Kolkata Court June 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. Omeda Khatun Bewa
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal122,60CWN319
Lahiri, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of Sinha J. dated 5-1-1954, issuing a writ of mandamus upon the appellant (corporation of Calcutta as well as the State of West Bengal, directing them to forbear from proceeding to acquire the un-acquired portion of premises No. 67, Pipe Road within police station Watgunge, District 24-Parganas.The facts are these: in 1927 the Corporation of Calcutta prepared a scheme for the development of the Mansatala area in Kidder-pore by construction of cross roads, providing for children's playground and widening of Manashatala Lane and at their instance the then Government of Bengal started acquisition proceedings in respect of an area of 15 Bighas and 11 cottas.For that purpose, a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, being Notification No. 12239 L. A. dated 29-7-1927 was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 4-8-1927. The declared area comprised within itself premises No. 67, Pipe Road (formerly 21, Dent Mission Road) mea...
Basanta Kumar Pal Vs. the Chief Electrical Engineer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal93,59CWN1050
ORDERSinha, J.1. The facts in this case are briefly as follows. The petitioner, first entered service as a clerk in the then Eastern Bengal Railway, in the year 1919. Upon partition of India, he opted for the Indian Union and was posted under the District Electrical Engineer Dhanbad. The petitioner was to reach his 55th year on 1-7-1950, and he will reach his 60th year on 1-7-1955.2. On 19-5-1949, the petitioner received a notice from the District Electrical Engineer Dhanbad, to the effect that it was proposed to retire him from service when he reached the age of 55 years on 1-7-1950. He was further informed, that if he wished to make a representation, it would be duly considered before final orders were passed. On 19-5-1949, the petitioner wrote to the D. E. E. Dhanbad requesting that his Provident Fund subscription and leave salary might be adjusted.3. On 10-6-1949, he replied to the notice dated 19-5-1949, stating that he was still capable of going on normally with his duties and pr...
Nagendra Nath Choudhury Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal555,1955CriLJ1356
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J.1. The petitioner is being proceeded against for alleged infringements of the provisions of the Bengal Highways Act 3 of 1925 as amended by the West Bengal Act 17 of 1953 before a Magistrate at Balurghat. It appears that there are two proceedings pending against him for violation of the Bengal Highways Act and the learned Magistrate who is dealing with them has amalgamated these two proceedings and directed the two complaints in the two cases to be merged in one.The encroachments complained of in the two cases are entirely different and they constitute if proved wholly separate infringements even according to the prosecution. Complaint is now made that by reason of the consolidation of these two proceedings into one there is chance or likelihood of prejudice accruing to the petitioner.2. I think there is considerable force in this contention. The mere fact that the petitioner happens to be the same person proceeded against in both the proceedings and that th...
Hansraj Bajaj Vs. the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal33,59CWN1044
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by thedefendant-bank for an injunction restraining the plaintiff from proceeding with the suit here in this Court and for stay of all further proceedings of this suit. The application was made on a Notice of Motion dated 16-8-1954. This suit was instituted on 1-4-1954 by the plaintiff against the defendant-bank for the recovery of Rs. 15,625/-being the value of an alleged undischarged and outstanding demand draft.2. The demand draft was issued by the defendant-bank's branch office at Penang for 10,000/- drawn on that Bank's Singapore branch. The draft, it is alleged, was drawn in the name of Mr. Hansraj Bajaj and payable to him at the Singapore office of the defendant. That is the plaintiff's own allegation in the plaint. According to the plaintiff, he purchased this demand draft from his brother Bikramjit Bajaj on 5-4-1951.On 7-4-1951 the plaintiff and his said brother while proceeding from Penang to Singapore met with a serious motor acciden...
Sm. Swapna Mukherjee Vs. Basanta Ranjan Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal533,1955CriLJ1347
Renupada Mukherjee, J. 1. This Rule was issued at the instance of Sm. Swapna Mukherjee challenging the validity of an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate, First Class, Midnapore. 2. The facts which have led up to the present proceedings may thus be stated briefly. The petitioner Swapna Mukherjee and opposite party 1 Basanta Ranjan Mukherjee were born Christians and they were married in Christian form in 1946. They had a few children and then it appears that in 1950 differences arose between the husband and the wife which led to the separation between the two. The opposite party 1 became a convert to Hinduism and he took a second wife, namely, Sm. Renuka Devi, opposite party 3 of this case. Opposite party 4 Jagadish Chandra Bhattacharji is the father of Renuka Devi and opposite party 2 Mrs. Parimal Hasini Mukherjee is said to have instigated the second marriage of Basanta Ranjan. According to the case of the petitioner, Basanta Ranjan Committed bigamy by contracting a second marri...
Bonbehari Roy Vs. Dhirendra Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal132,60CWN52
Mallick, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an order dismissing an objection taken by the judgment debtor under Section 47, Civil P. C. against the execution of a decree passed by the Jessore Court and transferred to the Court of First Subordinate Judge, Alipore for execution. The respondent who was & zamindar obtained a decree from the Jessore Court for the recovery of putni rent of a state included in Jessore Collectorate against a number of puttanidars including the appellant. On 21-5-1946 the decree was transferred to Alipore Court for execution. 'On 31-5-1946 the decree-holder started execution against 6 judgment debtors but not against the appellant by filing a tabular statement in the Court of the said Subordinate Judge at Alipore. This was numbered as Misc. Case No. 15 of 1946. The proceedings against the said 6 judgment debtors were, however, compromised and two solenamas dated 11 and 18-7-1949 were filed recording the said compromise. After having finished with the said 6 ...
Bardeshwari (Barodeshwari) Prosad Battacharjee Vs. Rabi Nandan Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal24,1956CriLJ212
J.P. Mitter, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order of a first class Magistrate at Lalbagh proposing to proceed against the petitioner under Section 137, Cr. P. C. 2. It appears that at the instance of the Opposite Party proceedings under Section 133, Cr. P. C. were drawn up against the petitioner by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer of Lalbagh. By the order concerned the petitioner was required to show cause before the said learned Sub-Divisional Officer. Upon the petitioner showing cause, the case was transferred by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer to the court of Mr. Majumdar a First Class Magistrate. Mr. Majumdar purported to proceed under Section 139A, Cr. P. C. As the order shows, he questioned the petitioner as to the existence of the alleged public right in respect of the way said to have been obstructed, examined certain papers and then proposed to proceed under Section 137, Cr. P. C. 3. Mr. J. M. Banerjee has urged two points; 4. The first point is that the learned S...
Ram Barai Singh Vs. Tirtha Pada Misra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Cal173
P.N. Mookerji J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of Title and recovery of possession. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below. Hence this second appeal by the contesting defendant.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff-respondent on, inter alia, the following allegations, namely, that the suit lands were originally held by his predecessor Mahadev Singh on a tenancy under the admitted landlords Bejoy kumar Banerjee and others for a fixed term of five years from 1334 to 1338 B. S. The tenancy expired, but Mahadev continued to hold on with the landlords' assent, and upon his death, the tenancy devolved on his heirs Ajodhya and Kalika who -continued in possession till October 20, 1944, when it was sold to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff brought a rent suit against defendant No. 1 Sreemati Fulkumari Devi who was in occupation of one of the rooms as a tenant under the plaintiff and his predecessors, but the said defendant No. 1 denied the plaintiff's...
Brahma Shum Shere Jung Bahadur and anr. Vs. Chartered Bank of India, A ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal399
Bose, J. 1. This is a suit for a declaration that the accounts of the plaintiffs with the defendant No. 1 have been improperly debited with, and the plaintiffs are not liable for, the sum of Rs. 2,34,081/- or any portion thereof and in the alternative for a decree against the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for RS. 2,34,081/- for wrongful conversion or for moneys had and received or for damages.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs had at all material times an account with the defendant No. 1, the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China. The terms and conditions of the account inter alia were that:(a) The defendant No. 1 would collect the cheque in the name of the plaintiff No. 1 or in the names of the plaintiffs jointly and credit the amounts collected to the said account. (b) The defendant No. 1 would up to limits fixed from time to time, advance monies by way of overdraft against approved shares and securities held in the names of the plaintiffs. (c) The account would...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›