Kolkata Court January 1957 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.
Hemendra Nath Roy Vs. S. Sarangapanny and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal459,61CWN260,(1957)IILLJ666Cal
ORDERSinha, J.1. The petitioner is a railway servant employed as a commercial clerk at the Howarh Goods Office of the Eastern Railway. He is in a post which under the Railway Establishment Code can be described as a 'non-selection post'. In the Eastern Railway there are two kinds of posts, viz., selection posts, in which promotion is determined by efficiency and not seniority, and non-selection posts in which promotion is determined by seniority and not efficiency. In the case of non-selection posts, however, it is open to the authorities to find out whether, although a person is entitled to promotion as a result of seniority, he is suitable for the post to which he was going to be promoted. The legal position with regard to promotions in non-selection posts has been dealt with by me in my decision:. Ram Dulal Banerjee v. General Manager, Eastern Railway, : AIR1956Cal465 (A). After considering the rules and the relevant circulars. I held that a person in a non-selection post could net ...
Amulya Kumar Dutta and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal334,1957CriLJ631
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This is a petition of revision of an order of a Magistrate at Alipur; dated the 8th December, 1956, by which the learned Magistrate declined to follow in this case the procedure laid down for the trial of summons cases as prescribed in Ch. XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that a complaint was filed on the 12th October, 1955, and summons were issued under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. At the time when the processes were issued, Section 448 was a warrant case charge. The Magistrate seems to be of the view that since the proceedings commenced under the old procedure, he is to continue it and he is not obliged to follow the new procedure introduced by the amendments. I am afraid the Magistrate is Wrong. Nobody has any vested right in procedure and as soon as new amendments came into operation, the Magistrate, was obliged to follow the summons case procedure.2. It is said that after taking some evidence, it appeared that the accused had...
India Steamship Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal426
Renupada Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal raises a pure question of law, viz., whether an assignee of a landlord who has purchased the landlord's interest during the pendency of an ejectment suit without purchasing the arrears of rent which had accrued during the time of the vendor can carry on for his own benefit an application under Section 14(4) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950 started by the original landlord.2. In order to appreciate how this question of law has arisen in the present case I need state the following facts about which there is practically no controversy.3. One Rachael Sasoon and four other persons who are trustees of the estate of late Moise Abraham Sasoon instituted an ejectment suit in the Fourth Bench of the Court of Small Causes. Calcutta against one P. Singh, respondent of this appeal in respect of one room on the first floor of premises No. 21 Old Court House Street. Calcutta. The suit was instituted on 6th July 1953 on the ground that the tenant ...
Radhanath Maji Vs. Kishorilal Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal194,1958CriLJ501,61CWN757
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This is a Rule to show cause why a certain order of acquittal made under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be set aside or why such other or further order or orders made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.2. For the purposes of this Rule it is not necessary to set out the facts. There was an information lodged with the police by the complainant. Upon investigation the police submitted a chargesheet and copies of police papers were made available in due course to the accused. The Magistrate before whom the accused persons were tried made an order on 25th June, 1956, which is now complained of. It appears that on that day although the complainant was present no prosecution witnesses were present. The accused opposite party then represented to the Magistrate that if the police papers were looked into and examined, it would appear clear that there was no case against the opposite party. The learned Magistrate acceded to the reques...
Controller of Insurance Vs. H.C. Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal387
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This is a Reference under Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants against an Accountant named Mr. H. C. Das who is a member of the firm of Accountants carrying on profession under the name and style of H. C. Das & Co. That firm acted as auditors of an Insurance Company, called the Bhagya Lakshmi Insurance Company from 1936 up to 1951. The enquiry against the Accountant concerns the audit made by him of the accounts of the Insurance Company on behalf of his firm and the statutory certificates he granted in that connection.2. It appears that the Central Government came to form the opinion that the administration of the Bhagya Lakshmi Insurance Company wasnot being carried out in a satisfactory manner and consequently by an order made on the 27th of December, 1952, under Section 52A of the Insurance Act, they appointed Mr. S. C. Roy, a person well known in the insurance world, to act as Administrator of the company. ...
Bajrang Electric Steel Co. Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioners for the Port ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal240
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is an application by seven persons' (1) Leonard Henry George Mazotti, (2) HenryTwiggs Tribble, (3) Kenneth Lloyds Lancashire,. (4) Percy Frederick Cannier, (5)-William LensonArnold Derby, (6) Leonard Ernest Hart, and (7)Anthony Eugine Myddelton Gale under the IndianArbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act of 1937.It invokes Section 3 of the Indian Arbitration (Protocol and Convention') Act of 1937 for stay of a pending suit in this Court. 2. The matter relates to an Arbitration Agreement said to be contained in the Policy of Marine Insurance dated the 1st April, 1953 issued in favour of Metemicals Ltd., by Lloyds underwriters to cover certain risks for shipment. 3. In this application the petitioners want to stay the suit No. 1337 of 1956 instituted in this Court oh or about the 16th May, 1956. 4. I have come to the conclusion that this application must fail on many grounds. 5. My first reason is that this suit was instituted by the plaintiff Shree Bajra...
Ali Jan Vs. Amir Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal332,1957CriLJ630
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a residency Magistrate, dated the 10th November, 1956, by which he gave leave to the complainant in a summons case to examine a witness whose name did not appear in the list of witnesses already filed under Section 204 (1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate seems to be of the view that the production of evidence which he has allowed is necessary in the interests of justice.2. The only question in this case is whether it is open to the complainant to produce a witness for examination at the trial of a summons case, whose name has not been included in the list of witnesses furnished under Section 204 (1-A) of the Code. That section appears in Ch. XIV of theCode of Criminal Procedure, and the section provides that no summons or warrant shall be issued against an accused under Sub-section (1) of Section 204 until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. The Chapter relates to commencem...
State of West Bengal Vs. T.N. Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Cal65
P. N. Mookerjee, J.1. This is a valuation appeal arising out of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The State is the appellant before us and claimant No. 2 T. N. Gupta, who was the tenant of the acquired premises, is the contesting respondent. This claimant was the proprietor of the Standard Machinery Co. and he had his factory in the acquired premises. For the purpose of his factory, the claimant had built certain structures and installed machineries and the disouted claim in this appeal relates exclusively to the award made by the Tribunal in respect of some of these structures and machineries.2. The premises acquired bore Municipal Nos. 200 and 201, Manicktola. Main Road. The acquisition was made in connection with Improvement Scheme No. VI-M of the Calcutta Improvement Trust. As far back as November 18, 1926, the Government had sanctioned the plan of a proposed public street, known as Manicktola Alignment No. III. That proposed street was to pass through premi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›