Kolkata Court July 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.
A.E. Platts Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal108,56CWN706
ORDERK.C. Chunder, J. 1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the Manager of the Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co. Ltd. against a conviction and sentence under Regulation 5 of the Indian Dock Labourers Regulation, 1948, for beach of Regulation 55 read with Regulation 44. The learned Magistrate found that the Company's Cargo Boat No. 2 was placed alongside Section S. Rebeverett on 13-6-51 when the athwart iron beam of the hatch of the boat got displaced as the sling of gunny bales heaved up by the ship's derrick struck the beam. Two workers of the Co. working in the hatch were injured as a consequence. It is alleged that the beam of the hatch of the boat was not adequately secured.2. Mr. Talukdar has taken us through the evidence on the point whether the boat was alongside the ship and whether the beam in the hatch was adequately secured. In view of the order I am going to pass, it is undesirable that I should express any opinion on the facts. Mr. Talukdar has contended that the word...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Rab Nawaz Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Cal838,56CWN708
Lahiri, J.1. This appeal is by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Government of West Bengal, and is directed against an order of acquittal passed by Mr. J. K. Ghosh, Magistrate, 1st Class, Asansol, dated 25-4-1951.2. Shortly stated the prosecution case is that the respondent Rab Nawaz Khan came to India from Western Pakistan on the strength of a temporary permit (ex. 1) which was valid for a period of three months from 3-4-1949, up to 3-7-1949 granted by the High Commissioner for India at Karachi and that he stayed in India after the expiry of that period; that the respondent was arrested by the Asansol Police on 12 7-1949, and could not show any valid permit. The respondent was accordingly placed on his trial on a charge under Section 5, Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act (Act XXIII of 1949) for violation of Rule 19 of the rules framed under Section 4 of that Act. That rule provides that no person holding a temporary permit shall stay in India after the date of expi...
Dhananjoy Mallick Vs. Annada Charan Maity and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal715,57CWN571
K.C. Das Gupta, J. 1. Two questions of law are raised in this application against an order allowing an application for pre-emption, which was filed under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 26F, Bengal Tenancy Act. The first is whether the petitioner is estopped from saying that the tenancy in question was an occupancy raiyati holding. The second is whether the application was barred by limitation. 2. The tenancy in question appears to have belonged to a number of co-sharers including Krishna Prosad Maity whose son Annada Charan Maity has filed the present application under Section 23 F (1) and others. Krishna Prosad sold a portion of his interest to one Bhagabati Charan and in the Kobala described the tenancy as a raiyati mokarari holding. That sale took place on 14-8-1919. On 2-11-1946, Bhagabati Charan sold this very interest to Dhananjoy Mullick. One Haradhan Ghorai filed an application under Section 26 F (1) on 21-4-1949. The present application by Annada Maity has been f...
PulIn Behari Dinda and anr. Vs. Byomkesh Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal40,56CWN872
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. In this case two persons who along with one Pulin Behari Dinda had been declared elected as municipal commissioner in the municipal election in ward no. II in Midnapore, have asked for the Court's interference under Article 227 of the Constitution with the order passed on 26-9-1951 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Midnapore, in an application under Sections 38, Bengal Municipal Act for setting aside the election. The validity of the election was challenged on a large number of grounds. The learned Subordinate Judge held that there was no substance in most of the objections. He found however that two voters had been prevented from casting their' votes because the polling booth was not opened at the proper time, that two votes were cast in the names of two dead persons that the vote cast in the name of the Manager, Burma Shell Co., was cast by somebody else than the manager and also that the vote cast in this constituency by one Anil Kumar Kundu was invalid as he...
Panchanan Das Adhikary Vs. Jagannath Prasad Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal201
ORDERSen, J.1. This is a revisional application under the provisions of Article 227, Constitutionof India, from an order of the District Judge of the 24 Parganas dismissing summarily an appeal under Section 27(1), Calcutta Thika Tenancy Article 1949, from an order of the Controller, Sealdah.la. The petitioner landlord instituted Title Suit No. 816 of 1948 in the first court of the Munsif of Sealdah for ejectment of the tenant opposite party from a parcel of bastu land measuring 4 cottas held at the monthly rent of Rs. 12/-. The hearing of the suit was stayed when the Thika Tenancy Ordinance came into force on 26-10-48. After the Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, had been passed the suit was transferred to the file of the Controller on 4-4-50 under the provisions of Section 29 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act of 1949.On 15-9-50 the petitioner filed an application before the Controller for re-transferring the suit to the file of the Munsif on the ground that the, tenancy was not a thika tenancy ...
Sew Sankar Lal Vs. Bejoy Krishna and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal218,57CWN65
K.C. Das Gupta, J. 1. The subject matter of the present litigation is one godown on the ground floor in premises No. 18/1 Nimtola Ghat Street, Calcutta. The godown was admittedly held by Kanai Lal Marwari under the owners Brojen Dutt and Bejoy Krishna Dutt. On 29th March 1948, they filed an application for possession of the godown. The application was allowed and possession was directed to be delivered on 25th May 1949. The date of delivery of possession was extended from time to time till at last on 20th June 1951, the present petitioner Sew Sankar Lal filed an application purporting to be one under Order 21 Rules 98 and 99, Civil P. C. read with Section 13(2), West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, alleging that he had been a subtenant in respect of the godown since the latter part of 1947 that he had a right to remain (in?) possession under the provisions of Section 13(2), West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, that the landlord's application for police help should be tr...
Dr. Satish Chandra Bhattacharjee and anr. Vs. R.N. Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal520,57CWN122
ORDERBose, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writdirecting respondents 1 and 2 to forbear from giving effect to certain orders dated 1st April,10th April and 16th April 1952 and to act and proceed according to law in the matter of holding certain municipal elections. 2. The case of the petitioners is that on 16-12-1951 the electoral rolls for the fourth General Elections of the 5 wards of the Garden Reach Municipality were finally published by respondent 2 who is the Chairman of the said Municipality. As the petitioners did not pay up the rates and taxes of the Municipality and were in arrears in respect thereof, their names did not find place in the said finally published, electoral rolls. The fourth General Election was filed on 16-3-1952. The last date for filing nomination papers of Wards Nos. 1 and 4 was fixed on 9-2-1952. The scrutiny was held on 18-2-1952 and the nomination papers of 11 candidates in respect of Ward No. 1 which...
Mulchand Khatar Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal492,56CWN789
Guha J. 1. In the present case, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 7(1), Essential Supplies Act, Act 24 of 1946 and sentenced to detention till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default, to rigorous imprisonment for four months. An order has also been passed for forfeiture of a part of the seized cloths.2. Various points have been urged before us and there has been considerable argument before us in regard to the validity of certain orders and Notifications. Before I go into that question our conclusions regarding the facts of this case may be stated. Briefly, the prosecution case was that the petitioner contravened Clause 13 of the W. B. Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1948, read with Notification No. DT/TX/52/50 dated 13-10-1950, which may be compendiously described as Notification 'C' for failure to produce certain papers and documents in support of the acquisition of cloths as per Ext. I and also contravened Clause 14, W. B. Cotton Cloth an...
Satyaprasad Ghosal Vs. Subodh Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal672
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. These are objections to the passing of the accounts of the Official Receiver in this partnership suit and relate to three periods of time. The first period of time is the second half of 1949, the second period of time is the first half of 1950 and the third period is the second half of 1950. In other words these objections cover a period of one year and a half from the middle of 1949 till the end of 1950.2. The objections are made on three grounds. In the first instance it is said that the Official Receiver has charged commission on gross collections made by the Manager who is the defendant in this suit. Secondly the Official Receiver has debited the account with the salary of (i) a durwan at Rs 50/- per month and (ii) an estate clerk at Rs. 60/- per month. Thirdly it is said that the accounts as filed by the Official Receiver do not show what amount has been received by him in gross on which he has been charging the commission. These are the only three objecti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›