Kolkata Court February 1954 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.
Satya Kinkar Dutt and anr. Vs. Kiron Chandra Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal432,58CWN853
P.B. Mukherji, J. 1. This Originating Summons raises some interesting and import-ant questions under the insolvency law and the trust law. It is registered as a suit under the Original side Rules of this Court. 2. It is a vendor-purchaser summons taken out by the intending purchasers Satya Kinkar Dutt and Satya Sankar Dutt under an agreement for sale dated 9-5-1953. Their vendors, namely, Kiron Chandra Sinha, Jotindra Nath Bose & Pasupati Nath Bose, are among the defendants on this application. The two other defendants in this proceeding are the two trustees Kartick Chandra Mallick and Ganesh Chandra Mallick. The vendors under Clause 4 of the agreement for sale are required to make a 'good marketable title'. 3. The facts may be briefly stated to appreciate the points of law that this summons calls for determination. 4. One Rai Bahadur Debendra Nath Mallick, a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law, executed a Deed of Settlement on 2-1-1925 in respect of diverse properties ...
Shri Krishna Sharma Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal591,58CWN659
Guha, J.1. These are two applications praying that orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may bo made and writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus issued in favour of Mahabir Prasad Periwal and his brother Gajanand Periwal now detained in the Darjeeling Jail under two detention orders passed under the Preventive Detention Act. The two cases were heard together and the arguments in both the canes are practically the same. This judgment will govern both the cases.2. Before dealing with the arguments advanced before us it is necessary to set out a few facts. On 20-8-1953, Mahabir Prasad Periwal and his brother Gajanand Periwal were arrested at Kalimpong and thereafter detained in the Darjeeling Jail under an order dated 19-8-1953 under the Preventive Detention Act 4 of 1950 purported to have been passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Darjeeling. Rules were obtained from this Court in both the cases and on 1-10-1953 a Bench of this Court held that the orders of detention were ill...
Sisir Kumar Das Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal183,58CWN952
ORDERSinha, J.1. The facts of this case are briefly as follows: The petitioner was appointed a Sub-inspector of Police, in the Bengal Police Force in 1944. In September 1947, he was posted as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Shalimar Government Railway Police Station. In December 1948, he became the Officer in charge of that Police Station. This Police Station had a malkhana attached to it for keeping goods taken charge of by the Police. These goods are sold after obtaining orders from the District Magistrate unless the goods are perishable, in which case they are sold and the approval of the Magistrate obtained subsequently. The petitioner remained in Shalimar during 1948-49 and a good part of 1950. At the end of 1950 he was transferred to Bankura. In the beginning of 1951 the authorities received some anonymous communications regarding the sales by the petitioner from the Malkhana at Shalimar during his incumbency there as the Officer-in-charge.2. It appears that investigations were set ...
Dhrubendra Deb Roy and ors. Vs. Kumarendra Deb Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1954
Reported in: AIR1959Cal19
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. The appellants who are the plaintiff's in a suit for removal of the defendant from the shebaitship of the Idols Sri Sri Iswari Hanseswari and others, applied for the appointment of a receiver pending the suit. That application was rejected by the trial court on the 18th of August, 1951. An appeal was preferred against this order of refusal to the District Judge, Hooghly, and on the 5th of April, 1952, the learned Subordinate Judge to whom the appeal had been transferred for disposal passed an order allowing the appeal 'on consent'. The defendant prayed for review of this order allowing the appeal and on the 22nd of May, 1952, the learned Judge passed the following order :'The review petition will be allowed and the appeal will be restored to file after setting aside the order passed by me on 5th April, 1952, if the petitioner puts in the entire costs of the opposite party together with the pleader's fee of Rs. 16/- on or before 31st May, 1952. In default, the appli...
Sk. Muktear and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal350
ORDERChunder, J.1. This Rule was Issued at the instance of six persons who were arrested by the police along with another person when they were paid to have been driving bullock carts containing paddy across the border of West Bengal and Bihar.The Police arrested them and started seven cases under Section 7 (2) (8) of Act 24 of 1946. During the police investigation, an order having been obtained from a Magistrate, the custody of the cart and the bullocks were obtained by the six petitioners, We are not concerned with the case the seventh person. He was sent up by the police, and after evidence had been taken, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced.2. The case against the six petitioners before me was not proceeded against by the police who submitted final report on the grounds that their identity as the actual offenders had not been established. What is said to have happened is that after the police seized the property the miscreants had run away. The evidence that they were actually in t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›