Kolkata Court February 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.
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Director of Rationing and Distribution
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal282,1955CriLJ792
Guha Ray, J.1. This petition by the Corporation of Calcutta is for revision of an order of acquittal of the Opposite Party, the Director of Rationing and Distribution, representing the Food Department of the Government of West Bengal in a case under Section 488 read with Section 386(l)(a), Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, The allegations on which the prosecution is based are briefly that during the financial year 1951-52. the Opposite Party was carrying on trade at premises No. 259, Upper Chitpur Road, Calcutta, and was using, or permitting the use of, the said premises for the purpose of storing rice, flour, etc., under the provisions of the Bengal Rationing Order, 1943. No licence, however, was taken for this purpose by the Opposite Party as. required by . Section 386, Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, for the year in question.It is further alleged that from 1943-44 to 1948-49 the Opposite Party had paid license fees for different shops under Sections 175 and 386 for storing rice, etc., but...
Ganga Vishnu Swaika Vs. Machine Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal503,60CWN233
S.R. Das Gupta, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the District Judge, Howrah, reversing the decree of the Munsif, First Court, Howrah.2. The appellant filed a suit for a declaration that a particular drain is a public drain and he has a right to discharge water from his land through the said drain. The drain in question was comprised in dags Nos. 2512 and 2514 of mouza Belur. The plaintiff's case was that the same was a public drain of the locality and the plaintiff has an unobstructed and indefeasible right to discharge the surplus water of his factory into the same.The plaintiff had also a factory on his own land immediately to the north of the said dags and has got a pucca drain in his land through which he had been discharging the surplus water of his factory into the said public drain. The said dags being dags Nos. 2512 and 2514 along with other lands came to be acquired by the Government under Chap. VII of the Land Acquisition Act, for the purpose of making it over to ...
S. Bhattacharjee Vs. Sentinel Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal594
Bose, J. 1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 54,007/5/6 on a Policy of Fire Insurance on account of damage caused by fire to goods insured under that policy.2. The plaintiff carries on business as manufacturer of hosiery goods under the name and style of Bengal Hosiery Mills at 90/1 Hazra Road, Calcutta.3. In September 1951 the machinery and stock of hosiery goods of the plaintiff's said business stored' in the said factory premises were insured against damage by fire, with Standard General Assurance Co., to the extent of Rs. 60,000/- of which Rs. 50,000/- was for the machinery and Rs. 10,000/- for the hosiery goods.4. On 17-6-1952 a further insurance against loss and damage by fire was effected in respect of his said business with Calcutta Divisional Office of the defendant Sentinel Assurance Co. Ltd. for Rs. 1,00,000/- of which Rs. 25,000/- was for machinery and Rs. 75,000/- for the stock of hosiery goods.5. Pending the issue of a policy in respect of the insurance effected with th...
Sudhir Chandra Jana and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal496,1955CriLJ1255,59CWN397
ORDERLahiri, J.1. This is a Rule against the order of the Sessions Judge, Midnapore, dated 14-8-1954, by which he has ordered a further enquiry by a First Class Magistrate be made into the case under Section 395, I.P.C.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows. One Urmila Dassi lodged a First Information Report at the police station alleging that the petitioners, along' with several others, trespassed into the house of the complainant's husband, Ramanath, and demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- from Ramanath alleging that the petitioners were entitled to this amount as the costs of a litigation between Ramanath and the petitioners. Upon Ramanath's refusal to comply with the request, Ramanath was dragged and was assaulted with fists and slaps. 'On hearing the alarm raised by Ramanath, the informant Urmila came out of her house and saw the beating. The informant was also dragged outside by two of the petitioners, named, Sudhir and Ramesh Sudhir, assaulted her with a lathi, causing ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›