Kolkata Court April 1954 Judgments
Kshirode Gopal Saha and ors. Vs. the State (Chairman, District Board, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal110,1955CriLJ384,58CWN765
ORDERGuha Ray, J.1. The petitioners were convicted under Section 28, Bengal Perries Act, and under Section 100E, Bengal Local Self-Government Act, on the complaint before the District Magistrate of Malda by the Chairman of the District Board of Malda, the allegation being that these petitioners, all inhabitants of Sahapur, started plying a ferry with effect from the first week of April, 1952 within 500 yards of the Jhowghatta ferry and they themselves crossed therein and began to take other people across the river thereby causing a serious menace to the .administration and revenue of a public ferry namely the Jhowghatta ferry.The District Magistrate on receipt of the complaint directed notices to issue on the petitioners requiring them to show cause why suitable action should not be taken against them under Section 28, Bengal Ferries Act, and also under Section 100E, Bengal Local Self-Government Act. On their showing cause he directed summonses to issue against them under those section...
Tag this Judgment!Sisir Kumar Laha Vs. J.N. Majumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal309
ORDERSinha, J. 1. The petitioner is an employee of the opposite party No. 17, The Bank of India Limited. What had happened is this: The Bank had certain disputes with its workmen and the result was that certain workmen, namely, the opposite parties Nos. 4 to 15 and one Ram Bhadra Misra were dismissed from service on or about 27-12-1951. These 13 dismissed employees objected to their dismissal and on 22-7-1952 an order was made referring the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta constituted under Section 7, Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The dispute was as follows:'Whether the termination of the services of the undermentioned persons from the Calcutta Branch of the Bank was justified and, if not, what relief should be granted to them.' Then follows the names of the 13 dismissed employees. It appears that the petitioner here wastaken in to fill the vacancy caused by the dismissal of these workmen. He was taken in, on or about 2-1-1952. It is clear therefore that ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. L.A. Saunders Vs. Land Corporation of Bengal Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal169
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. In April, 1937, the appellant Mrs. L.A. Saunders entered into occupation of the disputed premises No. 8, Canal Street, Calcutta, as A tenant under the respondent's -predecessor. There was no written document creating or evidencing the lease but the rental was Rs. 101/47-per month and it was payable monthly according to the English calendar.2. On 15-9-1944, the respondent company (Messrs. Land Corporation of Bengal Ltd.) purchased the suit premises and the appellant's tenancy continued under them. In December 1949, the respondent company served upon the appellant a full 15 days' notice to quit requiring her to vacate the suit premises on the expiry of the said month and, on 6-2-1950, the present suit was instituted for her eviction. In the plaint there was an allegation inter alia that the plaintiff company required the suit premises bona fide for building and rebuilding purposes. That was also the allegation in the notice to quit and the bar of the Bent Control la...
Tag this Judgment!Jagabandhu Mitra and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal177,1955CriLJ657,59CWN312
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. These three appellants were tried along with two other persons Tarak and Tarapada by a Special Tribunal constituted under the Tribunals of Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1952 (West Bengal Act 14 of 1952). The case was first instituted on the information lodged by Chandranath Mitra, the Cashier of D. Waldie & Co at Konnagar on the allegation among other things that a number of persons armed with deadly weapons had committed robbery after hurting seriously one Dinanath, a Durwan of the company by throwing bombs. As a result of the injuries received the Durwan died.The Police after investigation submitted charge sheet against Harendra Nath Bab and Jagabandhu Mitra under Sections 392, 397, 302/34, I. P. C., against Harendra Nath Bag also under Sections 3 & 5, Explosive Substances Act, against Jagabandhu also under Section 3, Explosive Substances Act; against Kanailal Das under Sections 392, 397 & 114, I. P. C., against Tarak and Tarapada under Section 411, I. P. C., and ag...
Tag this Judgment!Newton Hickie and anr. Vs. Official Trustee of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal506,58CWN819
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. The only question argued in this appeal was a question of res judicata and, in the end, the only ground on which the bar of 'res judicata' was sought to be avoided was that the decision in the earlier suit was a decision of a Court which was not competent to try the subsequent suit out of which the appeal had arisen. 2. The facts are not many and may be briefly stated. A two-storied building, known as 69, Park Street, is admittedly situated within the limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court and in 1951, the Appellants, who may be compendiously called the Hickies, were admittedly in occupation of both the upper and lower flats as tenants. The premises belong to the Trust Estate N. B. Elias and R. O. Cohen and the trustee of the trust is the Official Trustee of West Bengal. In 1951, the Official Trustee brought two suits for ejectment against the Appellants, one in respect of the upper flat and one in respect of the lower, on the basis that ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeb Ram Kahar Vs. Tinkori Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal539,58CWN651
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This is the tenant's Second Appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that 'the defendant's tenancy is non-ejectable falling under Section 7(5) of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act 20 of 1949'. On appeal that decision was re-versed by the learned Subordinate Judge who held that 'the defendant cannot claim the advantage of Section 7 (5) of the Act.' Hence this Second Appeal by the tenant whose principal contention is that he is protected under Section 9(1)(b)(iii) of the said Act 20 of 1949 (The West Bengal Non-agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949). This contention was also raised before the learned Munsiff but it was rejected by him. In the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge there is no reference to this statutory provision and, possibly, this point was not urged before him and the arguments were concentrated on the other section, viz., section 7 (5). As, however, the point (which is ground No. 1 in the Mem...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Tra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal519,59CWN320
Das, J.1. This appeal came up for hearing, before my Lords the Chief Justice and S.R. Das Gupta J. The learned Judges differed on certain points. In accordance with Clause 36, Letters Patent, the learned Judges stated the points on which they have differed. The points are the following:1. Whether the word 'Rasoi', if and when used as a trade mark for the hydrogenated ground-nut oil manufactured by the appellant company, has a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods, within the meaning of Section 6(1)(d), Trade Marks Act, 1940 and is, as such, outside the ambit of that clause?2. If the answer to the first question be in the negative, that is to say, if the true view be that the word 'Rasoi', when used as a trade mark for the appellant's oil, cannot be said to have such direct reference, must the mark be still proved to be distinctive in order to be eligible for registration, or should it be taken to be regarded as prima facie distinctive by the Act itself?3. Whether, e...
Tag this Judgment!Bhabatosh Ghattak Vs. Sm. Joy Kumari Devi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal229,58CWN602
Das J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the decision of a learned Judge of this Court dated the 15th of June, 1953.2. The plaintiffs were admittedly tenants under the defendant in respect of premises No. 115, Lansdowne Road, Calcutta. On the 5th of July, 1947, a notice determining the tenancy was served on the plaintiffs. Thereupon the defendant who is the landlord instituted a suit for ejectment, being Title Suit No. 117 of 1947. The suit was decreed by the trial court on the 13th of December, 1950. The tenants preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate court on the 12th of July, 1951.It appears that on the 14th of July, 1951 and on subsequent dates, namely 17th September, 1951; 5th November, 1951; 10th November, 1951; 27th December, 1951; 30th January, 1952 and 3rd March, 1952 the plaintiffs, that is, the tenants remitted by money order certain sums as rent payable by them in respect of premises No. 115, Lans...
Tag this Judgment!Suburban Bank Ltd. (In Liqdn.) Vs. Nistaran Chakrabarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal172,[1954]24CompCas273(Cal),58CWN676
Bachawat, J. 1. The plaintiff claims a sum of Rs. 1604/12/- in respect of an overdraft account. Admittedly this claim is not barred by the law of limitation. Interest on this account was charged at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum with monthly rests. The bank is not a scheduled bank. It is not alleged nor proved that the loans were commercial loans. The rate of interest being excessive the accounts must be reopened under the provisions of the Bengal Money Lenders Act. It is admitted by both parties that on such reopening and on taking accounts in accordance with the provisions of that Act only a sum of Rs. 350/- is due from the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is accordingly entitled to a decree for the sum of Rs. 350/- against the defendant in respect of this account.2. The plaintiff claims another sum of Rs. 16,751/4/9 in respect of three loans of Rs. 6.000/-, Rs. 5.000/ and Rs. 1,000/-, all advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant on 27-6-1945. On the same date the defe...
Tag this Judgment!Baidyanath Chanda and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal505
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. The only question in this Rule is whether the alleged offence under Section 420, Penal Code, said to have been committed by Baidyanath Chandra is triable by a Special Court under the provisions of Act 12 of 1952.2. The prosecution case is that Baidyanath who supplied between 3rd and 7th October 1951 a quantity of 1361 bags (2272 maunds) of dhenki rice to the Government procurement go-down at Sainthia, submitted bills claiming the procurement price as well as appropriate bonus in respect of stocks so delivered. It is alleged that Baidyanath in fact supplied this quantity of rice from old stocks purchased prior to the date with effect from which bonus was payable, and had thus to pay no bonus money to any one. The real allegation on which Baidyanath is said to have committed an offence under Section 420, Penal Code, is that by making a false representation that he had obtained this quantity of rice between the 3rd and 7th October 1951, Baidyanath induced Government t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »