Kolkata Court August 1964 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.
Ram Chandra Paul Vs. Titaghur Paper Mills and ors. Kankinarrah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal378,69CWN537,(1965)IILLJ226Cal
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This Rule was taken out by the petitioner workman directed against the Award of the fifth Industrial Tribunal against him on his complaint under Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Award is dated the 13th May, 1963 published in the Calcutta Gazette of the 20th June, 1968. 2. The findings of the Tribunal may be summarised briefly. The Tribunal holds that there has been contravention of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal also holds in favour of the petitioner that no fair and proper enquiry was held in connection with the second charge sheet. These are points held in favour of the petitioner. But the points held against the petitionerby the Tribunal are serious and on the question of merits. 3. The Tribunal held as a fact that the petitioner was grossly negligent in passing the bill for Rs. 7,457.12 nP. and has caused damage to the company. In fact, the Tribunal says, 'I am afraid the absence of verification was due to gross ...
Jitendra Nath Roy Vs. Sm. Maheswari Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal45
Mitter, J.1. This is a purchaser's appeal from a decree refusing specific performance of an agreement for sare of immoveable property dated December 15, 1954. The learned trial Judge found that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement at all relevant times and that the agreement for sale was duly cancelled by the defendant.2. The undisputed facts prior to the date of the suit filed on May 21, 1957 are as follows: The negotiation for the property i. e. premises Nos. 34A and 34B, Amherst Street were carried on between two solicitors namely Mr. Anil Kumar Ghose for the purchaser and Mr. Anil Kumar Dutta for the vendor commencing in the first week of December 1954, The vendor was one Maheswari Bose a Hindu widow, who wanted to sell the property for legal necessity.(After dealing with the correspondence between the solicitors the judgment proceeded to deal with the relevant terms of the draft agreement dated 13-12-1954).The terms of the agreement relevant...
Satkari Chatterji Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal13,[1964(9)FLR294],(1966)ILLJ654Cal
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner was employed as a Sub-Inspector of Police under the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta. While he was attached to the Bankshall Court South, as one of the Police Prosecutors, a charge-sheet was drawn up against the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Arms Act Department on a charge of gross misconduct, with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner of Police. He was found guilty of the charges and dismissed from service with effect from nth November, 1957. The petitioner thereupon, made an application to this Court tinder Article 226 of the Constitution. A rule was issued being C. R. No. 2791 of 1960. The rule came up for hearing before me on the 10th December 1962 and was made absolute, on the ground that the petitioner's appointing authority was the Commissioner of Police and the charge-sheet which was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the proceedings and thereunder were inval...
Manicklal Sen and anr. Vs. Additional Collector of Customs and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal527,1965CriLJ487
D.N. Sinha, J.1. The petitioners in this case are (i) Sri Manick Lal Sen carrying on business under the name and style of 'Kedar Nath Dutt' at No. B-82, New Market, Calcutta and (2) Sri Abdul Hafiz. On or about 11th October, 1961 a search was conducted by the officers of the Customs at the place of business of the petitioner No. 1, on the strength of a search warrant issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate Calcutta. As a result of the search the customs officers seized 28 pieces of Transister Radio Sets, 2 pieces Transister Phonographs, lip sticks, cigarette lighters, shaving razors, batteries for transister radio sets, electric shavers, fountain pens and other stationery goods as mentioned in a seizure list, a copy whereof is annexed to the petition and marked with the letter 'A'. On the 15th November, 1961 a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner No. 1 a copy whereof is annexure 'B' to the petition. It was stated in the show-cause notice that the goods seized were of 'for...
Gulam Rasul Vs. Calcutta Dock Labour Board and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1964
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ52Cal
D.N. Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner carries on business under the name and style of Union Weighment Company in Calcutta. In 1948, a Central Act was passed called the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (Act 9 of 1948), which came into operation on 4 March 1948. This is an Act to provide for regulating the employment of dock workers. Under Section 4 of the said Act, the Government may, by notification in the official gazette and subject to the conditions of previous publication, make one or more schemes for a port or group of ports. In exercise of power conferred by Section 4, the Central Government framed a scheme for the Port of Calcutta called ' the Calcutta Unregistered Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1957.' It is stated in the said scheme that the object in promulgating the scheme is ' to regulate the employment of dock workers to whom this scheme applies.'2. The scheme applies to the dock workers of the class...
Satish Chandra Das and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal212
Dutta, J. 1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 1st March, 1961 of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, West Bengal in Case No. 237 of 1958. 2. The petitioners and one Habibur Rahman held a putni tenure under the Maharaja of Krishnagar. The lands of the tenure, in view of the partition of India, fell partly within West Bengal and partly in East Pakistan. Be that as it may, in 1954 the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act was passed. Section 9 of the said Act enabled the State to collect the rents due prior to the acquisition on behalf of the superior landlords. In pursuance of the said provisions of Section 9 of the Estates Acquisition Act proceedings were taken by the State for recovery of rents for the years 1356 to 1361 B.S. In these proceedings, in fact, on the 6/7th, November 1956 two certificates were issued--one for the years 1356 and 1357 B.S. and the other for the years 1358 to 1361 B. S. There is no controversy before us wi...
Sukumar Dutta Vs. Gouri Sankar Sarma
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Cal97,69CWN833
C.N. Laik, J.1. The suit, out of which the plaintiff's second appeal arises stands (after deletion of a prayer in the plaint) as a suit, only for permanent and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff's case in short was that on partition with his cosharers he became the full owner of the property. In August 1953, when the plaintiffs officer went to the suit land, he saw that the tenant defendant had begun to erect a masonry wall, in place of split bamboo walls, on the tenanted land, without any right. The said construction, being unlawful according to the plaintiff, the aforesaid suit was brought.2. The main defence was that a non-agricultural tenant had the right to errect structures under the provisions of Section 6 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 (hereinafter stated to be the Act) and therefore the suit was not maintainable. Both the Courts below dismissed the suit against which the instant second appeal by the plaintiff has been preferred.3. Mr. Lala, the learned ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›