Kolkata Court June 1956 Judgments

Bengal Club Ltd. Vs. Santi Ranjan Somaddar and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1956Cal545,60CWN856,(1957)ILLJ505Cal

ORDERSinha, J. 1. The facts is this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner is a company incorporated, with liability limited by guarantee, under the India Companies Act. The company maintains a Club for the benefit of its members at premises No. 33 Chowrin-ghee Road in the town of Calcutta. Respondent 1 Santi Ranjan Somaddar was employed by the petitioner since 1-2-1947 as an assistant bill clerk. It is stated that he frequently absented himself from duty, so much so that during his seven years of employment he was absent for a total of almost three years. It is further stated that other office clerks have from time to time requested the Secretary of the Club to take some steps to find another employee or make some arrangements for the work to be done during the absence of respondent 1, the burden of which fell upon them. On or about 9-6-1954 he absented himself from duty without any leave or authority and continued to absent himself. By letters dated 25-6-1954 and 8-7-1954 the pe...

Usha Charan Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1957Cal16

Bachawat, J.1. Usha Charan Banerjee petitioned the learned District Judge, 24-Parganas for adjudication as insolvent. Items Nos. 1 and 3 to 9 of the list of pecuniary claims in schedule A attached to the petition are claims against him as surety for several accused persons in several criminal proceedings. The list is given in compliance with Section 13(1)(d), Provincial Insolvency Act.2. In course of the preliminary enquiry before the order of adjudication, the State of West Bengal contended that these claims are demands in the nature of un-liquidated damages and as such are not provable in insolvency. The learned District Judge accepted this contention and directed deletion of items 1 and 3 to 9 from Schedule (a) to the petition. Usha Charan Banerjee appeals from this order with the leave of this Court.3. Before the impugned order was made the petition for adjudication had not been disposed of and Usha Charan had not been adjudicated as insolvent.4. The scope of the inquiry preliminar...

Kunja Behari Rana and ors. Vs. Gourhari Rana and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1958Cal105

R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. Defendants 1 to 3 have appealed to this Court against a preliminary decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Midnapur, directing partition of certain items of properties which had been claimed by the Plaintiffs PS joint family properties.2. The plaintiffs' claim so far as the immoveable properties are concerned (described in Schedule Ka to the Plaint) has been allowed. The claim to moveables, mortgage bonds and decrees included in Schedules Kha and Ga has been dismissed as the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of any of those items at the time of the filing of the plaint. Schedule Gha included the stock-in-trade of a brass metal foundry business and not the business itself. Such stocks also were found not to be in existence.3. The immoveable properties which have been held to be joint family properties liable to partition stand in the name of different members of the family. For a proper appreciation of the conflicting claims we need refer to th...

Sm. Jabeda Khatun and anr. Vs. Hazi Mohammed Ibrahim and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1957Cal360

P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was a suit for partition in which the plaintiff also prayed for dissolution of certain businesses claimed to be joint and for accounts. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Jalpaiguri on June 14, 1946, and it embraced (i) a number of immovable properties, (ii) certain shares in tea companies and (iii) four businesses, namely, a shoe business at No 23, Machuabadar Street, Calcutta, a stationery business at Cooch Behar, a hide business at No. 5. Cross Lane, Narkeldanga, Calcutta, and another hide business at Nilphamari (Rangpur). The plaintiff claimed a ten annas share in all the above properties andbusinesses and asked for partition, dissolution and accounts on that footing. The learned Subordinate Judge has found the plaintiff's share to be 9 annas 16 gandas 2 karas and 2 krantis and he has passed a preliminary decree for partition in favour of the plaintiff on that footing in respect of the above...

Annada Prasanna Majumdar Vs. T.C. Seth, Collector of Central Excise an ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1956Cal553,60CWN898

Sinha, J. 1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner is the owner of a Taxi Cab No. WET-1099 and holds a permit No. P. Co. P. 1871 in respect of the same. He employed a driver of the name of Md. Ibrahim, The Central Preventive Circle, Land Customs, Calcutta, received information that contraband betel nuts would be transported by Taxi Cab No. 1099 from Bongaon to Calcutta via the Jessore Road. Officers of the Central 'Preventive Circle, Land Customs, kept watch at Gate No. 2 of the Habra Railway Level Crossing. On 30-12-1954 at about 2 A.M. in the night, they found a taxi coining from the direction of Bongaon, They closed the Railway gate when the taxi was near the gate, and although the driver made an attempt, to turn round, the taxi was apprehended. It was found to bear the registered number WBT-1099 and upon check, 7 bags of betel-nut were found inside the taxi. Apart from the driver named Ibrahim, there were two persons Sarkar and Haldar, who claimed the goods ...

Basantha Kumar Pal Vs. Chief Electrical Engineer and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Sinha, J.1. 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 fifty-fifth year on 1 July 1950, and he will reach his sixtieth year on 1 July 1955.2. On 19 May 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 July 1950. He was further informed that, if he wished to make a representation, it would he duly considered before final orders were passed. On 19 May 1949, the petitioner wrote to the District Electrical Engineer, Dhanbad, requesting that his provident fund subscription and leave salary might be adjusted.3. On 10 June 1949, he replied to the notice dated 19 May 1949, stating that he was still capable of going on normally with his duties and pr...

Abdul Based Vs. Derestulla Mandal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1957Cal18,1957CriLJ51

Sen, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the acquittal of Derestulla Mandal and 6 other accused by Sri B. K. Panda, Assistant Sessions Judge, Murshidabad. All the 7 accused were charged under Section 148, I. P. C. for rioting in prosecution of the common object of assaulting Jahiruddin and being armed with deadly weapons when rioting. The accused Abdul Latif was charge,d under Section 326 for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Samiruddin. Hafezuddin was charged under Section 324, I. P. C. for voluntarily causing hurt to Anes with a spear or Farsa, and Niajuddin was charged under Section 323, I. P. C. for voluntarily causing hurt to Anes.2. The prosecution case was briefly as follows:3. On 9-12-54 there was a theft of some jute sticks belonging to Kulsam Bewa, a woman of the household of Jahiruddin and the accused Sham-suddin was suspected. Next morning i.e. on .10-12-54, just after sunrise Kulsam abused the thief without mentioning the name. Gulnair, a granddaughter ...

Pannalal Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1957Cal156

1. This is a suit by a contractor for recovery of Rs. 1,36,670/- from the Dominion of India as the value of certain work done in connection with a military hospital at Dacca in the year 1944. A contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the Governor-General of India in Council in November, 1943, being a lump sum contract for Rs. 14,13,647/-. The contract which is numbered DK/89 was embodied in a tender and conditions of contract as per Drawings and Specifications attached to the tender. To this there was a deviation by an order No. 2027/377/E.2 made in writing by the Garrison Engineer Dacca on 29th May, 1944. The plaintiff completed the work and submitted his final bill on or about the 14th January 1946 and received payment in full thereof. His case as laid in the plaint is that he thereafter discovered that he had made a mistake of fact & that his final bill did not include the cost of surfacing the floor with cement and sand mixed in certain proportions under the said order ...

M.B. Sirkar and Sons Vs. Powell and Co.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1956Cal630,60CWN840

Chakravartti, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of P. B. Mukhar-ji, J., dated 22-6-1955, by which the learned Judge allowed an amendment of the respondent's plaint. By that amendment, the original defendant in the respondent's suit, Which was shown as a firm, was converted into a company of the same name. The appellant before us which is the company so substituted as the defendant, complains that the amendment took away from it a valuable right which had accrued to it by efflux of time and, therefore, it ought not to have been allowed, particularly since-there were no special circumstances in the case entitling the respondent to the indulgence.2. The facts are as follows. The respondent is a firm, said to be carrying on business as a supplier of marbles and other flooring materials as also a contractor doing marble, mosaic and other flooring work. On 23-11-1953, the respondent instituted a suit on the Original Side of this Court for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,989-13-6 for work...

Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs to State of West Beng ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1960CriLJ336

J.P. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the respondent's acquittal of a charge Under Section 451(1)(a) read with Section 537 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, The charge was for keeping open a private market without a license granted by the Commissioner in that behalf for 1953-54.2. The respondents as sebaits of a deity were, at all material times, as they still are, in occupation of premises No. 26, Indra Biswas Road, in ward No, 30, within district Cossipore of the Corporation of Calcutta. A private market without a license having been found to exist at the said premises, the respondents were prosecuted Under Section 45(1)(a) read with Section 537 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951.3. The respondents defence wag twofold: firstly, that they were not the owners of the market and, secondly, that the market concerned not having been declared and licensed by the Corporation as a market was not a 'market' within the meaning of Clause (42) of Section 5 of the Act and th...