Kolkata Court August 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.
indra Narayan Roy Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1963Cal64,1963CriLJ156
S.K. Sen J. 1. The appellant Indra Narayan Roy has been convicted under Sections 409/109 of the Indian Penal Cods and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years by Guha, J. at a High Court Sessions trial agreeing with the majority verdict of six to three. The prosecution case was briefly as follows: The Calcutta National Bank Ltd. was started by Sachindra Mohan Bhattacharjee and it began doing business on a small scale in 1930 in a building at 3 and 4 Hare Street. It was registered as an incorporated Company on 25-5-35 and had become a scheduled bank, in October 1938; it shifted to its own premises at P. 2, Mission Row Extension in 1940. S. M. Bhattacharjee became the Managing Director of the Calcutta National Bank Ltd. in 1937 and he continued as such until the 30th June, 1946, when the Articles of Association of the Banking Company were altered and the post of the Managing Director was abolished, and it was provided that the management of the bank would henceforth be done by a...
Abdul Halim and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal257,1961CriLJ496,64CWN1026
ORDERJ.P. Mitter, J.1. This is a Rule for quashing a prosecution under Sections 467, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts leading to the prosecution are these :Petitioner No. 1 Abdul Halim was alleged to have produced a sale certificate in respect of certain disputed properties before an Assistant Settlement Officer in the course of proceedings under Section 44(1) of the Estates Acquisition Act. The opposite party to those proceedings challenged the genuineness of the said certificate by producing a certified copy of the document which was in certain respects at variance with the one filed by the petitioner Abdul Halim. The Settlement Officer referred the matter to the police without any previous enquiry. There was no complaint by him as required under Sections 195 and 476 Cr. P. C. The police held an investigation and submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioners under Sections 467, 474 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. On receipt of the charge-sheet the learned trial ...
Raghunath Shaw Vs. Kanai Lal Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Cal97
ORDERRenupada Mukherjee, J.1. This Rule arises out of a decree passed by the Small Cause Court Judge, 1st Subordinate Judge, Hooghly, against petitioner Raghunath Shaw and some other opposite parties in a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 579/8/6 on khata account. According to the allegation of the plaintiff opposite party one Shyamlal Shaw who was the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner of this Rule and opposite parties Nos, 2 to 5, had purchased a certain quantity of rice from him and a sum of Rs. 579/8/6 was outstanding on account of the transaction between the plaintiff opposite party and Shyamlal. The suit was instituted against the heirs of Shyamlal.2. The suit was contested by the present petitioner who denied the liability and also took a plea of limitation. The defence of the petitioner was negatived and the suit was decreed against all the heirs of Shyamlal and there was a direction that the decretal dues would be realised from out of the assets of Shyamlal. The present...
Kubir Malla Vs. on the Death of Titu Bibi Her Heir Manik Mallik and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal75,65CWN420
Lahiri, C.J.1. This Reference arises out of a second appeal filed by the defendant against a decree made by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Jessore reversing a decision of the Munsif, Bongaon. The facts which are relevant for the purposes of this Reference are as follows: Under the same set of landlords there were two occupancy holdings, one bearing an annual rent of Rs. 10/- and the otter bearing an annual rent of Rs. 95-13. as. In. execution of a decree for arrears of rent in respect of the Utter holding the landlords brought the former holding to auction sale and at that sale the appellant who is a complete stranger purchased the holding on 22-6-1937. As the execution and sale took place prior to the introduction of Section 168A in the Bengal Tenancy Act, the landlord had the right to put up to sale one holding for arrears of rent due in respect of another holding. On 8-7-1943 the plaintiff respondents instituted a suit alleging that though they were some of the heirs of the ten...
Bidyadhari Spill Matsyajibi Samabaya Samity Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal214,65CWN685
ORDERSinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows : The petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Bengal Cooperative Societies Act. It was originally registered as far ago as 1929 and from time to time it took settlement of the fisheries in the Bidyadhari Spill Area. It is stated in the petition that the Society has developed these fisheries into planned and ideal fisheries. The last settlement taken by the petitioner society was to expire on the 31st March, 1960. The total area under settlement to the petitioner covered about 4000 bighas of land in the Bidyadhari Spill Area. It consisted of several settlements, including the four fisheries of the area of 246 bighas mentioned in Paragraph 3 of the petition. In the petition however, all mention of the remaining area has been left out. This application purports to be in respect of the settlement concerning these four fisheries, of an area of approximately 246 bighas. In all, the licenses iss...
Bibhas Mohan Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Hari Charan Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal491
Lahiri, C.J. 1. This reference arises out of an appeal from original decree filed by the plaintiffs against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge under Section 8-B(3) of the Court-fees Act. The facts leading up to this reference have been summarised in the order of reference and they are as follows : 2. The suit out of which this reference arises was one for a declaration that a certain preliminary decree is a suit for partition passed on compromise was invalid, inoperative and fraudulent and for certain other reliefs one of which was for a new preliminary decree. Initially the plaintiffs treated the reliefs claimed by them as for partition only and paid a court-fee stamp of Rs. 15/- upon the plaint. On the objection ot the Court, however, the plaintiffs put in an additional court-fee stamp of Rs. 20/-- This court-tee was tentatively accepted by the Court as sufficient subject to any objection that might be raised by the defendants. After the defendants had entered appearance in the...
Murarka Paint and Varnish Works Ltd. Vs. Mohanlal Murarka and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal251,[1961]31CompCas301(Cal),65CWN32
A.N. Ray, J.1. This suit has been instituted by Murarka Paint and Varnish Works (Private) Ltd. against Mohanlal Murarka, Chunilal Murarka, Purushottamalal Murarka, Beharilal Murarka, Radheylal Murarka, Kunjlal Murarka and Hiralal Murarka. The plaintiff has its registered office at 4E, Dalhousic Square, East, Calcutta; the plaintiff uses the said office in common with 5 other limited companies. At the last annual general meeting of the plaintiff company, Sohanlal Murarka,, Kissenlal Murarka, Shankarlal Murarka and Mohanlal Murarka were appointed directors.2. Article 111 of the Company states that every director shall vacate his office, inter alia, on his being requested in writing by all his co-directors to resign. On or about February 24, 1960 Sohanlal Murarka, Kissenlal Murarka and Shankarlal Murarka acting under Article 111 requested Mohanlal Murarka in writing to resign. The plaintiffs case is that Mohanlal Murarka immediately thereafter ceased to be director of the plaintiff. On or...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›