively --both the sentences to run consecutively. The petitioner No. 2 has been convicted under Section 353, Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to rigorous imprisonment for three months. The case was originally tried by a Magistrate, First Class, Uluberia and he found the petitioners guilty of the aforesaid charges and sentenced them asaforesaid. Against the said convictions there was an appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge of Howrah, but the appeal was dismissed except that the sentences on petitioner No. 1 were directed to run concurrently. It is against the said order of the Additional Sessions Judge that the present application in revision has been made before us.2. The case for the prosecution a...
In Re: Dass Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Cal45,[1953]23CompCas213(Cal),57CWN526
ORDERBanerjee, J.1. The question I have to decide arises on a winding up petition which has been presented by the petitioner Surendranath Banerjee claiming to be a creditor of the bank. Mr. R. Chowdhury on behalf of the bank opposes the application and he contends that the petitioner is not a creditor at all and is not entitled to present the petition. The question is important and though the matter has been settled as between the petitioner and the bank, at the request of Mr. Chowdhury I deliver this judgment. But it must be remembered that this judgment is given on the basis of the facts I have found in this case on the evidence before me.2.The petitioner Surendranath Banerjee opened on 3-9-1943, a savings bank account in the Rajbari branch of the pass Bank Ltd. He also opened in the name of his two sons Gajendra and Sailendra two fixed deposit accounts on 7-1-1946 and 1-5-1947 respectively. One of the fixed deposit receipts bears No, 1460 and the other 1458. The receipts were issued...
Calcutta Motor Cycle Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal1
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This suit has by consent of parties and counsel been tried on a preliminary point of jurisdiction.2. Before stating the preliminary point, it will be appropriate to refer to the nature of the suit, the claim made therein, and the admitted facts. In this suit a partnership firm by the name of Calcutta Motor and Cycle Company is suing the Dominion of India now the Union of India for a sum of its. 3,702-8-0 being the loss and damage which it is alleged to have suffered on account of short delivery of 483 pieces of bicycle chains out of a total consignment of 1000 pieces. These chains were despatched by the plaintiff from Byculla outside the jurisdiction of this Court to Howrah-outside the jurisdiction of this Court and which were intended to be carried over the two Railways of the Bengal Nagpur Railway and the East Indian Railway, neither of which runs through any part of the territorial limits of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. These two Railw...
Hemanta Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs. N.N. Sen Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal504,56CWN676
ORDERBose, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect to an order of suspension dated 5-9-1950, and also for cancellation of the order.2. The petitioner was a Sub-postmaster at Mission Row Post Office, Calcutta. On 2-9-1950, the petitioner along with some other clerks were arrested by the police in connection with an offence of using of used-up postage stamps while on duty at the said Post Office. On the same date the petitioner was relieved of his duties under an order of the Superintendent of Post Offices, South Calcutta Division, who is respondent 1 in this application. By a letter dated 5-9-1950, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from the afternoon of 2-9-1950, as he was arrested on charges under Sections 261, 262 and 420, I. P. C., Section 5 (2) of Act 2 of 1947, and for conspiracy under Section 120, I.P.C. This order of suspension as contained in this lette...
Arabinda Dey Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal206,57CWN69
Harries, C.J. 1. The appellant was tried by a learned Sessions Judge and a jury upon a charge of rape. He was found guilty by a majority of 3 to 2. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the verdict of majority, convicted the appellant under Section 376 and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment and also five, stripes.2. The appellant being dissatisfied with the verdict, conviction and sentence, has preferred an appeal to this Court and the appeal is confined to questions of law, namely, whether there were any misdirections in the charge of the learned Judge to the jury. Before discussing the charge it will be convenient shortly to set out the facts which gave rise to the prosecution. The girl said to be raped was of the name of Dulali. She was about seven years of age and went about with her father, Gangasadhan Ghatak, earning their living by begging. It is said that they came to the town of Burdwan about two months previous to the incident which led to this charge. They were...
Nicholas Schinas Vs. Nemazie and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal859
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is not the legendary maritime Saga but is a now Odyssy where a modern Ulysses has not returned home from his wanderings. It is the story of a Greek Sailor left derelict at the Port of Calcutta. He sailed on 27-2-1941, from New York by S. S. Eonin under a Spanish American master, flying the flag of the Republic of Panama with that unlucky number of 13 Greeks in the crew. S. S. Ronin arrived in Calcutta on or about the 2nd or 3-6-1941. Immediately on his arrival in Calcutta he had to be admitted to the Presidency General Hospital suffering from bronchitis and asthma and there underwent treatment for 22 days. Coming out from that hospital he was again in the Howrah General Hospital for another three weeks.2. He signed this plaint on 10-12-1942, more than one year and a half after his arrival in Calcutta. He presented the plaint on 7-1-1943. He sues as a pauper one Nemazie, owner of S. S. Ronin for the sum of ES. 13004 as his salary for 1 year 5 months and 21 days ...
Gour Gopal Mukherjee Vs. Chief Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal81,56CWN427
G.N. Das, J.1. This case was heard by a Bench of this Court, Sarkar and P.N. Mookerjee JJ.2. The learned Judges having differed in their decisions, the matter was directed by the learned Chief Justice to be placed before me as the third Judge, to hear the case.3. On the prayer of the learned Counsel for the parties, the case was adjourned from time to time and finally came up before me for hearing on the 29th February 1952. Though the learned Judges differed on one point only, the whole case was open for discussion.4. Mr. J. P. Mitter, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however urged only the following points and did not press the other points which were agitated before the Division Bench. The grounds pressed were : (1) That the events in the remote past are not relevant grounds for detention in the facts of this case; (2) That the detention was in fact mala fide; and (3) That Section 5 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950) as amended by Act IV of 1951 does not justif...
Bimala Kanta Ghosh Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal837
Harries, C.J.1. This is an application to quash certain proceedings now pending against the petitioner.2. The petitioner who is an Indian citizen went to Pakistan. He was given a permit by the High Commissioner at Karachi to return to Calcutta. The permit was issued upon the following conditions:1. The permit-holder must proceed direct to his address given in the permit where the permit should be surrendered to the nearest police station within seven days of his arrival.2. He must proceed via Air to Delhi Check Post.3. It is alleged that the petitioner did not proceed direct to Calcutta and did not surrender his permit within seven days of his arrival. He was accordingly prosecuted under section 5 of the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act (Act (XXIII [23] of 1949). Sub-section (1) of section 5 of that Act roads:'Whoever enters India in contravention of the provisions of section 3, or having entered India contravenes the provisions of any rule made under section4, or commits a breach of...
Bibhuti Bhusan Ghosh Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal581
ORDERBose, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari and a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for quashing of an order of dismissal passed against the petitioner in certain departmental proceedings taken against the petitioner for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as an Engineer employed under the Damodar Valley Corporation and for prohibiting the opposite parties from giving effect to the said order of dismissal. 2. The petitioner who is a Bachelor of Science in Engineering of the University of Glasgow, was appointed as an Assistant Civil Engineer by the respondent Corporation for a term, of three years commencing from 22-8-1950 under an Agreement of Service entered into on 9-12-1950 on terms and conditions contained in the said Agreement. It is a term, of the said Agreement that the service of the petitioner might be terminated by the Corporation without previous notice if the Corporation was satisfied...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »