Kolkata Court April 1959 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.
Himangshu Kumar Das Vs. Sobhan Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Cal782
ORDERS.K. Sen, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order passed by the learned . Magistrate Sri K. Naskar in the Malkhana Register for return of the seized property consisting of a number of burnt and unburnt bricks to the person from whose possession the same had been seized. The petitioner Himangshu Kumar Das has a brick kiln and the bricks manufactured in his kiln bear the mark 'J.M.C.' Some burnt and unburnt bricks belonging to the petitioner were stolen, and on a search in the village the petitioner found such bricks bearing the mark 'J.M.C.' in the house of opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4, Faraj Sheikh and Jeher Ali Sheikh, According to the petitioner, they admitted that they had taken away the bricks in question from the kiln of the petitioner and wanted to be excused for taking the bricks without the permission of the petitioner. The petitioner started a case and the police submitted a charge-sheet not only against Faraj and Jeher Ali but also against Sobhan and Abedin Sheikh, ...
Nemchand Tantia Vs. Kishinchand Chellaram (India) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Cal776,63CWN741
H.K. Bose, J. 1. This appeal is against a judgment and decree of P.C. Mallick, J., dismissing a suit to set aside an ex parte decree on the ground of fraud. The ex parte decree was passed by the Madras City Civil Court on April 5, 1949 in suit No. 555 of 1948, which was brought by the respondent in this appeal against the appellant herein for recovery of price of goods sold and delivered. On 16th January 1951 the present appellant filed a suit in this Court against the respondent for setting aside of the said ex parte decree on the ground that the respondent obtained the said decree by fraud. This suit came up for hearing before Mallick J. The learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish the case of fraud set up by him and he has, therefore, dismissed the plaintiffs suit.2. Before us the learned counsel for the appellant has contemted that the learned trial Judge is wrong in his finding that the case of fraud has not been established. The learned ...
Nirmal Bose Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Cal506,63CWN484
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner in this case is a citizen of India, having his permanent residence in the District of Jalpaiguri in the State of West Bengal. The subject-matter of this application is the proposed transfer to Pakistan of a portion of Berubari Union No. 12, which is now situated in Police Station, Jalpaiguri, District Jalpaiguri. In order to appreciate the exact nature of the dispute it is necessary to understand the facts relating to the proposed transfer, and for this purpose, a historical survey is inevitable. On 20-2-1947, the British Government announced its intention of transferring power in British India to Indian hands by June, 1948. On 3-6-1947 a statement was made by the said Government on the method of transfer of power in India. On 18-7-1947 the British Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act, 1947. This Act was to come into operation from the 'appointed date,' namely the 15th August, 1947. It was indicated that as from the 15th day of August, 194...
Sm. Monorama Dasi Vs. Anil Kumar Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal212
Renupada Mukherjee, J. 1. The only question of law involved in this appeal is whether a statement of accounts made in a hatchita by the defendant, where no balance has been struck, and where there is no agreement by the debtor, express or implied, that the difference between the credit and debit sides is payable to the creditor is governed by Article 64 of the Indian Limitation Act.2. The above question of law has arisen from the following facts and circumstances about which there is no dispute between the parties at present, Respondent Anil Kumar Ghose who is a contractor took advances of money from the deceased husband of the appellant from time to time. He also made payments from time to time. All these transactions-were entered in a hatchita book which was kept in the custody of the creditor. The hatchita book was marked exhibit 1 in the trial Court. The hatchita would show that accounts were opened on 4th Kartic, 1349 B. S. During the month of Kartic of that year, a sum of Rs. 160...
BepIn Behari Mondal and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Cal659,1959CriLJ1309
Debabrata Mookerjee, J. 1. Six accused persons Bepin Behari Mondal, Brindaban Mondal, Chandra Kanta Mondal Niranjan Mondal, Nakul Mondal and Mantu Lal Mondal were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge Alipore with the aid of a Jury. Bepin was charged under Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code Brindaban under Sections 148, 334 and 326; Chandra Kanta under Sections 148 and 324; Niranjan and Nakul under Section 148 and Mantu Lal Mondal under Sections 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code The Jury unanimously found Bepin guilty under Section 148 and by a majority of 6 to 3 guilty under Section 304 part II Brindaban was unanimously found guilty under Section 147 and by a majority of 7 to 2 guilty under Section 324. The Jury, however, unanimously found him not guilty under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The remaining four accused Chandra Kanta, Niranjan Nakul and Mantu Lal were unanimously found not guilty in respect of each of the charges framed against them. The learned Jud...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›