Kolkata Court April 1956 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.
Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghose Vs. Harisadhan Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Cal433,60CWN971
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This is a petition to quash certain proceedings under Section 500, Penal Code pending against the applicant in the Court of a Magistrate at Midnapore.2. The petitioner is a Member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly from Ghatal who has been complained against by the opposite party Harisadhan Mukherjee, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghatal. Opposite Parties Bhupati Charan Majhi and Raghunath Dalai are respectively the Editor and the Printer and Publisher of a vernacular fortnightly 'Janamat' published at Ghatal.3. It appears that in January 1954 the petitioner gave notice of his intention to ask certain questions in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly; the questions were however disallowed in accordance with the rules of procedure for the conduct of business of that Assembly. The disallowance was intimated to the petitioner on 16-2-1954. After a whole year the petitioner published the questions in 'Janamat' in its issue of 28-2-1955.4. On 29-7-1955 the o...
Nikunja Behari Das Vs. Jatindra Nath Kar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Cal613,60CWN1017
Das Gupta, J.1. The only question in this case is whether the suit instituted by the opposite party Jatindra Nath Kar in the Court of the 2nd Subordinate Judge, 24 Parganas, on 6-1-1954, in which he had asked for re-opening of a preliminary and final decree passed in Title Suit No. 22 of 1941 of the same court and lor the passing of a new decree and consequential reliefs, is barred by the principle of res judicata. The previous title suit was instituted by opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 against the present plaintiff Jatindra Nath Kar, his wife Prativamoyee Kar and certain other persons. Prativamoyee appeared in that suit and filed a written statement. In the plaint in that suit a definite averment was made that the loan in respect of which the mortgage was taken was a commercial loan. In her written statement, Prativamoyee pleaded that the loan was not a commercial loan, that she was entitled to the benefits of the Bengal Money Lenders Act and that instalments should be granted. Jatindr...
indu Bhushan Mitra Vs. Sudhakar Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal106
Guha Ray, J. 1. This second appeal by the plaintiff arises from a suit instituted by him for confirmation of his possession in the disputed homestead measuring 6 kattas 12 chattaks with a pucca structure thereon which admittedly formed the ancestral dwelling house of the family or in the alternative for recovery of joint possession on declaration of his 1/6th share in the same and in case it transpired that the defendants 2 and 3 had purchased the property, for a declaration that they were mere trustees for him regarding the said share and for re-opening the decree passed in Title Suit it No. 179 of 1938 and for passing a new decree granting the plaintiff easy instalments for payment of the decretal amount Under the new decree to be passed. 2. The disputed homestead was the ancestral homestead of the family. Bholanath Mitra, the father of the plaintiff, had 6 sons, Bireswar, defendant No. 4, Pashupati, defendant No. 5, Sudhir, defendant No. 3, Bankim, defendant No. 2, Indu Bhusan, plai...
Phani Bhusan Mukherjee Vs. Phani Bhusan Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal170,61CWN184
ORDERLahiri, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the plaintiff against an order of the 1st Munsif, Hooghly, in Misc. Judicial Case No. 1 of 1955 by which the learned Munsif has dismissed the plaintiff's application under Order 9, Rule 4 of the C. P. C. The suit out of which this Rule arises was instituted by the plaintiff on the 23rd December, 1950 for a declaration of title to and recovery of possession of a certain sum of money due upon an award under the Land Acquisition Act. The plaintiff is a diety named Banlinga Shiva Thakur represented by his shebait, Shri Phani Bhusan Mukhopadhyay. After the completion of the preliminary stages, the suit was fixed for peremptory hearing on the 29th May, 1952 on which date the plaintiff attended the Court but the defendants were absent and the suit was taken up for ex parte hearing. The plaintiff shebait Phani Bhusan Mukherjee was examined and two documents were marked as Exs. 1 and 2. The plaintiff's claim was held by the Munsif to have been pr...
Probodh Chandra Ghose Vs. Executive Engineer, Canals Division and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Cal447,60CWN628
ORDERSinha, J. 1. The petitioner has come up before me for the second time. The facts are briefly as follows : He was appointed as a ticket checker in the Calcutta Canals Sub-Division under the Executive Engineer Canals Division, Irrigation Departmerit of the Government of Bengal. At the relevant moment he had been promoted to the post of a sub-divisional clerk. On 27-7-1949 he was placed under suspension. Thereafter a departmental enquiry was instituted and on 23-2-1953 he was discharged from service. On 3-8-1953 he made an application to this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of his discharge and a Rule was issued. That Rule was heard and decided by me on 10-5-1954. I ordered that the Rule was to be made absolute and the order of discharge dated 23-2-1953 passed by the Executive Engineer, Canals Division, was set aside and/or quashed and a writ in the nature of mandamus was issued directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect to it, I then proce...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›