Kolkata Court December 1972 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.
Manindra Chandra Sen Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal385
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Thepetitioner was appointed as a temporary Markman against a vacancy in place of one Panchu Mohan Mukherjee in the erstwhile Eastern Bengal Railway on 5th July, 1937. On 1st September, 1938, the petitioner was promoted as a general clerk, Grade 'B' and on 8th June, 1940 was confirmed as a Markman with effect from 1st June, 1940. On 15th December, 1970, there was a Gazette notification indicating that the petitioner would retire on 1st November, 1971. The petitioner has challenged this notification issued by the Personnel Department of the Eastern Railway. The said notification stated that the petitioner would complete 58 years of age on the 1st November, 1971, and accordingly would retire from the service. Thereafter the petitioner on 20th August, 1971, made a representation to the Divisional Superintendent, Sealdah, to recall the notice on the alleged ground of premature retirement. He was informed on the 4th September, 1971, that he would not be eligible to ...
Benode Chatterjee Vs. Purnendu Nath Tagore
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal352
ORDERA.K. Sarkar, J.1. An application for execution of a money decree dated 30th January. 1953 by attachment and sale of the defendant's sixteen annas share in the divided portion of premises No. 30, Maharshi Debendra Road, Calcutta, has been moved before me by the heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff-decree holder, one Benode Chatterjee since deceased. The application has been made on Tabular Statement affirmed by the said plaintiff-decree-holder on 27th January, 1965. It appears from endorsement in the Tabular Statement that direction was given by the learned master on the same date for issue of notice under Order XXI Rule 22 (1) (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was made within 12 years when the default in making the payment directed in the decree in respect of which execution, is sought took place i.e., 28th February 1953.2. The Notice under Order XXI. Rule 22 (11 (a) was not issued and the plaintiff-decree-holder did not take any step. On April 22. 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›