Kolkata Court August 1961 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.
Sm. Mukul Dutta Gupta and ors. Vs. Indian Airlines Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal311
1. The plaintiffs are the widow and minor children of one Sanat Kumar Dutta-Gupta who was killed in an air crash. They have instituted this suit under the Fatal Accidents Act for the recovery of damages against the defendant Corporation. It is pleaded in the plaint that the deceased Sanat Kumar purchased a ticket as a passenger from Dum Dum Airport to Jorhat on the defendant's scheduled route known as the Calcutta-Mohonbari route. On March 21, 1956 at about eleven o'clock in the morning the aircraft crashed while landing at Salami Airport. Sanat Kumar was killed in the crash. The plaintiffs' case is that the death of Sanat Kumar was caused by the negligence of the defendant Corporation or its employees. The particular of negligence are set out in paragraph 5 of the plaint. Leave to furnish further particulars of negligence and/or misconduct however was reserved after discovery. Such further particulars were furnished at the time of the opening of the case by Mr. Dutt Roy the learned co...
Sitaram Agarwala and anr. Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal370
S.K. SEN, J. 1. The appellants of the two appeals Sitaram Agarwalla and Wang Chih Kaw have been convicted under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act. Sitaram Agarwala has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months, and Wang Chih Kaw has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months more.2. The prosecution case was briefly as follows: On 25-8-58, P. W. I Ram Sevak Ojha, a con-stable attached to the Detecting Department, noticed Sitaram Agarwalla and one Bholanath Gupta at the crossing Hariram Goenka Street and Kalakar Street. In consequence of an information received the constable decided to follow them. Sitaram Agarwalla and Bholanath Gupta got into a bus of route No, 32 and the constable also boarded the same bus. Sitaram Agarwalla and Bholanath Gupta got down from the bus at the junction of B. K. Pal Avenue and J. M. Av...
Sohanlal Vs. Additional Collector of Customs and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ140
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1. The short facts o this case are as follows; The petitioner carries on business under die firm name of Acchruram Sohanlal. He is an exporter of various forms of lac, particularly, rei'usa lac. As is well known, lac is a resinous substance secreted, by certain insects which live in certain specified types of trees. It is mainly exported outside India. Being of an animal-cum-agricultural origin, it is found that in spite of refining in the manufacturing process, lac is found to contain, various impurities. For example, there is moisture, vegetable resin etc. Some of these are soluble in cold alcohol and others are not. It appears that there are various kinds of lac, one of which is called 'Molumma' which is a kind of refuse lac in which the petitioner has much export trade. The lac content of this variety is between 40 p.c. and 80 p.c. The export of lac from India is now controlled, that is to say, it has to be effected under a licence.2. In February, 1960 the petiti...
Sukumar Pyne Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal590
ORDERJ.P. Mitter, J.1. This Rule is the sequel to a notice by the Director of Enforcement to show cause why adjudication proceedings should not be held against the petitioner for an alleged contravention of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, as modified up to 1st July, 1959. The provisions relating to such adjudication proceedings are contained in Sections 23 and 23D of the said Act.2. Following the recovery of some Foreign currency at No. 311, Bow Bazar Street, Calcutta, where the petitioner along with his mother and brother carried on the business ofjewellers, the said Director of Enforcement issued a notice upon the petitioner to show cause why adjudication proceedings in respect of the contravention alleged should not be held. The petitioner showed cause.3. The petitioner's objection to the said proceedings is founded upon two grounds:(a) Section 23(1)(a) as well as Section 23D offend against Article 14 of the Constitution, and (b) Section...
Workmen of Continental Commercial Company (Private), Ltd. Vs. Governme ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1961
Reported in: (1962)ILLJ85Cal
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. As between respondent 3, Continental Commercial Company (Private), Limited, (hereinafter referred to as the 'company') and their workmen (the petitioners herein), there had been a settlement arrived at in course of a conciliation proceeding, as far back as 19 July 1949, by which disputes between them, inter alia, concerning pay scale, dearness allowance and sick leave were settled as hereinafter appearing:(1) Basic pay.--Special grade--Rs. 130-10-200 (at the discretion of the company and on the merit of the employees concerned)-- Grade A--Rs. 70-4-134.Grade B--Rs. 60-2/8-90 (Matriculate),Grade C--Rs. 55-2/8-80 (non-Marticulate).(2) Dearness allowance.--Grade A--Rs. 40, Grades B and C--Rs. 35.(3) Mechanic apprentices.--The maximum period of apprenticeship should ordinarily be 1 to 1 years, Naturally at the end of one year or 1 years he should either be absorbed as a permanent worker or discharged with the necessary certificate of training, provided of course he has q...
In Re: a Debtor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Cal25
ORDERA.N. Ray, J.1. This is an application for an adjudication. The main act of insolvency relied on is that there was an attachment. There are two grounds of opposition: first, that the respondent has ability to pay, secondly, that the attachment is invalid inasmuch as there was a Receiver in respect of the properties and no leave was taken prior to effecting attachment.2. Counsel on behalf of the applicant relied on a Bench decision reported in Pratapmal Ramesh-war v. Chunilal Johuri : AIR1933Cal417 on the observation appearing at p. 418 of the report that the words 'ability to pay debts' in the statute mean not merely that the man has assets which, if liquidation proceeds, may in the result, provide-sufficient money to discharge his debts but that he is not so embarrassed that he cannot meet his debts in the ordinary way by making legal tenderand discharging debts. The circumstance that a man has assets and not liquid assets and, therefore he cannot pay his debts is a circumstance w...
Sunil Kumar Mukherjee Vs. Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone, Life Insurance ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal75
ORDERSinha, J. 1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner was employed by theMetropolitan Insurance Company Limited, as an Inspector since 1955. .In January, 1956, the Life. Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance (No. 1 of 1956) was promulgated, to provide for the taking over of the management of all the insurance business in thy Union of India, pending nationalisation of the same. It came into operation on January 19, 1956. From that date, all life insurance business in India became a 'Controlled Business' vested in the Central Government. This ordinance was eventually repealed on the 21st March, 1956 by the promulgation of the Life Insurance Corporation Act (Act 31 of 1956). On the 1st September, 1956 the Life Insurance Corporation of India was established and under Section .11 of the said Act, all employees of Insurers became employees of the Corporation. On or about the 25th July, 1957 the Life Insurance Corporation issued a letter to the petitioner a copy...
Jaffar Imam and ors. Vs. Calcutta Dock Labour Board and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal411
Debabrata Mookerjee, J. 1. These three appeals raise a common question of law and have accordingly been heard together and are disposed of by this judgment.2. Two of the appeals Nos. (22 of 1959 and 30 of 1959) by Jaffar Imam and Jambu Patra respectively are from orders of Sinha, J. made under Article 226 of the Constitution refusing Writs of Certiorari to remove to this Court and quash orders of termination of their services made by the Deputy Chairman and affirmed on appeal by the Chairman of the Calcutta Dock Labour Board. The other appeal (No. 29 of 1959) by Brindaban Nayak is brought from the order of P.B. Mukherji, J. summarily dismissing an application for a similar Writ in respect of a similar order made against him by the same authority.3. The three appellants were dock workers attached to the Port of Calcutta and registered in the Reserve Pool. They were taken into preventive detention under an order of the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta made on the 12th August, 1955. Despi...
Nandalal Das Vs. Monmatha Nath Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal597
Amaresh Roy, J.1. This Rule was obtained by a tenant against an appellate order in a proceeding under Section 16(3) of the W. B. Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 in respect of premises No. 157(a) Dharmatala Street. The order passed by the Appellate Officer under the Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 allowed the appeal of the landlord and remanded the case to the Rent Controller for trial on merits of the landlord's application playing that the sub-tenant in respect of the portion of the premises be declared to be a direct tenant under the landlord.2. This case was heard analogously with 32 other similar Rules obtained by the same petitioner in respect of 32 other portions of the same premises which were the subject-matter of 32 other applications by the same landlord under Section 16(3) of the Premises Tenancy Act 1956 and common questions of law have arisen in all these 33 cases. For appreciating the questions of law that require to be decided in these cases, it is necessary to advert to the histo...
Moheshwar Naik and ors. Vs. Raghunath Pal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1961
Reported in: 1963CriLJ115
ORDERK.C. Sen, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order passed by Shri A.K. Dutta, Magistrate, 1st class, Jhargram, whereby he decided and declared that the members of the first party are in possession of the disputed lands and that they are entitled to retain possession until evicted or ousted in due course of law. Any disturbance to the first party's possession was ordered to be strictly forbidden.2. The first party started proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in the first instance, apprehending breach of peace. Subsequently under an order of the learned Magistrate it was converted into a proceeding under Section 145. The allegation of the first party was that the disputed lands were held originally by one Bipin as Bhalluk, on whose death, the first party, opposite party No. 1 Raghunath Paul held the same as Bhalluk and as-such he and his brothers Mangobinda and Kailash and Mangobinda's son, Nalini were in actual possession of the said lands. It was also their case that although R...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »