Kolkata Court July 1953 Judgments
Samir Kumar Vs. Someswar Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal783
Sinha, J.1. This is a rule, calling upon the respondents, the principal Ashutosh College, the Registrar Calcutta University, and the University of Calcutta, to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not issue directing the said Registrar to withdraw certain directions contained in Circular No. Misc. 13 dated 1-7-1952; and directing the principal Ashutosh College to restore the name of the petitioner in the College Register. The facts are shortly as follows:There is an institution called 'The National Council of Education, Bengal', (hereinafter referred to as the council) having its headquarters at Jadavpur, in the suburbs of Calcutta. The object of this institution appears to be to foster education on patriotic lines with a particular leaning towards vocational education. It appears from the 'outline scheme of studies for national schools', published by the institution (Annexure A to the counter affidavit in C. R. 3175 of 1952), that three courses have been prescribed n...
Tag this Judgment!Dalhousie Traders Ltd. Vs. Mahammad Sadique
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal220,57CWN945
Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against an order made on the 12th November 1952 by a Special Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, dismissing an appeal filed before that Bench by the present appellant on the ground that no appeal lay to that Bench.2. Mr. Mukherjee who has appeared on behalf of the respondent has not raised any preliminary objection on the ground that no second appeal lies to this Court. It is therefore not necessary for us to express any opinion on this question. We are only concerned with the question whether an appeal lay to the Special Bench as prescribed by Section 32(6)(ii) of West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1950 (Act XVII of 1950).3. The suit out of which the appeal arises was filed on the 9th April 1951 after the Rent Control Act of 1950 came into operation. The suit was decreed ex parte and thereupon the respondent decree-holder started proceedings in execution. As was to be expected, the appellant judgmen...
Tag this Judgment!Hall and Anderson, Ltd. Vs. S.K. Neogi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1953
Reported in: (1954)ILLJ629Cal
Sinha, J.1. This is a rule upon the opposite parties to show cause why an order passed by the first respondent (the sixth industrial tribunal), dated 28 January 1953, should not be quashed, and why the said respondent should not be directed to allow Mr. S.M. Basu, chairman of the board of directors of the petitioner company, to appear before him and represent the company.2. The facts are briefly as follows: The petitioner is a public limited company. Some time about June 1952. disputes and differences arose between the petitioner and some of its workers represented by respondent 2. The State of West Bengal referred the disputes for adjudication to the first respondent, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by a notification, dated 5 September 1952. Mr. S.M. Basu, a practising solicitor of this Court, has been a director of the said company since 1948 and is now the chairman of the board of directors. It is stated by the pettioner that the said Mr. S.M. Basu has been at the helm of t...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Jewrajka Vs. Sm. Kamala Devi Fatepuria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal145,58CWN84
G.N. Das, J.REVISION NO. 2293.1. This Rule was obtained by the defendant against an order passed by Sri S. N. Bhattacharjee, learned Judge of the Small Causes, Calcutta.2. By his order the learned Judge maintained the distress warrant which was issued at the instance of the plaintiff opposite party in respect of rent due for a period of seven months. The defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff. An application was made by the plaintiff for the issue of a distress warrant in terms of Section 53 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act in respect of arrears of rent alleged to be due from' the 3rd of May, 1950, to 21st of May, 1951. After the warrant had been executed the defendant filed an application before the learned Judge for lifting the distress warrant. He raised various contentions before the learned Judge which the learned Judge overruled.In this Court Mr. Sen who has appeared in support of the petition has limited bis contention to one point only, namely, that there is no lega...
Tag this Judgment!Mitra Sadani and Co. and ors. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal284,58CWN51
Guha Ray, J. 1. This is a petition for revision of an order, of demolition of the covered portion of a verandah of premises No. 36 Royal Exchange Place, Calcutta, passed on 2-5-1953 by the Municipal Magistrate, under Section 364, Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. 2. The petitioners claim to be tenants in respect of different rooms of the premises, and all claim to be interested in the portion of the verandah of which the demolition has been ordered. Their case is that they are entitled to notices under the proviso (i) to Section 364 (1) and they were not given any notice before the order of demolition was made. 3. On behalf of the Corporation of Calcutta, no counter affidavit was filed, nor is the Corporation in a position to controvert the case of the petitioners that they are tenants interested in the portion of the premises which has been ordered to be demolished. It is also not disputed that the petitioners were not actually served with any notice. 4. The only question then for decisio...
Tag this Judgment!Mitra Sadani and Co. and ors. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ849
Guha Ray, J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of demolition of the covered portion of a verandah of premises No. 36 Royal Exchange Place, Calcutta, passed on 2-5-1953 by the Municipal Magistrate, under Section 364, Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923.2. The petitioners claim to be tenants in respect of different rooms of the premises, and ail claim to be interested in the portion of the verandah of which the demolition has been ordered Their case is that they are entitled to notices under the proviso (i) to Section 364 (1) and they were not given any notice before the order of demolition was made.3. On behalf of the Corporation of Calcutta, no counter affidavit was filed, nor is the Corporation in a position to controvert the case of the petitioners that they are tenants interested in the portion of the premises which has been ordered to be demolished. It is also not disputed that the petitioners were not actually served with any notice.4. The only question then for decision here...
Tag this Judgment!Bholanath Dhar and ors. Vs. Gour Gopal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal777,58CWN11
Sen J. 1.This revisional application is directed against an order of Sri S. L. Banerji, Magistrate first class, Alipore, in a proceeding under Section, 145, Cr. P. C., declaring the first party's right to the possession of the disputed ]and and forbidding disturbance of such possession by the second party. The disputed land is the eastern half of c. s. plot 113 of 'Mouza' Gangarampur, P. S. Behala Measuring .09 acre, on the Cattle Shed Road of South Suburban Municipality. C. Section Plot 113 in its entirety measuring .18 acre belonged to Pramatha Nath, Mukherji, who sold the western half by a 'kabala', on 7-3-20 to Gopal Dhar, father of Bholanath Dhar, second party-petitioner 1, and who sold the eastern half of the plot on the same day to Haripada Maity by another 'kabala'. Haripada Maity is the tenant recorded in the c. s. 'khatian' in respect of the eastern half of the plot, i. e. in respect of the disputed land.The first party Gourgopal Chakravarti purchased the disputed land on 24-...
Tag this Judgment!Sadananda Jash Vs. Shibakali Hazra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal288
ORDERChunder, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of a school-master against an order of the Additional District Magistrate of Burdwan acquitting the' opposite party of an offence under Section 504, Penal Code. Although it is a revision I have been compelled by Mr. Panchanan Chaudhuri with his usual eloquence to hear what was really a full appeal on facts and law against the acquittal. I am of the same opinion as the learned District Magistrate and hold that the accused was rightly acquitted.2. Briefly the facts are that between the complainant's brother and the accused there was a criminal case over a land dispute and In the course of a conversation in connection therewith for arriving at a compromise of the case before the Head Master of the school an occurrence took place. The learned District Magistrate points out that the only reliable witness in the case Is the Head Master who being the head of an educational institution deserves to be fully believed. The Head Master's vers...
Tag this Judgment!Shiva Nandan Sinha and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal60,58CWN18
G.N. Das, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Bose J, dated February 29, 1952 dismissing an application filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The facts as they appear from the records of the case are as follows:3. The appellant was appointed Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and was promoted on 16-8-1937 to the rank of officiating Sub-Inspector of Police by the Superintendent of Police and continued as such till 2-1-1945 when he was made a Probationary Sub-Inspector of Police. The appellant was confirmed as a Sub-Inspector of Police on 2-1-1946. The appellant was, at all material times, the officer in charge of the Baranagar Police Station in the District of 24-Parganas. Under instructions from the Superintendent of Police, 24-Parganas, an inspection was made by the Sub-Divisional Police Inspector, Baranagore on 19-5-1951.The inspection revealed several cases of irregularities, lack of supervision and control, breach of discipline and dereliction of du...
Tag this Judgment!Prabirendra Mohan Vs. Berhampore Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal289,57CWN933
Chakravartti, C.J.1. These are three applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from a common judgment and three decrees passed by this Court, affirming thereby a common judgment and three decrees passed by a learned Subordinate Judge in three suits brought for setting aside the sales of three patnis. The Courts have concurrently decreed the suits and defendant No. 2, the zamindar at whose instance the patni sales were held, wants our leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.2. The plaintiffs. in the suits were the holders of the patnis sold. It was not disputed that the arrears for which the patnis had been brought to sale were in fact due, but the plaintiffs' case was that the sales had been irregular in that requisite notices had not been properly exhibited at the zamindar's kutchery and notices required to be served on the properties themselves had not been served at all. The defendants impleaded in the suits were the Berhampore Bank Limited which was defendant No. 1, the pu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »