Kolkata Court July 1964 Judgments
Sudhir Kumar Mondal Vs. Abhoy Pada Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Cal141
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. In this election appeal, two questions call for decision. The first relates to the construction of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950, Part XIII (2) Item 40, as amended in 1956, and the second of Section 101(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The controversy is acute as to whether the contesting respondent, who got himself declared elected to the reserved seat for the Scheduled Castes in the Khargram Legislative Assembly Constituency of West Bengal in the last General Election, held in February 1962, belonged to the Scheduled Caste, so as to be eligible for the said reserved seat. The controversy is also keen on the appellant's claim to be forthwith declared elected to the said reserved seat in case the respondent's election aforesaid is declared void.2. To resolve the above controversies, I proceed first to set out the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions, namely, the above amended Item 40 of Part XIII (2) (together with Par...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Goswami Alias Sakti Pada Goswami Vs. General Manager, South Easte ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal557,[1964(9)FLR174]
Binayak Nath Banerjee, J.1. On or about June 19, 1941, the petitioner was appointed as a Shed clerk under the Bengal Nagpur Railway then a company. It is alleged that the petitioner, though a clerk, used to be utilised in doing typing work wherever posted, in view of his ability as a typist. It is well-known that the Bengal Nagpur Railway was taken over by the Government of India some time in October, 1944. After the take over, the petitioner was offered an appointment by the General Manager as a typist. The petitioner accepted that appointment. When the time came for his confirmation he was, however, confirmed as a clerk and not as a typist. According to the petitioner, non-typist clerks and typists are different classes of employees and nave different scales of emoluments and different avenues of promotions. His grievance is that after his confirmation as a clerk, under the state-owned railway, he should not have been utilised as a typist, without being given such an appointment.The ...
Tag this Judgment!New Calcutta Binders and anr. Vs. Sm. Sushila Bala Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Cal441
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. These four appeals are by the tenants defendants and they arise out of as many suits for ejectment, governed by the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950.2. The suits were brought on the ground of requisite defaults in payment of rent, disentitling the tenants to any protection under the said Act. The defaults pleaded were from November 1953 to April 1955. 3. The suits were contested and the main defence inter alia was a denial of the plaintiffs allegation of defaults on the part of the tenants defendants in payment of rent and a denial, further, of the validity and sufficiency of the notices to quit.4. The pleadings of the parties, so far as the cases, as were ultimately put before the court on their behalf, were not very full, and they appear to have been supplemented, in material particulars, by both sides in evidence. It may be mentioned here that, at one stage, the defendants applied for amendment of their written statements by giv...
Tag this Judgment!Umakanta Mukherjee Vs. Satya Charan Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal189
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a concurrent decree of dismissal of the plaintiff's suit, which was for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the disputed property and confirmation ofpossession; or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession, on declaration that defendant No. 1 had acquired no title to the same by his purchase from the previous limited owner, as the said sale was not for any legal necessity or justifying cause. 2. Shortly stated, the relevant facts are as follows : The suit property belonged to one Tulsi, whodied on July 22, 1936, leaving his widow Kalitara. Tulsi had a sister Charusila. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are the respondents before me, claim to be purchasers from Kalitara for legal necessity. 3. The plaintiff claims to be a purchaser from Charusila's heirs who, according to the plaintiff, were Tulsi's reversioners. In other words, the plaintiff claims to challenge the purchase of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from Kalitara on the foot...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Krishna Das and anr. Vs. Anil Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal59,69CWN545
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This Civil Rule raises a very important and interesting question of law about the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, under Section 15(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act read with Article 35(11) of the 2nd schedule under the said Act.2. The plaintiffs-petitioners obtained a Rule in this case which was limited only to the added ground No. 7 which reads as follows:'For that the learned Court below ought to have returned the plaint to the plaintiffs as the suit was not triable by the Small Cause Court Judge, inasmuch as the cause of action reveals a criminal offence.'The Rule, therefore, is now being heard on this ground as to why the judgment and decree complained of should not be get aside.3. The plaintiffs brought this suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 510/- being the price of certain articles let out on hire and for damages. The plaintiffs who are the petitioners before me are the proprietors of a firm under the name and style of Banga Laxmi D...
Tag this Judgment!Kanungo and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal248,1965CriLJ547
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner company carries on business as importer and dealer of watches. For importation of wrist watches in contravention of import control restrictions, the shop room of the petitioner, at No. 129, Radha Bazar Street, Calcutta, was searched by the Customs authorities, on October 17, 1959, and 390 pieces of wrist watches were seized. The petitioner company tried to explain the possession of the wrist watches on a twofold basis, namely, purchase of the wrist watches locally and receipt of some wrist watches from its customers for repair. In this Rule, I need not concern myself with the earlier phase of the dispute between the petitioner and the Customs authorities, when some of the seized watches were released, order of confiscation was passed in respect of the rest and then again the order was quashed on appeal for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. Ultimately, on August 21, 1961, there was a notice served upon the petitioner in respec...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal Vs. Rajat Kanti Sarmadhikary
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal169
Arun K. Mukherjea, J.1. The present appeal arises out of circumstances which are, one may think, rather odd. The petitioner Rajat Kanti Sarmadhikari is a typist working in the police department of the Government of West Bengal. At the time of making the petition he was posted In the District Intelligence Branch under the Superintendent, Government Railway Police, Sealdah who is the appellant No. 3 and who initiated1 certain disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner states that his appointing authority as well as his dismissing authority is the Special Superintendent of Police (I) in the Intelligence Branch and the Criminal Investigation Department of the Government of West Bengal i.e. the appellant No. 2. The petitioner claims, therefore, that the Superintendent, Government Railway Police had no jurisdiction to draw up disciplinary proceedings against him. The short point involved in this appeal is, therefore, whether the appellant No. 3 is the appointing authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Metallizing Corporation (Private) Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Com ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1964
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ528Cal
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. There is an Act known as the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which is an Act to provide for the institution of provident funds for employees in factories and other establishments. Section 1(3) of the Act reads as follows:2. Subject to the provisions contained In Section 16, it applies--(a) to every establishment which Is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Sch. I and in which twenty or more persons are employed, and(b) to any other establishment employing twenty or more persons or class of such establishments which the Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette, specify in this behalf:* * *Section 2(g) of the Act defines ' factory ' in the following language:'factory' means any premises, including the precincts thereof, in any part of which a manufacturing process Is being carried on or is ordinarily so carried on whether with the aid of power or without the aid of power.Section 2(0) of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Haridas Mundhra Vs. Indian Cable Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal369
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree in a contested suit wherein the learned trial Judge did not allow counsel for the defendant to cross-examine the witness who came to prove the plaintiff's case. The decree, however, was sought to be maintained on diverse grounds by counsel for the respondent and hence it is necessary to examine the facts of the case and what transpired before the learned trial judge on the day when the suit was called on for hearing and decreed.2. The case made in the plaint is as follows: The plaintiff is a manufacturer of cables and other electrical goods. Between March, 1955 and February, 1956 it supplied goods to one F. & C. Osier (India), Ltd., and one S. B. Trading Co. Private, Ltd., and large sums of money became due and payable to the plaintiff from the said companies. On or about September 5, 1956 the defendant, a director of both the said companies, in consideration of the plaintiff allowing and continuing to extend to the said companies the said c...
Tag this Judgment!Bankim Chandra Banerjee and ors. Vs. Distt. Panchayat Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal463,69CWN219
D. Basu, J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution has been presented by ten persons jointly, on the ground that their grievances againsta tax imposed by Kilinarayanpore-Paharpore Anchal Panchayat of which Respondents 2 and 3 are the Prodhan and the Upa-prodhan, respectively involve common questions of law. The Petitioners are all resident of this Anchat Panchayat and they are aggrieved by the imposition of the tax made by the Anchal Panchayat in exercise of its power under Section 57(1) (a) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1950. Three of the Petitioners preferred an appeal against the imposition before Respondent No. 1, the District Panchayat Officer, who is the Appellate Authority, and the latter gave his orders on these appeals on 18-2-60. On the failure of the Petitioners to pay the tax, notices for the issue of distress warrant, were issued on all the petitioners on 25-2-61. The petitioners, accordingly, prayed for quashing all proceedings relating to the assess...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »