Kolkata Court July 1960 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.
Panchanan Pal Vs. Nirode Kumar Biswas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Cal12
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge dismissing the plaintiff's suit.2. The plaintiff instituted a suit on the 10th September, 1952 against Nirode Kumar Biswas claiming only two reliefs, (1) a declaration that premises No. 1/A, Jadu Nath Sen Lane was a charge for the payment of Rs. 8,333-5-4 and (2) for a mortgage decree for the same amount under Order 34, Rule 4 in Form 5A in Schedule 1 of Appendix D of the Code of Civil Procedure. No other relief was sought. It was a plain and simple suit to enforce a charge on immovable property and for a mortgage decree thereupon.3. The plaint was amended twice by the plaintiff. On the 7th January, 1953, there was an order of amendment whereby another transferee pendente lite was brought in as a second defendant--Sm. Bimala Bala Sashmal--and it was pleaded in paragraph 6A of the plaint that by a registered conveyance dated the 23rd September, 1952, one Surendra Nath Biswas cl...
Assistant Collector of Customs, for Appraisement and ors. Vs. Mercanti ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal636,65CWN153
Bachawat, J. 1. This is an appeal from an order under Article 220 of the Constitution. The respondents imported a quantity of Armco Nestable Steel Culverts complete with accessories required by the Government of Assam under an import license issued to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Assam. The respondents duly submitted a bill of entry in accordance with Section 29 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Act VIII of 1878) stating the real value, quantity and description of the goods. They contend that the goods are assessable to customs duty under item 63(9) o the first schedule to the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 (Act XXXII of 1934). By an order dated the 30th June, 1955 the Assistant Collector of Customs for Appraisement rejected the respondents' contention and assessed the duty under item 63(28) of the first schedule to Act XXXII of 1934. The duty so assessed amounts to Rs. 73315/8/-. The respondents appealed to the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. Pending the appeal they deposited the...
Promode Ranjan Roy Vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal108
ORDERSinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner was appointed with effect from the 10th January, 1956 as Chief Inspector of the Asiatic Government Security Lite and General Assurance Co. Ltd. He was on probation for a period of not less than one year from the date of his joining. The appointment was based on an annual contract of Rs. 10,00000/- completed business yielding a first year's premium income of not less than Rs. 25,000/-. The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 which nationalised all life insurance business in India, came into force on the 1st September, 1956 as a result of which, the petitioner became an employee under the Life Insurance Corporation of India, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. On the 21st November, 1956 it was intimated to him by a letter, a copy of which is annexure 'B' to the petition, that he was designated as 'Inspector', and would operate within the Calcutta Postal Zones. The letter contained the following...
Union of India (Uoi) as Representing the Railway Administration Vs. Ka ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal92
Lahiri, C.J. 1. In this reference a Division Bench of this Court has referred the following questions to the Full Bench, namely, (1) Is service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure a part of the cause of action for the purpose of determining the question of jurisdiction? . (2) Was the case Dominion of India v. Jagadish Prosad Pannalal a firm, 84 Cal LJ 175 : (AIR 1949 Cal 622) rightly decided in so far as it held that service of notice under Section 80 forms part of the cause of action on the question of jurisdiction? The opposite party obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 575/- (Rupees five hundred and seventy five) only together with costs against the petitioner as compensation for non-delivery of certain goods carried by the railway. The petitioner contested the suit by filing a written statement but did not challenge the jurisdiction of the Trial Court to try the suit. A contested decree was passed in favour of the petitioner and when that decree was put into ex...
Sawal Ram Goenka and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal169,1961CriLJ370
Lahiri, C.J.1. The petitioner was arrested by the Calcutta Police in connection with an alleged offence under Section 11 of the West Bengal Security Act. When he was produced before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, he was released on bail of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only. On a newspaper report of this proceeding a Division Bench of this Court taking criminal business issued a Rule upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate as well as upon the petitioner to show cause why the order granting bail should not he cancelled and after hearing the cause shown the Division Bench made the Rule absolute and cancelled the order of bail. The petitioner now wants to refer an appeal to the Supreme Court against the aforesaid order of the Division Bench dated July 22, 1960 and he has asked for a Certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution.2. Mr. Banerjee appearing in support of the application states before us that the point which the petitioner proposes to raise before the S...
On the Death of Monmathanath Halder His Heirs and Sons Sachindra Nath ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1967Cal442,1967CriLJ1135
S.K. Sen, J.1. In connection with this appeal against acquittal, there is a preliminary objection by the learned Advocate for the respondents that the complainant was a private person, Monmathanath Halder, and that he did not file the appeal under Section 417 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, but after his death his sons obtained leave and filed the appeal, and that such an appeal is not maintainable. Section 417 (3) provides that if an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon a complaint, and the High Court on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf grants special leave to appeal from the orders of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court. There is no provision for substitution in the Criminal Procudure Code; and the term 'complainant' as used in Sub-section (3) of Section 417 of the Code cannot be interpreted to include the successors-in-interest of the complainant. Section 404 of the Code provides that no appeal sh...
Nirmal Chandra Choudhuri Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1960
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ470Cal
D.N. Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: In March 1962 the petitioner became the Additional Rehabilitation Officer, Jalpaigruri, where he worked until December 1957 when he was transferred to Malda at Additional Rehabilitation Officer on or about 20 October 1956, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet issue by the Refugee Rehabilitation Commissioner. The charge-sheet contained five charges. It is unnecessary for me to set out all the charges excepting charge No. 1, which is as follows:--(1) Whereas on or about 17 October 1954 you made certain alterations in the jamabandi statement of Alipur Tahsil Office case No. XII/29 of 1954-55 scoring through some of the entries and substituting fresh names therefore and also by removing some existing papers and replacing them by some others prepared by you without obtaining any previous written approval or subsequent attestation to the alterations from the proper authority and thereby you committed the offence of tamp...
Sm. Binapani Haldar Vs. SamsuddIn Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Cal191,65CWN1087
Debabeata Mookerjee, J. 1. This appeal by special leave has been brought from an appellate order of acquittal made by the Sessions Judge of Murshidabad whereby he set aside the convictions of the respondents under Sections 379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and directed a new trial to be had upon a charge under Section 147 of the Code. 2. The appellant charged the respondents with having caught and carried away fish and damaged a khatan in a fishery which he claimed to own and possess. The respondents denied the charges and stated that the fishery was jointly possessed by them with the appellant. 3. The Magistrate held on evidence that the respondents were guilty of theft and mischief. He accordingly convicted and sentenced them under Sections 379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Upon conviction the respondents took an appeal which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the Magistrate who tried the case being invested with the powers of a Magistrate of the s...
Jasoda Jiban Saha (P.) Ltd. Vs. S.K. Chatterjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal195
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows : The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') carries on business, inter alia, as importers of split betel nuts. On or about July 24, 1959 the company placed an order for split betel nuts with Messrs. T. N. Sharma Ltd., of Penang, Malaya. On or about July 28, 1959 the order was accepted at the rate of Rs. 26-50 nP. per Cwt., c.i.f. Calcutta. According to the letter of acceptance, the goods were to be shipped by the first available steamer. The goods were actually shipped on or about August 24, 1959 after which the company was apprised of the shipment and cleared the shipping documents. On or about September 8, 1959 the consignment arrived at the Port of Calcutta and bills of entry were duly filled in, as required under the Sea Customs Act. The value declared was Rs. 2531.81 nP. On September 19, 1959 a show-cause notice was issued upon the company by the Assistant Collector for Appraisement, Customs House,...
The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Govt. of West Be ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ811
Debabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal by the State Government is directed against an order of the Sessions Judge of Cooch Behar by which the respondent Durga Chama Barman was acquitted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to be detained in accordance with the provision of Section 471 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The case for the prosecution briefly stated was that on the night of the 7th of October, 1958 when the respondent'- wife Kanchau Bala was sleeping with her children the respondent rushed in and out the throats of two of his infant daughters. The wife at once raised a by when neighbours appeared and forced open the door of the hut. The respondent was found standing with a bloodstained knife in hand; his clothes also had become bloodstained and the two daughters were seen lying dead with their throats cut. The respondent admitted his guilt and was at once secured and tied to a post, An information was given to the authorities and the police arrived and t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »