Kolkata Court February 1953 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.
Raj Bahadur Vs. Legal Remembrancer to the Government of West Bengal an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal522,57CWN507
Mitter, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, directing the production of one Panna Bai, now in the custody of the Lady Superintendent of the Government Rescue Home.2. The petitioner claims to be known to the said Panna Bai. His case is that as by reason of her incarceration, the girl is unable to move this Court, he is entitled to ask for appropriate orders for her release.3. The first point which falls to be determined is whether or not the petitioner is competent to make this application. There can toe no doubt that the girl concerned is a minor. As to her age, the evidence of Dr. Kabir Hossain appears to be conclusive. The giri being a minor, it seems to us that ordinarily the only person competent to move the Court in habeas corpus is one who is entitled either to the custody of the child or to represent her legally. Where, however, such a person is shown to be incapable of making the application, or where no ...
Abanti Pramanik and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal626,57CWN453
J.P. Mitter, J.1. This is a petition for setting aside an order of commitment made by Sri A. Bagchi, Magistrate, First Class, Contai.2. It appears that on evidence on behalf of the prosecution being concluded, the learned Magistrate framed a charge under Sections 302/120B, Penal Code, and then, instead of complying with the provisions of Sections 211 and 212, Criminal P. C., proceeded to make an order of commitment, as provided under the first part of Section 213, Criminal P. C. After the order of commitment, the learned Magistrate called upon the accused to submit a list of witnesses for the defence.3. The procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate was, in our view, in disregard of the provisions laid down in the Code. See --'Sripati Duley v. State', : AIR1953Cal10 (A). Mr. N. K. Basu appearing for the State has drawn our attention to a form of charge in Schedule V to the Code of Criminal Procedure and has argued that the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate made no differenc...
Lakshmi NaraIn Gupta Vs. A.N. Puri and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal335
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 326 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ for quashingof certain departmental proceeding taken against the petitioner and the report dated 25-10-1951 andfindings made therein and also for quashing of a notice to show cause dated 10-4-1952 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action of the nature mentioned therein should not be taken against him.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a Bachelor of Science of the Calcutta University and had special training in metallurgy and fuel technology and in agricultural engineering. He was appointed as Preventive Officer in the Customs Department of the Government of India in 1941. In 1944 he was entrusted with the work of an Examining Officer. In 1946 he appeared at a departmental examination and stood first in order of merit. In March 1946 he was posted as Postal Export Appraiser. In 1949 he passed the Appraiser's departmental examination and continued to act s...
Shib Chandra Ghosh Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal475
Mitter, J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Presidency Magistrate convicting the petitioner of an offence under Section 7(2), Essential Supplies Act, 1946, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for three months. This conviction followed an order of this Court made in disposing of a Rule against a previous order of conviction. This Court then directed that the learned trial Court should take additional evidence on a specific matter, viz., as to whether or not the commodity concerned was flour. This Court also directed that upon such evidence, the Magistrate should decide if the petitioner was guilty or not. Pursuant to that order, the learned Magistrate took additional evidence and gave the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who gave that evidence. The accused was also examined under Section 342, Criminal P. C., after such evidence had been taken.2. It does not appear from the record that the accused was then formally called upon to ent...
Sarat Chandra Mondal and ors. Vs. Panchanan Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal471,58CWN271
Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the objectors against a decision of Mr. Rule N. Roy, learned Subordinate Judge, 6th Court, 24-Farganas, granting Letters of Administration to the es-tate of Giridhar Mondal with a copy of the Will dated 18-2-1920, annexed.2. The Will which is in question in this appeal was executed by Giridhar Mondal on 18-2-1920, and was registered on 10-3-1920. The terms of the Will will be set out hereafter. In order to appreciate the contentions which have been urged in this appeal it is necessary to set out the genealogical tree. KALACHAND _________________________________________|_______________________________ | | | | | | Harichanran Girdhar (restator) Natabar Netaji Meganath Sastibaz | = Bhangamani | ____|________ | | | | Jogendra | | | Debendra | Annamdamani (daughter) Bangamali Atul | |________________________________ _________|____________________ | | | | | Nabadwip Ganesh Kartik _________________________________|_______________________________________________...
Taherbhoy Feedaally Vs. I. Ibraham
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal507
ORDERK.C. Chunder, J. 1. This Rule was issued at the instance of a landlord against whom the Chief Presidency Magistrate decided to make a complaint Under Section 188, Penal Code, for disobeying an order under Section 144, Criminal P. C. The defence of the petitioner before him in the proceeding under Section 144, Criminal P. C. was that the petitioner himself did not violate any order of the Magistrate. The Chief Presidency Magistrate passed a very curious order. He said that the question whether the petitioner's plea that he did nothing whatever to disobey the order might be decided in the trial of the complaint which he had decided to make. He cannot decide to make any complaint till he actually finds that any order of his has been disobeyed by the per-: son. It is only after someone disobeys an order lawfully pronounced and duly served on him that any question of an offence under Section 188, Penal Code, can arise. The order of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, to say the le...
Darpa Hari Pakhira and ors. Vs. Samarendra Nath Sen and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal632,57CWN337
ORDER1. This is a Rule under Article 227 of the Constitution of India obtained by the bargadars against an order of the appellate officer, Hooghly, affirming a decision of the Bhagchas Conciliation Board under Section 7, West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950.2. The opposite parties initiated a proceeding under Section 7, Bargadars Act, for delivery of the produce and for termination of cultivation of the lands by the Bargadars. The case of the opposite parties was that the disputed land belonged to one Hakim Bux Haldar and that the opposite parties obtained title to this land under a deed of exchange executed by the said Hakim Bux Haldar. It was alleged that the petitioners were bargadars under the said Hakim Bux Haldar and they were liable to pay the barga produce to the opposite parties after the execution of the deed of exchange.3. This proceeding was contested by the petitioners bargadars on the ground that there was no relationship of owner & bargadar between them & the opposite parties...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kishorilal Gupta and Bros.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal642
ORDERBachawat, J. 1. This is an application asking for an order setting aside an award for a declaration that the arbitration agreements under which the award was made have ceased to exist and for an adjudication that the award is a nullity and is void and without any effect. 2. There were three contracts between the contractor firm Kishorilal Gupta and Bros. and Governor-General of India-in-Council through the Director-General of Industries and Supplies. Each of these contracts contains an arbitration clause. The 'material part of the arbitration clause is as follows: 'In the event of any question or dispute arising under these conditions or any special conditions of contract or in connection with this contract (except as to any matters the decision of which is specially provided for by these conditions the same shall be referred to the award of an arbitrator to be nominated by the purchaser and an arbitrator to be nominated by the contractor..........' 3. Under each of these contract...
Badri Prasad Missir and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal394,57CWN350
Sen, J. 1. This revisional application is directed against the order committing the petitioners Badri Prasad Missir and Lakshmi Narayan Dey to sessions in respect of the offence under Section 7(2) proviso of the Essential Supplies Act 1946 and against the order of the Sessions Judge directing that the trial of the case be held with the aid of assessors. The prosecution case briefly is that on 4-10-51 the petitioners were taking 1511/2 mds. of rice by a lorry bearing No. C.H. 1746 when the Police Patrol Party at Adisaptagram, P.S. Magra, in the district of Hooghly stopped the lorry and found that it contained rice and (hey arrested the petitioners who were found in the lorry. They were charged under Section 7(2) of the Essential Supplies Act for possessing rice much in excess of the maximum, quantity which could be lawfully possessed by any person. The punishment prescribed for the offence by the section as amended is imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and a fine not less than 20 ...
Turu Majhi and ors., (2nd Party) Vs. the State (Bimal Mukherjee, 1st P ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal397,57CWN311
Sen, J. 1. This provisional application is directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vishnupur, drawing up proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.O. in respect of certain lands of Mouza Kanalpur, Police Station Sonamukhi; measuring about 62.80 acres. It appears from the reports of the Circle Officer, South, on the basis of which the proceedings were started, that the petitioners Turu Majni and others, who are Sonthals and men of the second party, obtained settlement of the lands in 1927, but after cultivating the lands for some years, they abandoned the lands and left the locality about 15 years ago, but about June 1951, they returned to the locality and took possession of some of the disputed lauds and cultivated some of them and erected huts in others. On 14-6-1951, the opposite party started proceedings under Section 144. Criminal P.C. and an order was issued under that section restraining the parties from entering the lands. But that order was dissolved on 16-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »