Kolkata Court August 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.
Mehar Singh Vs. Chairman, Municipality of Bally and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal131
ORDERSinha, J. 1. This Rule was originally issued against the opposite parties -- The Chairman, Municipality of Bally, the Municipal Commissioners of the Municipality of Bally, the bailiff of the said Municipality and Bhagabati Prasad Ganeriwalla, to show cause why the warrant Nos. 73 and 74 complained of in the petition should not be withdrawn, recalled and cancelled and the boring-machine referred to in the petition returned tothe petitioner forthwith; why a Writ in the natureof Mandamus should not issue on the opposite-party Nos. 1 to 3 directing them to release andreturn the boring machine to the petitioner orwhy such other or further orders should not bemade as to the Court may seem fit and proper.Since the issue of the Rule, the Municipality ofBally has been superseded and instead of the original opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2, has been substituted the Administrator appointed to administerthe affairs of the Municipality. The facts of thiscase are shortly as follows:2. According to t...
Anil Kumar Biswas Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal29
Guha Ray, J. 1. This is an application by Anil Kumar Biswas for a copy of judgment of acquittal passed by this Court in exercise of its criminal revisional jurisdiction. The applicant was convicted under Section 409, I. P. C. and his conviction was upheld on appeal. On revision however that conviction was set aside and the applicant was acquitted. 2. The matter was argued at some length before us on behalf of the applicant by Mr. Ray and on behalf of the State by Mr. Sen. Thres cases of this Court were referred to in the office note. The earliest was -- 'Govt. Appeal No. 4 of 1922 (Cal)' (A) and Greaves and Panton JJ. passed the following order: 'Under the provisions of Section 371 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused isentitled to the copy free of cost.'No reasons whatever were assigned nor was any attempt made to explain what Section 371, Cr. P. C.really meant. 3. The next case was -- 'Misc. Case No. 184 of 1952 (B)', but this, however, does not relate to the grant of a copy...
Narayan Chandra Mukherjee and anr. Vs. District Magistrate, Hooghly an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal32
ORDERSinha, J.1. This is a rule issued upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not issue directing the opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from further proceeding with the erection camplained of in the petition, and/or directing the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 4 2 to hold a fresh election according to law or why such other or further directions and/or orders should not be issued or made as to this Court seems fit and proper. This is an unfortunate instance of a case where the petitioners have made out a case on the merits but have followed an entirely wrong procedure. The facts are shortly as follows :The petitioners are residents of Uttarpara in the district of Hooghly. They are ratepayers of the Uttarpara Municipality, The said Municipality was divided into four wards, each having two elected Commissioners. On or about 4-4-1952, an order was passed by the District Magistrate, Hooghly, fixing the General election of the Commissioners of the Uttarpar...
Hemanta Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs. S.N. Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal340,58CWN1
Chakravartti, C.J.1. The only question debated in this appeal is whether the Central Government has power to suspend one of its employees, belonging to a subordinate service, with effect from a prior date. By the judgment appealed from, Bose, J. answered that question in the affirmative.2. The facts are as follows: The Appallant Hemanta Kumar Bhattacharjee is an employee in the Posts and Telegraphs Department of the Government of India. In September, 1950, he was holding the post of Sub-Post-Master of the Mission Row Post Office, situated at p-13, Mission Bow in the town of Calcutta. On 2-9-1950, he was arrested on, charges under Sections 261, 262, 263and 409, Penal Code and Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, as also a general charge of conspiracy under Section 120B, Penal Code, read, with the provisions under which the specific charges were laid. Following his arrest, he was placed under suspension by a letter, dated 5-9-1950, with effect from the 2nd September preceding when...
Jatindra Nath Biswas Vs. R. Gupta, Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal383,58CWN128
ORDERDeep Narayan Sinha, J.1. This is a Rule issued upon the opposite parties, the Superintendent of Police in the district of Burdwan, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, district Hooghly and the State of West Bengal, to show cause why a Writ in the nature of Certiorari should not be Issued quashing the order of the first respondent, dated 27-6-1952 and the order in appeal therefrom passed by the second respondent dated 5-11-1952 and why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not issue directing the opposite parties to forbear from giving effect to the said orders and/or findings and why such other order or orders should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.2. The facts are shortly as follows:-- The petitioner has been serving in the Bengal Police for the last 15 years. He was last serving as an officiating Sub-Inspector of Police at Kalna in the district of Burdwan, to which he was promoted in 1946 from the rank of an Assistant Inspector of Police.On or about 31-...
Sri Madan Mohon Jew Vs. Sm. Bejoyabati Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal202
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application to set aside a sale in execution. The application is made by the 5th defendant Mono Durlav Das who describes himself as the Managing Shebait of the Estate of Sri Sri Madan Mohan Jew under a Will dated 1st August, 1914 executed by his father Menick Lal Das deceased. It relates to the sale of property No. 29, Blackburn Lane, Calcutta. The sale was held on the 11th March, 1953. Although the Municipal valuation of the property was Rs. 7,760/- as shown in the Exchange Gazette, it was sold for the sum of Rs. 225/- only. My sympathies, therefore, are naturally with the applicant.2. The main difficulty, however, on his way is the bar of limitation. I have already said that the sale was held on the llth March, 1953. This application was made on the 15th May, 1953. The limitation for an application to set aside a sale in execution under the Civil Procedure Code is 30 days from the date of sale under Article 166 of the Limitation Act. This application, t...
State Vs. Abdul Rahaman Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal792
Guha Ray, J.1. Abdul Rahaman Mandal alias Rahim Mandal was put on his trial before an Addl. Judge, 24 Parganas, sitting with, a Special Jury under Section 302, I. P. C., and convicted under that Section on the unanimous verdict of the jury and sentenced to death. The proceedings have been submitted to this Court under Section 374, Cr. P. C., for confirmation of the death sentence and Abdul Rahaman. Mandal has also preferred an appeal so that the entire case is now before us.2. The case for the prosecution briefly is that Abdul Rahaman Mandal used to stay in a south-facing pucca room along with his son. Fate Ali aged about 12, and Arfan Bibi, his daughter, used to stay in another hut in the same compound with her husband Miajaddin, Mondal. On 4-2-1953, in the afternoon Moslem Mondal of Bishnupur who was the husband of a sister of Miajuddin's father visited the house of Abdul Rahaman Mandal, took his meal there at night and slept on a separate bed in the-same room where the accused Abdul...
West Bengal Engineering Co. Etc. Vs. Manindra Land and Building Corpor ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal127,58CWN143
G.N. Das, J.1. These revision cases arise out of ten applications for revision of order made by Sri S. Sen Gupta, dated 25th November 1952. By the said order the applications filed by the petitioner for fixation of standard rent of the premises in respect of which they are tenants were dismissed as not being maintainable in law.2. The petitioner in each of the cases is a sub-tenant under the opposite party Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. in respect of certain rooms in premises No. 138, Canning Street, Calcutta. The Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. took lease of the entire premises under a registered deed dated 22nd March 1949 for a term of fifty one years. The petitioners, who are tenants, as I have already stated, filed these applications for fixation of standard rent The landlord-opposite party also filed applications for fixation of standard rent. All these applications were heard by the Rent Controller and by his order dated 7th March 1950, the Rent Controlle...
Benoy Krishna De and ors. Vs. Ashutosh De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal389,58CWN78
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a judgment and decree of Rama Prasad Mookerjee J. passed in Second Appeal No. 1451 of 1946 which was heard along with Second Appeal No. 1926 of the same year. The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the suitout of which this appeal has arisen lost beforethe trial court, won in part before the court of first appeal, lost again in second appeal and have now preferred a further appeal under the Letters Patent.2. Mr. Sen, who appears for the appellants, has given us an exhaustive history of the antecedent facts which led to the present litigation. Those, however, which lie behind the year 1940 are not strictly material for the purposes of this appeal. Suffice it to say, that there are four holdings which came in course of time to be held and owned both, as regards the landlord interest and the interest of the tenants, by a large number of persons.In the year 1940, two of them namely Benimadhab Choudhury...
Moslema Khatun and ors. Vs. Fanindra Lal Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal558
Lahiri, J. 1. These eleven appeals have been filed by the tenants defendants under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a judgment of Mr. Justice Roxburgh whereby he has dismissed eleven second appeals preferred by them, questioning the correctness of decrees for assessment of rents made by the Courts below.2. The plaintiff, Rai Bahadur Phanindra Lal Sen, purchased a putni taluk named Lot Simdali at an auction sale held under the Putni Regulation on 17-11-1932. This pu*ni taluk is included in Touzi No. 1 of the Burdwan Collectorate, held by the Maharaja of Burdwan. It is undisputed that in 1210 B.S. the Maharaja created a putni in respect of the lands of Mauza Simdali and other properties in favour of one Jagat Narayan Roy; in 1212 B.S. one Bhaktaram Roy executed another Kabuliat in respect of the lands of Mouza Simdali and other mouzas and in 1221 B.S. one Bhafrab Singh executed a third putni Kabuliat in respect of the lands of Mouza Simdali only.In 1235 B.S., the putni was sold un...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »