Kolkata Court December 1972 Judgments
Kanailal Ghosal and ors. Vs. Ena Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Cal24,77CWN572
ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J.1. These are two Rules at the instance of the defendants-petitioners, the first one being under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the substantive application under' Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the other one under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, calling upon the plaintiff-opposite party to show cause, as to why, upon such condonation, the order dated 10-6-72 passed by Shri N.R. Sanyal, learned Munsif, Additional Court at Sealdah, District 24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 8 of 1964, should not be set aside.2. Having heard Mr. S.C. Dasgupta, Senior Government Pleader (with Mr. Himadri Sankar Mazumdar, Advocate), appearing on behalf of the defendants-petitioners, and Mr. Radhakanta Bhattacharya, Advocate (with Mr. Madan Mohan Ghosh, Advocate), appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party: and on going through the averments made in the petition as also the affidavits filed on behalf of the respe...
Tag this Judgment!Subodh Kumar Mitra and anr. Vs. the Revenue Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Cal94,77CWN410
ORDERAnil K. Sen, J.1. This Rule was issued on a Writ petition wherein the two petitioners, challenging the validity of a series of notices under Section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) issued by the Revenue Officer 'C' camp Baraset, have prayed for quashing the several proceedings initiated on such notices. The proceedings are case No. 16 of mouja Kaipul, cases Nos. 26, 29 to 38 mouja Bilbauchandi and cases Nos. 131 to138 and 143 to 147 of mouja Matiagacha. 2. The case of the petitionersshortly is that they were the tenants inrespect of a vast fishery commonly knownas Bilbouchandi spread over the threemoujas as aforesaid within Police Station Baraset. It is recorded in severalkhatians all recorded as tank-fisheries.After the vesting of the interest of theintermediary they became tenants of theState in respect of such fisheries. Thesebeing tank fisheries within the meaningof Section 6(1)(e) of the said Act theyare entitled to ...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal Vs. Asitendra Nath Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal478,77CWN618
Gupta, J. 1. These two appeals, preferred by the State of West Bengal, are directed against a decision of the Tribunal constituted under Section 72 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911, disposing of two references arising out of the acquisition of premises No. 36-B, Barrackpore Trunk Road under the Calcutta Improvement Trust Bustee Rehousing Scheme No. 1. The scheme was published under Section 43 (2) of the said Act on December 27, 1956 which is the material date for determination of the market value of the acquired land. Premises No. 36-B had been partitioned before acquisition and the demarcated portions relevant for the purpose of these two appeals are described as lot A and lots B and D. The two references before the tribunal, registered as cases Nos. 14 and 14-A of 1959 relate respectively to lot A and lots B and D. The claimants are, in respect of lot A, Asitendra Nath Mitter, and in respect of lots B and D, Asitendra Nath Mitter, F. A. 104 of 1960 arises out of case No. 14 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Maharam Ali Vs. Dinanath Prasad Sha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal379,1973CriLJ373,77CWN202
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an appeal bythe defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of premises held under a tenancy governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956. The plaintiff's case is that the suit tenancy was according to calendar month of Hindi Sambal year and the rent was Rs. 13/-per month. The tenant was a defaulter in payment of rent since Baisakh 1372 Fasli year. The plaintiff also made a case of reasonable requirement for his own use and occupation and also for building and rebuilding.2. By a notice dated 28th January, 1966 the tenancy was determined with the expiry of Hindi Fasli month of Falgoon 1373 (H. S.) and as the defendant did not deliver possession as required, a suit was instituted on 5th April, 1966.3. The suit was contested by the defendant who filed a written statement denying that he was a defaulter. It was further stated that the rate of the rent was Rs. 10/-and he had been depositing the rent at through. The defendant also challenged the n...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Juthika Sircar and ors. Vs. Official Trustees of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal382
ORDERS.K. Hazra, J.1. Sir Nripendra Nath Sircar during his lifetime created two Trusts for the benefit of his fourth son Dhirendra Nath Sircar and his heirs. Under the first deed of Trust which is dated December 6, 1943, Shri Dhirendra Nath Sircar was appointed as the sole trustee of two immovable properties. The first deed of trust is nut relevant for the purpose of the application made before me.2. This application has been made under Sections 25 and 26 of the Official Trustees Act, 1913 and Sections 34 and 36 of the Indian Trusts Act. 1882. The petitioners I and 2 are Sm. Juthika Sircar and Sri Dhirendra Nath Sircar. Sm. Juthika is the wife of Sri Dhirendra Nath. The other petitioners 3, 4 & 5 are Sm. Alaka Ghose, Sm. Sujata Basil and Sm. Sumitra Ghose. They are the three daughters of Sm. Juthika Sircar and Shri Dhirendra Nath Sircar.3. In this application prayer (a) of the petition relates to the second Deed of Trust dated March 12, 1945 created by Sri Nripendra Nath Sircar by whic...
Tag this Judgment!Sk. Bafatulla Mukhtear and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal148,77CWN171
Salil Kumar Datta, J. 1. These rules, arising under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, have been referred by the Chief Justice to the Special Division Bench as at present constituted for disposal, under Rule 1 (ii), Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules, primarily on the requisition of a Division Bench for considering inter alia the vires of Section 5A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (West Bengal Act I of 1954). 2. Mr. Ranjit Kumar Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners in C. R. Nos. 2190-93 of 1961, submitted, as the hearing commenced, that the present reference to the Special Bench was not a proper reference, as the Bench hearing these rules had taken a view different from the view taken earlier by Division Bench in Ambujakhya Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, TLR (1966) 1 Cal 495 and accordingly the reference should have been made to a Full Bench. He referred to the decision in Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of West Bengal, : ...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhansu Sekhar Maity and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal320
ORDERAnil Kumar Sen, J. 1. Two notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and two consequent declarations under Section 6 of the said Act are the subject-matter of challenge in this Rule. 2. It would be necessary to set out the facts in short which are as follows. On May 5, 1959 a notification was issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the said Act. This notification merely recited that some land in the District of Midnapore is likely to be needed for a public purpose viz., establishment of a subsidiary port at the mouth of Haldia river. This notification further authorised the Engineers of the Commissioners for the port of Calcutta and the Local Officers for the time being engaged on the undertaking to enter upon and survey land and do all further acts required for the proper execution of their work. The notification further laid down the route for the survey through the sixty-eight villages chronologically set ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanchanganga Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal325
A.K. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant appellant against a judgment and decree rejecting the reference made against Collector's award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. Before we enter into the points raised we would indicate brief outlines of the circumstances under which the order under controversy was made. The appellant who had certain vacant lands offered to the State Government for sale for settlement and rehabilitation of refugees. After several correspondence between the parties and the State the lands so offered were agreed to be acquired. There was further correspondence over the payment of compensation and as a result of several correspondence the appellant agreed to accept the maximum price of Rs. 9,000/- per acre for the acquisition of the land by the State.3. After the appellant had agreed to the valuation offered by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, possession of the lands was amicably delivered from time to time on diverse dates between 4t...
Tag this Judgment!Jaladhar Metey Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1972
Reported in: 1974CriLJ416
P.C. Borooah, J.1. The appellant Jaladhar Metey was tried along with two others before Shri A. K. Chatterjee, Additional Sessions Judge, Howrah, Against the appellant and the other accused persons there was a charge under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code that they on or about the 30th of June, 1968 at Narit, police station Amta, district Howrah, committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Netai Chandra Mondal in furtherance of the common intention of all. There was a further charge against the appellant and the other accused persons under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code that they on the same day and at the same place knowing that , certain offence, namely, murder punishable with death had been contracted had caused certain evidence of the said offence to disappear, namely, the dead body of Netai Chandra Mondal with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment in furtherance of the common intention of them all.2. By an order dated the 27th Janu...
Tag this Judgment!Subodh Singh Modak Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1972
Reported in: 1974CriLJ185
ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J.1. This Rule is at the instance of the accused-petitioner, Subodh Singh Modak, and is directed against an order dated the 22nd July, 1972 passed by Shri Prafulla Kumar Roy, Sessions Judge, Purulia in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 1972 setting aside an order dated 29-4-1972 passed by Shri B. K. Dutta, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class Purulia in N. G. R. Case No. 130 of 1971 under Section 4 of the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1942 quashing the criminal proceedings against him.2. The facts leading on to the Rule can be put in a short compass. During the investigation of Manbazar P. S. Case No. 8 dated 21-3-1970 under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, the police searched a house of the accused-petitioner in the present Rule, namely, Subodh Singh Modak, and recovered one transistor radio with one license in the name of one Jagadish Misra, The radio and the license were thereafter seized by the police on the footing that the accused-petitioner failed to g...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »