Kolkata Court November 1955 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.
Bachuram Kar and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal102,1956CriLJ515,60CWN633
Debabrata Mookerjee, J.1. The three petitioners in this case were convicted under Section 188, Penal Code and sentenced each to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The disobedience charged related to an order under Section 144, Criminal P. C. which had been made on 24-8-1954 by Sri B. N. Poddar, a Magistrate of the First Class, Uluberia. In the absence of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sri Pod-dar was in charge that day of his file and in that capacity made the ex parte order requiring the petitioners not to enter the disputed land or disturb the possession of one Annada Prosad Dalui and others, who were the first party, to the proceedings.The dispute related to possession of a portion of plot No. 2844 of khatian No. 299 in mouza Kan-krole. The order was served on the petitioners on 26-8-1954 and on the very next day, it was alleged the petitioners trespassed upon the land in violation of the order. On 30-8-1954 an application was filed b...
Ranendra Nath Pal Vs. Commissioners of Dhuliyan Municipal Office
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal203
Guha, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff appellant who is a contractor arises out of a suit for recovery of money and damages instituted against the Com-missioners of the Dhulian Municipality. The facts are briefly as follows: According to the plaintiff he 'constructed certain work according to the plan, estimate and rates sanctioned by the defendants in a meeting and he was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2895-10-0 from the defendants for the work done by him.The latter, however, declined to make any payment in spite of demand. He has, therefore, instituted the present suit for recovery of Rs. 2895-10-0 as the costs of the work done by him and Rs. 290/- as damages. The defence inter alia was that the suit was not maintainable as there was no contract in writing between the plaintiff and the defendants duly signed and sealed with the common seal of the defendants in connection with the alleged work.It was also the case of the defendants that the suit was liable to be dismissed as no notice...
Ramdulal Banerji Vs. General Manager Eastern Railway and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal465,60CWN295
Sinha, J. 1. A very short point has arisen in this case but it does appear that the point ia of great importance to a particular class of employees of the Eastern Railway. The position is as follows:2. The petitioner is a railway servant employed as a commercial clerk, more particularly, an Assistant Goods Clerk, at the Howrah Goods Office of the Eastern Railway in the salary grade of Rs. 60/-......Rs. 150/-. This post 15 a 'non-selection post'. In other words, there appears to bo two kinds of posts amongst the railway subordinate staff, namely, 'selection posts' and 'non-selection posts. It' appears that all posts below Rs. 200/-...... .Rs. 300/- are now treated as non-selection posts. The entire problem in this case is as to how incumbents in non-selection posts are to be promoted. The matter is primarily governed by the provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, and the Rule applicable in to be found in Appendix 'II-A set out at page 211 of the Indian Railway Establishment...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›