Kolkata Court March 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.
Nemai Chandra Pal Vs. Chairman of the Municipal Commissioners of the A ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Cal95
ORDERSinha, J.1. The petitioner Nemai Chandra Pal is a rate-payer of the Arambagh Municipality. He is a. voter, as also a candidate for election from Ward No. 1 of the said Municipality at the ensuing election of Commissioners. His nomination has been accepted. The opposite party No. 2 Nanda. Lal Haldar is also a 'candidate for election from Ward No. 1. At the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers, it is, alleged, that the petitioner took an objection to the validity of the nomination paper of the respondent No. 2 on the ground that he was a person disqualified under Section 22(2) of the Bengal Municipal Act,, 1932, inasmuch as he was guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude carrying with it a sentence of imprisonment for a period of more than six, months, under Section 7(1) of Act 24 of 1946. It is alleged that he asked the Chairman of the Municipality to refer the matter to Government and to find out whether the candidature of the respondent No. 2. was approved by Gover...
Jiwan Das Vs. RabIn Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal64,1956CriLJ399,59CWN1004,(1956)IILLJ473Cal
K.C. Das Gupta, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Burdwan, acquitting in appeal the opposite parties who had been convicted by the learned Magistrate, Asansol. of offence under Section 27 of the Industrial Disputes Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each. 2. In acquitting the opposite parties the learned Sessions Judge did not go into the findings of fact of the learned Magistrate but held that the Court acted without jurisdiction in trying the case as cognizance was taken in contravention of Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 34 is in these words : No Court shall take cognizance of any offence, punishable under this Act or of the abetment of any such offence, save on complaint made by or under the authority of the appropriate Government.' It was contended before the learned Sessions Judge that the authority given under this section to be sufficient authority in law must satisfy the test laid down for 'sanction' for pr...
Jugal Kishore Birla and ors. Vs. Bishnu Hari Jana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal419
Renupada Mukherjee, J. 1. The appellants of these 22 appeals brought a group of 29 rent suits in the 3rd Court of the Munsif of Midnapore for recovery of arrears of rent from the tenants respondents. The rent lands are situate in different mouzahs of Pergunna Kutubpore within the district of Midnapore and the period of claim varies between 2 and 4 years within the limits of the years 1350 B. Section to 1353 B. S. 2. The defendants contested the suit raising various pleas, but the plea which was common to all the suits and which is material for the purpose of these appeals was that by virtue of an immemorial Custom prevailing in Pergunnah Kutubpore the tenants were entitled to proportionate remission of rent on account of 'haja' and 'suka', that is, inundation & drought. The tenants pleaded that there was a total failure of crops in 1352 B. S. on account of 'suka' or drought and also a complete failure of crops in 1353 B. S. on account of 'haja' or inundation and so the tenants were ent...
Siva Nandan Sinha Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1955
Reported in: (1955)IILLJ517Cal
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a constable of police, in 1933. He was appointed and confirmed in the rank of head constable for the special Armed Forces, district Burdwan, in 1949. In 1951, the petitioner with one naik and six constables was posted at Debipur checking gate, district Burdwan, to assist civil supply officers in checking rice smuggling from the district. On 7 May 1951, the superintendent of police remained in cognito inside the lorry, which was also loaded with rice and other articles. The intention was to form a trap and the driver of the lorry was given certain currency notes with directions to pay thereout any illegal gratification that may be demanded at the checking gate. He was also instructed not to disclose the identity of the officers that were travelling in cognito. It is alleged that at the checking gate the petitioner along with another constable demanded illegal gratification from the driver. On or about 9 May 1951, the petitioner was r...
C.T.A. Pillai Vs. H.P. Lohia and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Cal83,1957CriLJ1238,60CWN444
Sen, J.1. This revisional application is directed against an order of Sri K. C. Sen, Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, discharging the accused Hari Prasad Lohia and Manick Chand Lohia in respect of an offence under Section 5, Exports and Imports' (Control) Act, 1947. The petitioner C. T. A. Pillai is Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The accused Hari Prasad Lohia is a Managing Director of a Company styled 'East India Commercial Co. Ltd., with its office at 38 Netaji Sub-has Road, Calcutta. The accused Manick Chand Lohia is an employee of Hari Prasad Lohia. The East India Commercial Co. Ltd., has a jute mill at Ellore in Madras State known as Srikrishna Jute Mills.2. On 27-9-1948, Hari Prasad Lohia as Director of the East India Commercial Co. Ltd., filed an application to the Chief Controller of Imports, New Delhi, for a license for importing 20,000 fluorescent tubes and 2000 fixtures for fluorescent tubes from the United States of America. In the application he specified that th...
Manash Ranjan Chakravarty Vs. Tropical Accumulators Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Cal135,60CWN590
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The plaintiff respondent Company brought a suit in the 4th Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore for a declaration that the Trade Mark 'Sakti' is being used and exploited by the plaintiff ever since 1936 and is not liable to be sold in execution of a certain decree which has been passed against the pro forma defendant Madhusudhan Majumdar at least till the disposal of the application by the plaintiff before the Registrar of Trade Marks for registration as a user and for certain other reliefs.2. Manash Chakravarty, defendant No. 1 appellant before this Court raised various defences as regards the merits of the case and. in addition, the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit in the present form was also questioned. Defence was also filed on behalf of the other contesting defendants.3. Various issues were raised including one Which was in the following terms:'Has the Court jurisdiction to try the suit?'4. This issue along with another were taken up as pr...
Annada Prosad GuIn and ors. Vs. District Magistrate and Collector of M ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal529
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of Sinha J., dated 28-7-1953, by which an application made by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was dismissed.2. The appellants who are eight in number challenged an order by which a Union, called the Mohulla Union, was divided into three electoral wards. Of the eight appellants, four, that is, Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7 were members of the old Union Board, of whom two have been elected at an election subsequently held. The remaining four ant residents of the locality and therefore interested in the affairs of the Union.3. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows. On 20-4-1949, a notice signed by the Circle Officer of the area was issued to the President of the Mohulla Union Board and he was asked to submit his proposals as to how best the Union could be divided into three wards of a reasonably equal size and how many members could properly be elected from each. No notice appears to have been taken o...
Atindra Nath Mukherjee Vs. G.F. Gillot and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal543,59CWN835
Chakravartti, C.J.1. The appellant before us has lost a fairly good job just for a pair of shoes. He was employed in the Metal and Steel Factory, Ishapore, in the capacity of a Godown-Keeper of the Senior Grade. It has been found against him departmentally that while so employed, he on 28-8-1951, ordered a labourer of the factory to make a pair of leather sandals for his personal use and that he also supplied the labourer with the requisite quantity of material from the Government stores.If the appellant's transgression had stopped at that point, I do not know whether his employers would have taken as serious view of it as they have done, but they have also found that the appellant caused the issue of the material to be shown against a contract which had, in fact, been executed long ago, Upon-the above findings the appellant has been removed from his office, but he complains that his removal has not been in accordance with law.2.It will be convenient now to state the 'facts in somewhat...
Dukaribala Dasi Vs. Gadadhar Paul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal571,60CWN216
S.R. Das Gupta, J. 1. In this appeal two questions arise for our consideration, (1) whether or not a donee under an instrument of gift which is sought to be registered can admit execution under Section 35(1)(c) of the Registration Act, the person executing the document being dead and whether registration effected on such admission is altogether void? and (2) whether or not the action of the Registrar in registering the document in question on the admission of such a person is a mere irregularity in procedure without affecting jurisdiction of the Registrar to effect such registration? 2. Shortly stated the facts are as follows: The appellant is the donee from her grand mother Badhika Sundari under an instrument of gift in respect of a plot of land which measures about one bigha. The respondents are in possession of the said land and the appellant filed a suit for the recovery of the said possession. One of the grounds taken by the respondents in the said suit was that the registration o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›