SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(Cal) 67

GUHA RAY, RENUPADA MUKHERJEE
G. D. BHATTAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
J.M.BANERJEE, JAGDISH CHANDRA GHOSH, KISHORE MUKHARJI, S.S.MUKHERJEE, SAMAR RAY CHAUDHARY

GUHA RAY, J.

( 1 ) THESE three revision cases arise out of three prosecutions under Section 73 of the Indian. Mines Act. There are altogether six petitioners, the first five of whom are common to all the three cases. The sixth petitioner in Cases Nos. 304 of 1956 and 297 of 1956 is K. N. Nag, whereas in the third case, namely Case No. 303 of 1936 the sixth petitioner is K. P. Chatterjee. Admittedly the first four petitioners are the directors of Messrs. Bhattars Agency, Ltd. , Managing Agents of Ghusick and Muslia Collieries Ltd. , owners of Kalapahari Colliery and the Muslia Colliery. M. L. Daga. the fifth petitioner in all the cases is the Agent of the Kalapahari Colliery and the Muslia Colliery and K. N. Nag, petitioner No. 6 in the first two cases is the Manager of the Kalapahari Colliery. K. P. Chatterjee is the Manager of the Muslia Colliery.

( 2 ) THE first prosecution was for contravention of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Coal Mines Pit-head Bath Rules. 1946 in respect of the Kalapahari Colliery. The second prosecution was for contravention of Sub-rule (a) of Rule 3 of the Mines Creche Rules. 1946 in respect of the Kalapahari Colliery and the third prosecution was for con






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top