Kolkata Court January 1969 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.
Sarbananda Sarkar and ors. Vs. State Service, Department of Food and S ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Cal474,1969CriLJ1221
ORDERD. Basu, J.1. This Rule is directed against a criminal proceeding (E. G. R. No. 19/66), which is pending before Respondent 3, under Rule 125 of the Defence of IndiaRules, read with para 5 (c) of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1966. This case was instituted on thecomplaint of the Inspector of Food and Inspector of Food andSupplies (Respondent No. 5) dated 25th February, 1966, which is at Annexure A. In this complaint it was stated that the Petitioner had stored a large quantity of paddy at his residence, at Bhandijilash within P.S. Tufanganj without obtaining a permit under the said Order and that 67 quintals of paddy were found out from different parts of his premises. Owing to resistance of the inmates of his family to further search, the Petitioner was arrested under the Defence of India Rules. The Petitioner prays for quashing the Criminal Proceedings and restoring the seized paddy to him. upon a declaration that the said Rice and Paddy Control Order is unconstit...
Jadabendra Narayan Choudhury Vs. Commissioner, Jalpaiguri Divn. and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Cal539,1969CriLJ1364
ORDERA.K. Sinha, J.1. In this Rule the petitioner prays for quashing certain orders of the District Magistrate, Malda the respondent No. 2, for seizure of several guns and sus pension of several licenses and also order passed by the respondent No. 1 on appeal in this connection. Briefly, the facts are:--2. The petitioner belongs to ancient Zamindar family of a place known as 'English Bazar' in the district of Malda. His ancestors possessed quite a large number of guns and also several pistols. In 1957 the petitioner was granted 3 licenses Nos. 5067, 5068 and 5069 for possession of some of those guns and pistols. The license Nos. 5067 and 5068 which are the subject matter of the present rule covered 4 and 6 guns including 2 pistols respectively (hereinafter referred to as the Fire Arms). These fire arms were owned and possessed by the petitioner's father Jadunandan Choudhury along with his cousin brother Asutosh during their life time. The license stood in the name of the petitioner's f...
Sohanlal Salman Vs. Smt. Shyama Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal192
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioner who was defendant No. 3 in the connected suit under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. One of the issues between the parties was whether there was a partition, as alleged by the plaintiffs opposite parties. For proving this partition, originally an unregistered deed was produced by the plaintiffs, but, that having been found by the court not to be admissible in evidence under the law, the alleged partition could not be proved by the said deed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs applied for issue of a Commission for ascertaining the local features, for proving. In essence, the details of the above partition, which could not be proved, as aforesaid. The present petitioner objected to the issue of such a commission on the ground that the Commissioner's evidence, if any, would be hit by Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act and would not be admissible for the purpose of proving the said details of the alleged partitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›