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.
Ramjiban Gurchait Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal56,57CWN913
ORDERSinha, J.1. This is an application in respect of procurement under the West Bengal Poodgrains (Intensive Procurement) order 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'order'). The facts are as follows. The petitioner owns agricultural lands at Bhyarapur in the district of Howrah. He is a 'producer' as denned by the order. On or about 7-11-1952, a notice in form 'ka' (corresponding to-form 'A') was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon filed a declaration in Form 'kha' (corresponding to form 'B'). On or about 18-1-1953 a notice in form 'C' was served upon the petitioner, directing him to deliver 769 maunds of paddy. It appears that the petitioner filed an appeal against the directive, which appeal has been dismissed. It is stated in the petition that the appeal was dismissed upon a technical point. Nothing is mentioned as to what the technical point was and the petitioner has not taken any steps against it. However, in this application, Mr. Gupta appearing on behalf of th...
Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal151
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of Mr. Justice Bose, dated January 28, 1952, by which the learned Judge declined to issue any writ of mandamus or certiorari with respect to certain Demand Notices issued to the appellant under the provisions of the Sea Customs Act, or to direct the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the said notices or from taking any ac-tion against the appellant under the last clause of section 39 of the Act as threatened. The learned Judge had himself issued a Rule in the first instance on the respondents, the Union of India and the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta, but ultimately he discharged the Rule on six different grounds,2. In view of the very limited character of the argument addressed to us on behalf of the appellant, it will be sufficient to state the facts only in outline. Between January 20 and September 29, 1949 the appellant placed various orders in the United States of America for importing therefrom m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›