Kolkata Court July 1968 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.
Ujjal Talukdar Vs. Netai Chand Koley
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal224,74CWN404
ORDERBijayesh Mukherji, J.1. This rule under Section 115 of the Procedure Code (5 of 1908), issued by Chatterjee, J., on April 29, 1968, has, as its genesis, a one-day cricket match played on January 14, 1968, on George Telegraph Sports ground in the Calcutta Maidan, between Belgachia United Club and George Telegraph Sports Club, both the clubs belonging to Group 'E' of the Second Division League. 'Belgachia' --that is how I shorten the full name of the club -- lost the toss and was asked to bat first, which it did, to collect 155 runs for the loss of five wickets, by 12.05 hours, when due to rains, the game 'had to be stopped by the Umpire,' who, however, held no discussion with the Captains of the two competing teams: vide paragraph 9 of the plaint presented by 'Belgachia's' Honorary Secretary. Ujjal Talukdar, qua plaintiff, in the Court of a Munsiff at Sealdah, being suit No. 97 of 1968. 'Belgachia' requested the sole defendant in that suit, Netai Chand Koley, Honorary Secretary, Cr...
Gopal Khaitan and ors. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal132,[1969]39CompCas150(Cal),1969CriLJ382,73CWN22
N.C. Talukdar, J.1. This Appeal is against an order dated the 23rd November, 1966 passed by Shri A. Sen Gupta, Presidency Magistrate, 5th Court, Calcutta in case no. C/1452 of 1966 convicting the three accused -- appellants under Section 614A(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six weeks each, with the further direction under Section 626 of the Companies Act, 1956 that one-tenth of the fine, if realised, is to be applied towards the payment of the costs of the proceedings.2. The facts can be put in a short compass. The three accused-appellants, viz., Sri Gopal Khaitan, Sri Dhan Raj Khaitan and Sri Shew Bhagwan Mahe-swari are the Directors of M/s. Khaitan Finance Corporation (Private) Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act. Two cases being cases Nos. C/380 and C/381 of 1965 were started against them under Sections 162(1) and 220(3) respectively of the Companies Act, 1956, by the R...
Narayan Prasad Ruia Vs. Mutuni KohaIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal69
ORDERBijayesh Mukherji, J. 1. The only point which I have been called upon to decide, in this rule under Article 227 of the Constitution, at the instance of the landlord in proceedings for eviction of thika tenants, is: in the lis initiated by Naravan Prosad Ruia as karta of the joint Mitakshara family, consisting of himself and his three minor sons: (1) Mahendra Kumar Ruia, (2) Su-rendra Kumar Ruia, and (3) Mahesh Ku-mar Ruia, just as the cause-title of the application under Section 5 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 2 of 1949, is, Surendra Kumar Ruia having died on February 2, 1965, during the carriage of the lis, and his mother, the only heir, having not been substituted in her place to this day, does the lis as a whole abate? 2. The Thika Controller solves the problem by expunging the name of the deceased: vide his order No. 34 dated October 8, 1966. The appellate Judge takes a different view on this 'knotty point', as he puts it, governs himself by the Full Bench decision of the...
Brooke Bond India (Private) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal39
ORDERBijayesh Mukherji, J. 1. This is a rule under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, obtained by M/s. Brooke Bond India (Private) Ltd., whose suit raised on July7, 1965, for recovery of Rs. 203,95 on account of excess freight realized on May8, 1962, by the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta and the South Eastern Railway, for a certain consignment from KP docks to Ghatkesar via Nagpur, a distance of 1736 kilometres, fails before a learned Judge of the small causes court at Alipore. It fails, not on merits of the claim, but on the sole ground that the notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act, 9 of 1890, was served on the Refunds Officer of the South Eastern Railway, not on the General Manager. On merits the learned Judge indeed finds as a fact that 'excess freight of Rs. 203.95 was realized by the defendants ..... due totheir miscalculation and negligence,' 2. The Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, who do not enter appearance in the court below and against ...
Sudhir Chandra Jana Vs. Amulya Chandra Misra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ1079
N.C. Talukdar, J.1. This appeal is against an order dated the 27th March, 1965, passed by Shri M. Bhattacharyya, Magistrate, 2nd Class, Tamluk, acquitting the accused respondents, who are four in number, under Sections 143 and 379 of the Penal Code2. The prosecution case briefly is that in 1364 B S. P.W.1, Sudhir Chandra Jana took settlement of two plots, viz., plots Nos. 2780 and 2808 in mouza Dikshin Narkelda, which are the subject-matter of the present case, from one Rani Suhasini Roy by a bhag kabuliyat. The kabuliyat, which is a registered one, is exhibit 1 in this case and is dated 19th April, 1957. On the 9th Pous, 1369 B. S., corresponding to 25th December, 1962, at about 8 a. m. in the morning the accused, Pulin Behari Tripatby who has since died as also the other four accused respondents, Amulya, Haradhan, Jhareswar and Biharilal accompanied by 25 to 26 other persons armed with chowki, lathi, etc. came upon plots Nos. 2780 and 2808 which are the lands in occupation of Sudhir ...
Kanai Pal Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal422,1969CriLJ1118
T.P. Mukherji, J. 1. This application under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioner Kanai Pal on behalf of Kartick Chandra Nag against whom the District Magistrate of Nadia made an order under Section 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act on November 27, 1967. The purpose behind the order for detention was to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Three specific grounds are mentioned in the order of the District Magistrate disclosing the course of conduct of the detenu which according to him was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and which justified his detention under the Act.2. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner on behalf of the detenu has raised two arguments against the validity of the order of the District Magistrate. The first ground is that the detention is unjustified inasmuch as the order and the grounds were served on the detenu while he was in Jail custody to co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›