Kolkata Court June 1954 Judgments
Sital Chandra Kolley and anr. Vs. Heirs of Mihilal Kolley and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal21,58CWN1000
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question.2. On 4-7-1945 respondents 1-4 filed a suit against the appellants and one Mohanta Patra for specific performance of a contract of reconveyance. That suit was dismissed by the trial court but, on appeal, it was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Howrah. From this appellate decision the present second appeal has been preferred by defendants 2 and 3.3. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs-respondents' case was as follows:The disputed property which comprises an undivided share of an occupancy rayati holding originally belonged to them (respondents 1-4). On 15-3-45, in pursuance of an arrangement between the parties for sale and resale, they (the plaintiffs) sold the suit property to Mohanta Patra (who was defendant 1 in the trial court) by the Kobala (Ex. 1) and simultaneously obtained from him the agreement for reconveyance (Ex. 2) which is the foundation of the present suit. The appellants before us (who were...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Chairman and Members of the Labour Appellate Tr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal344,58CWN844,(1955)IILLJ214Cal
ORDERSinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows : The petitioner is the Bank of India Ltd. (hereinafter called the Bank). Respondents 2-13 were employed by the Bank in its office at 23B, Netaji Subhas Road. Respondents 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 were appointed as clerks on probation, respondents 7, 8 and 9 were temporary clerks and respondents 11, 12 and 13 were temporary sepoys, also employed as peons.2. These persons were appointed at various periods between March and May 1951. According to the terms of their appointment, they were on probation and were liable to be dismissed within six months of their appointment, or at the expiration of that period, without assignment of any reason whatever for such dismissal. It is not disputed before me that all of them were in temporary employment and they were not confirmed and made permanent at any time. The employees of the Bank were having disputes with the Bank for some time. Ultimately, notice was given through their Union that un...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: an Attorney
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal113,58CWN880
Chakravartti, C.J.1. By an order made on 4-5-1954, P. B. Mukharji, J. and myself directed a Rule to issue on 'Jalan & Co.', ostensibly a firm of solicitors practising in this Court, requiring them to show cause whysuch, disciplinary action as the Court might deem fit and proper should not be taken against them for their failure to arrange for the defence of their clients, the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1954, and also for their failure to attend before the Court when the appeal was on the day's list for hearing. The circumstances in which the order was made were as follows:2. On 22-12-1953, three persons, named Ram Charitar Shaw, Ram Sunder Shaw and Anup Shaw respectively, were convicted by Sen J. in the Ordinary Original Criminal Jurisdiction of this Court of charges under Section 302, road with Section 34, Penal Code and duly sentenced, the first to death and each of the remaining two to transportation for life. On 9-1-1954, the convicted persons filed a joint appeal throu...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Das Banerjee and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal576,58CWN836
Mitter, J.1. These three Rules are directed against an order of Mr. J. Sarma Sarkar, Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, dated 29-5-1954, refusing to exempt thepetitioners from appearing in Court during their trial in the three cases concerned. The question to be determined concerns the extent of the Court's jurisdiction under 540A, Cr. P. C., to dispense with the attendance of an accused when he is being tried with another or more accused persons.2. It appears that by an order dated 24-3-1954, the learned Magistrate dispensed with the attendance in Court of one of the petitioners. This order was subsequently vacated on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Court to grant such exemption was, by Section 540A, limited to an accused's incapacity to remain before the Court. By the last-mentioned order, which is complained of here, the learned Magistrate also discussed his powers under Sections 205 and 353, Cr. P. C. to dispense with an accused's attendance in Court.3. Upon our construction ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sailendra Nath Sinha and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal29,[1954]24CompCas539(Cal),1955CriLJ790,59CWN1
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. We have before us a Rule taken out by two past directors of a company, now in liquidation, who are being prosecuted on charges under Sections 406, 467 and 477A, read with Section 120B of the Penal Code and a further application subsequently made by the same two persons. The application of which notice has been given to the opposite parties was directed to be heard along with the Rule.2. Both by the application on which the Rule was issued and the subsequent application, the Petitioners have prayed that the criminal proceeding pending against them be quashed. The ground urged by them in the Rule is that in the absence of a prior direction judicially given by the Court under Section 237 (1) of the Companies Act, the prosecution launched against them by the liquidator is 'ab inito' void. In the application they contend that the liquidator having taken action under Section 235 of the Companies Act in regard to the self-same matter, the criminal prosecution is no longe...
Tag this Judgment!Midnapore Zemindary Co. Ltd. Vs. the Regional Forest Officer, Midnapor ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal580,58CWN963
K.C. Das Gupta, J. 1. By Notification published in the Calcutta Gazette on 15-9-1949 the Government of West Bengal directed that every owner of a private forest, which was not a vested forest, situated in the Garbetta police station--excluding certain moujas with which we are not concerned-'shall in the manner provided in the rules published under Notification No. 938--Forest--dated 16-11-1946 in the Calcutta Gazette of 21-11-1946 prepare a working plan for the conservation of such forest and shall submit such plan to the Regional Forest Officer on or before 15-12-1949.' The direction was given in exercise of the powers vested in the Government of West Bengal by Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Forest Act which is in these words: 'The Provincial Government may, by notification, direct that every owner of a private forest which is not a vested forest, but which is situated within such area as may be specified in the notification, shall prepare in the prescribed manner and submit within t...
Tag this Judgment!Burma Shell Oil Strorage Distributing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Labour App ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal92,58CWN791
ORDERSinha, J.1. The petitioner is the Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') which deals in petroleum and petroleum products. It maintains a large clerical staff. At all material times prior to 1947, the Company in addition to paying its clerical employees their normal remuneration, and in addition to crediting their provident fund accounts with a normal contribution equivalent to 10 per cent, of their basic salaries, further credited annually to their provident fund accounts, a bonus equivalent to 7 1/2 per cent, of their basic salaries earned during the year. Such bonuses became available to the employees upon the retirement.2. With effect from 1-1-1947, the Company Introduced a non-contributory pension scheme, by virtue of which the retiring clerical employees received substantial pensions in addition to the amounts standing to their credit in the provident fund accounts. The Company, however, discontinued the credi...
Tag this Judgment!Manindra Nath Das and anr. Vs. Ram Kinkar Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal231
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This is the defendants' appeal arising out of a suit under Section 77, Registration Act. The disputed document is a kobala, bearing date 1-3-1945. The defendants denied execution of this kobala. On their refusal to register it, it was presented for registration by the plaintiff on 13-3-1945. Registration was refused by the authorities under the Registration Act and, thereafter, en 3-1-1946, the present suit was brought by the plaintiff under Section 77 of that Act.The trial Court came to the conclusion that the execution of the disputed document by the defendants had not been satisfactorily proved and, in that view of the matter, he dismissed the plaintiffs suit. On appeal, that decision has been reversed by the learned Subordinate Judge whose judgment is based mainly upon the additional evidence of a lawyer witness Babu Kishorilal Das, who was examined by the court and whose evidence was admitted at the appellate stage. The defendants have now come up to this Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Sisir Kumar Tarafdar Vs. Manindra Kumar Biswas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1954
Reported in: AIR1958Cal681
K.C. Das Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner instituted a suit for arrears of rent against two persons, Manindra Kumar Biswas and Rabindra Kumar Biswas who were described as being in possession of the estate of Nrisingha Kumari Dasi, deceased, as her heirs. These two persons appeared and filed a written statement stating that Nrisingha Kumari Dasi was alive and so they had no interest in the matter and were improper parties. Thereafter an application was filed by the present petitioner for amendment of the plaint. The amendment sought for in substance was that the names of Manindra Kumar Biswas and Rabindra Kumar Biswas should be struck out and Nrisingha Kumari Dassi, widow of late Mahitosh Biswas should be made the sole defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge refused this prayer for amendment in the view that such substitution of Nrisingha Kumari Dasi could not be made under the Civil Procedure Code. 2. It is contended before us by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the learned Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Golam Ahia Vs. Lutfal Hoda and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal558,1955CriLJ1357
ORDERChunder, J.1. This Rule was issued against an order of acquittal of an accused person by a Magistrate, First Class, Burdwan, of an offence under Section 428, Penal Code.2. It is rather surprising that a Magistrate of the First Class is totally ignorant of the Indian Penal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has riot entered at all into the facts of the case but acquitted the accused on two so-called preliminary points.3. The prosecution case was that the accused had excavated earth from the land of the complainant and as earth has some value, whatever may be its actual worth, the accused intended to commit mischief under Section 426 of the Code, if facts are proved. The Magistrate does not find on the facts that no earth was excavated. Therefore it is meaningless, for the Magistrate to say that the value of the loss not having been stated by the complainant the accused must be acquitted. The Magistrate would have been justified in not trying the accused for any of the grave...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »