Kolkata Court June 1957 Judgments
Mani Alias Monmatha Alias Monoranjan Sardar and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1957
Reported in: AIR1960Cal179
Mitter, J. 1. The appellants were tried upon charges under Sections 366 and 368 of the Indian Penal Cade by Sri S. N. Bagchi, Assistant Sessions Judge, Alipore, sitting with a jury. The jury at first returned a verdict of not guilty under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code against Mani alias Manmatha alias Monoranjan Sardar, The jury also returned a verdict of not guilty under Section 368 against the appellants' co-accused Hiramani Dasi and Hari Dasi. The women accused were accordingly acquitted. The learned Judge was of the view that the verdict of not guilty under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code returned by the jury as against Mani was not a proper verdict. Accordingly, he directed the jury to retire once more and reconsider theirverdict, For this purpose he administered a further summing-up to the jury which took about ten minutes. No record of this supplementary sum-ing-up was, however, made. When the jury returned a second time, they brought in a verdict of guilty under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Biswanath Ghosh Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal589,1957CriLJ1114
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of 24 Paragons by which he directed a further enquiry into a complaint by one Pramatha Nath Mandal of an offence tinder Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner before us. The trying Magistrate held that there was no sufficient ground for committing the petitioner to the court of Session and in that view discharged him under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon an application under Sections 435 and 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed a further enquiry which is challenged in the Rule before us.2. The facts are simple, Pramatha Nath Mandal the father of a girl named Champarani, resides at 117 Gopal Lal Thakur Road, Baranagore. On the 1st of May, 1955, at about 1-30 P.M. he awoke from his midday siesta and found that his daughter, aged according to him about 16 or 17 years, was missing and that she had take...
Tag this Judgment!Mani Alias, Monmatha Alias Monoranjan Sardar and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1957
Reported in: 1960CriLJ337
J.P. Mitter, J.1. The appellants were tried upon charges Under Sections 366 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code by Sri S.N. Bagchi, Assistant Sessions Judge, Alipore, sitting with a jury. The jury at first returned a verdict of not guilty Under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code against Mani alias Manmatha alias Monoranjan Sardar. The jury also returned a verdict of not guilty Under Section 368 against the appellants' co-accused Hiramani Dasi and Hari Dasi. The women accused were accordingly acquitted. The learned Judge was of the view that the verdict of not guilty Under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code returned by the jury as against Mani was not a proper verdict. Accordingly, he directed the jury to retire once more and reconsider their verdict. For this purpose he administered a further summing-up to the jury which took about ten minutes, No record of this supplementary sum-ing-up was, however, made. When the jury returned a second time, they brought in a verdict of guilty Under...
Tag this Judgment!G.C. Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Remington Rand (India) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal31
ORDERSinha, J. 1. There are three petitioners in this application. They and 17 other workman were employed in the service department of respondent No. 1. On or about the 1st April, 1955 Mr. A. J. Maynard, Personal Manager of the said company, served notices upon the 20 workmen to the effect that it had been evident for sometime that the company's service department at Mangoe Lane was over-staffed and the company had decided to relieve the position by offering these workmen, who were found surplus, alternative employment in its factory. It was indicated that the workmen will be transferred to the factory with effect from the 4th April, 1955 and thereafter the Rules and Regulations as applicable to the factory staff would be applicable, and salaries will be adjusted accordingly. It was however stated that the gross salary of the staff concerned will remain the same. On the 4th April, 1956 the workmen affected intimated to the management that the work in the factory was quite different fr...
Tag this Judgment!Kothari and Co. and ors. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal156,1958CriLJ378
S.N. Guha Ray, J. 1. The first appellant Messrs. Kothari and Co., is a firm of which appellants Nos. 2 and 3 are partners. The firm is a wholesale dealer in spices and has its godown at 14, Portuguese Church Street, Calcutta. On the 10th July 1954, Dr. A.C. Biswas, witness No. 1 for the prosecution, a Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta visited the godown of the firm and found a large stock of black pepper in two separate lots. Appellants Nos. 2 and 3, the partners of the firm told him that thestock was meant for sale. The Food Inspector then purchased 6 chhataks of black pepper from each lot, divided each of the two samples into three equal parts, handed over one part of each to the partners of the firm, kept one part of each to himself and sent the other part of each to the Public Analyst for examination and report. Dr. Ghosh, witness No. 2 for the prosecution analysed one sample and Dr. Chatterjee the other. Their reports are Exs. 5 and 6 respectively. According to Ex. 5 t...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Banjara and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal248
ORDERH.K. Bose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to act in terms of Sections 15(5) and 15(6) of the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911 by extending the term of the patent for a further term not exceeding 10 years or by granting a new patent for the said term and to forbear from giving effect to the orders of rejection of the petitioners' application dated the 12th April, 1954, and also directing Respondent No. 2 to act in terms of Rules 25 (2) and 25 (14) of the Indian Patents and Designs Rules, 1933.2. On 12th July, 1928, the petitioner Hiralal Banjara was granted a letters patent in respect of his invention of a machine entitled 'The improved machine for removing husks and shells from massor and the like'. The said patent was for a term of 16 years. The petitioner No. 2 having been assigned a share of the said patent by the petitioner No. 1 Hiralal, the petitioners are now joint holders o...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman Municipality Vs. Mohan Tewari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ169
ORDERGuha Ray, J.1. This Reference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by the Additional Sessions Judge of Midnapore recommends that the order of the Magistrate fining Mohan Tewari Rs. 350/- and imposing a daily fine of Rs. 30/- should be set aside. The facts briefly are that Mohan Tewari has a cattle shed in Chhoto Bazar close to Kotwali Bazar in a very thickly populated town of Midnapore where he keeps 30 or 35 heads of cattle in such a manner as to be a source of annoyance to the neighbours and the public in general and injurious and dangerous to the persons living close by. The Municipality served a notice on the petitioner under Section 452 of the Bengal Municipal Act directing him to remove the Khatal from there immediately on receipt of the notice. He did not remove the Khatal in spite of the notice. Then the Chairman of the Midnapore Municipality filed a petition before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate complaining against him under Section 453 read with Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Harendra Kumar Basu Vs. Contai Bus Syndicate Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal182
Lahiri, J.1. This is a Rule obtained by the applicant in, a proceeding for permission to sue in forma pauperis. The facts which are undisputed are these :2. On the 24th September, 1954, the petitioner filed an application under Order 33, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code which gave rise to Judicial Miscellaneous Case No. 83 of 1954 of the First Court of the Subordinate Judge, Midnapore. Notices of the aforesaid application were Served upon the Government as well as upon the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance on the 26th March, 1955 and the Government Pleader entered appearance on the 16th, of July 1955. On the 9th July, 1955, the applicant filed a list of witnesses and upon that the Court issued summonses on the applicant's witnesses and recorded an order to the effect that non-service of summons would not be a ground of further adjournment and for non-production of documents. The opposite party No. 1 also filed a petition for issuing summonses upon its witnesse...
Tag this Judgment!Lokenath Bhattacharjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal576
ORDERSinha, J.1. The petitioner, Lokenath Battacharjee, was a permanent clerk in the Cooch Behar State Forces. He ent:red service sometime in June 1944. It is admitted that he was employed in the Military Department of the State of Cooch Behar and as a matter of fact his name is duly entered in the Sheet Roll for Combatants, which shows him as a member of the Cooch Behar State Forces, his regimental No. being 1221. His rank is shown as 'Head Clerk'. In August 1949, there was a treaty between the Maharaja of Cooch Behar and the Governor Genera] of India, representing thp Government of India by the treaty, the Government of India, inter alia, guaranteed either the continuance in service of the permanent members of the public servant of Cooch Behar on condition which will not be less advantageous than those on which they were serving before the date on which the administration of Cooch Bihar is made over to thp Government of India, or the payment of reasonable compensation. The Government...
Tag this Judgment!The Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Anil Prokash Basu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal423
1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law regarding the principle of assessment of building under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. The point seems to be one of first impression. 2. Premises No. 74/E, Ashutosh Mookerjee Road, which is a five-storied building, let out to tenants, was assessed by the Corporation of Calcutta under Section 127(a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, at an annul value of Rs. 3,888/- at the re-valuation proceedings of 1950-51 with effect from the third quarter of the said year. The owner of the said premises objected to the assessment and it was thereupon reduced to Rs. 3,489/- on 18-12-1951. The owner then appealed to the Court of Small Causes, Sealdah, under Section 141 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, and the said appeal was allowed and the annual value of the premises was reduced to Rs. 601. The present appeal has been filed by the Corporation of Calcutta against the said decision. 3. The building in question is wholly let out to tenants a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »