{"id":72555,"date":"1958-07-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1958-07-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958"},"modified":"2017-03-11T05:08:37","modified_gmt":"2017-03-10T23:38:37","slug":"dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958","title":{"rendered":"Dineshwar Bhattacharyya vs Chief Commercial … on 2 July, 1958"},"content":{"rendered":"
Calcutta High Court<\/div>\n
Dineshwar Bhattacharyya vs Chief Commercial … on 2 July, 1958<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1960 Cal 209, 62 CWN 921<\/div>\n
Author: Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
  Sinha, J.  <\/p>\n
 1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows.\n<\/p>\n
The    petitioner    joined the     Bengal    Nagpur Railway,  sometime in  1945 in  a Class  III post, as Traffic   Office   Assistant        (Office   Superintendent) Road Transport Branch, Commercial Traffic Manager’s   Office.     He   was   confirmed  in  that  post  in January  1947.    In  1950  he was  first of all selected by the Selection Board to fill the post of Assistant  Road  Transport Officer,  and he  was  selected for” a second time for filling a    post in Class II in the Commercial Department.    What the Selection Board does is to put the approved candidates in a panel,  from  which     officiating     appointments    are made,  strictly  according to priority.    An officiating appointment  may   lead  to  the  person  holding  the post being confirmed  therein.    The petitioner  was first of all appointed to the post of an Assistant Road Transport Officer, which was a post sanctioned only for six months.    Upon expiry of that period, he reverted to his substantive post.    On the 27th July,   1951  he  was  promoted  to  the  post  of  officiating  Assistant    Commercial    Officer     (Operating Branch).     This  is  a  Class  II  post  (gazetted).     On ‘the   14th April,   1952  the   B.  N.   Railway merged with  the  East  Indian  Railway,  which  in   its  turn was renamed the Eastern Railway.    On the  29th May, 1952 an order was passed by the Chief Commercial   Superintendent,     Eastern     Railway  to   the effect that the petitioner being surplus to requirement will revert to Class III on and from the 1st June,  1952.    It is said that owing to the regrouping of the Railways and due to a general tendency on the part of all employees not to go out of Calcutta, certain persons became surplus and had to be reverted back to their substantive posts. Against this order of the Chief Commercial  Superintendent, the  petitioner  appealed   to   the   General   Manager on the 31st May,  1952.    On the 7th June,  1952, an  order was  made by  the  General   Manager as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 “The General Manager has decided that you should be reverted from the L. G. S. to Class III on account of unsuitability and your name should be removed from the panel of Class III staff approved for promotion to the Lower Gazetted Service.”\n<\/p>\n
Against this the petitioner appealed to the Railway Board. Pending the appeal, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Selection Board for selection, but he refused to do so on the ground that the matter was pending decision and he was only willing to appear before the Selection Board without prejudice to his rights, a course to which the authorities did not agree.    On the 18th November, 1953 the petitioner was informed that his representation had been carefully considered by the Railway  Board  which had come to the conclusion that  he  had  been  correctly  reverted  to Class  HI. Nothing has been said with regard to the complain! that the petitioner’s name had been struck off the panel.    This  Rule  was issued on  the 5th January, 1954.  In  this  application,  the  petitioner  complains     -against  the  Order of  the  General  Manager  reverting him to his substantive post as  well as  striking out his name from the panel of Class III — staff, approved for promotion to the lower gazetted rank. As   I  have   stated   above,   the  petitioner   was   officiating  in  a  Class   II  post,  his    substantive post being  that of a Traffic Office Assistant which is a Class   III   post.     The   order  made   by   the   Chief Commercial   Superintendent   was   obviously  incompetent,  because he was  not  the  appointing authority.    But, as I have said, there is the subsequent order by the General Manager reverting him to his substantive   post   and   also   striking   out   his   name from the panel.    The complaint is that both these acts were by way of punishment, and the petitioner has not been given an opportunity of being heard, or of defending himself.    Now, so far as reverting him to his substantive post is concerned, the ground for doing so is stated to be that the petitioner became   surplus  to  requirement.     In  the  affidavit-in-opposition,  another ground has- been  sought to be advanced,  viz.,  that it was  thought that the petitioner should have more experience in the Commercial   Department.     But  that,   of  course,   is  nowhere in the orders mentioned above.    But even if the removal was for such a purpose, it appears to me that the mere sending back of the petitioner to his substantive post cannot be considered as a Punishment.     He   was   in   an   officiating   post   and ad no legal right to continue there.    If the matter stood   there,   then,   of   course,   no   relief   could   be granted.    But we have  another part of  the order, viz., that the General Manager struck his name out of the panel of Class III officers, who were to be promoted  to  Class II   posts.     In   the affidavit-in-opposition   it   has   been   sought   to   be   established that this panel is of no consequence, and that, in any   event,   it   was   a   panel   for   promotion   to   art officiating post.    In my opinion, this stand cannot be   supported.     One   could   have   understood   if   it was stated that by reason  of the merger,  the old selections had entirely vanished.    On the contrary, in paragraph 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by Phul Chand Vaish it    is stated    that    selections were      now  being made  from   amongst    the staff whose names were in the approved panel, according to seniority and merits  of the individual candidates.    It is further stated that the petitioner’s name  was   not  on  the  panel   since  the  7th   June,. 1952, and for that reason there is no question of supersession.     Further,   as   I   have   already   mentioned,  the  General  Manager has  actually removed the name  of the petitioner  from the panel as appears from the communication dated the 7th June, 1952 which  is Annexure  ‘B’  to the petition.    The position   is   that   there  was  a   panel   which   is   still in  existence,  drawn   up  by  a   Selection  Board,   according   to   the   rules   and   regulations   enforced   in the  Eastern   Railway.     It  will  be  necessary to investigate   the   question   of   this panel   a   little   further.    According  to  Rule   104 of the  Indian  Railway-Establishment   Code,   Vol.   I.   page  3,   railway  services   in   India   are   classified   into      three   classes: Classes I and II are gazetted, and the third class viz. Class III is non-gazetted.    We next come to Rule  132 which is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
  “Recruitment to Class II service by promotion may be made by the General Manager, provided such promotions are made in the strict order of priority in which the individuals have been placed on the recommendations of Selection Boards”.\n<\/p>\n
  Rule 134(2) runs as follows :\n<\/p>\n
  “Substantive promotions to Class II service shall be made by the General Managers provided that such promotions are made in the strict order of priority in which the individuals have been placed on the recommendations of Selection Boards; if any supersession of that order is involved, the matter should be referred to the Railway Board.”\n<\/p>\n
  The Rules governing the promotion of subordinate staff are to be found in Appendix II-A appearing in the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I, page 211. Rule 6 lays down that selection posts shall be filled up by a positive act of selection made with the help of Selection Boards; from amongst subordinates who are ordinarily considered for promotion to the selection posts in accordance with the orders or practice regulating such promotions. Rule 7 lays down how Selection Boards are to be appointed : Sub-rule (a) lays down that Selection Boards shall be constituted for the purpose of making recommendations to the competent authority of the employees considered by it as suitable for filling a selection post. Rule 8 lays down the constitution of Selection Boards and Rule 9 lays down the procedure to be adopted by them. It is inter alia laid down that a list will be drawn up according to the recommendations. It is further laid down that it shall be open to the General Manager, or the Chief Mining Engineer to direct, where circumstances warrant or the system in force requires it, that candidates selected by a Divisional or District Selection Board shall be subject to another selection by a Central Selection Board.\n<\/p>\n
2. It is, therefore, clear that a Selection Board is contemplated by the rules. The Selection Board makes its recommendations and the appointments by way of promotion must be made in accordance with the priority in the list or panel prepared by the Selection Board. I do not find anywhere any rule enabling the General Manager himself to override a panel or to strike out the name of a person from the panel. On the other hand, Mr. Chaudhury on behalf of the petitioner has drawn my attention to a series of circulars and\/or letters issued by the Railway Board which shows that there is a recognised procedure to be adopted in such cases. Reference has been made to the Railway Board’s letters dated 14th November, 1944, 1st March, 1945, 12th April, 1946 and 26th August, 1953. Copies of the first three communications above-named have been filed and the respondents were called upon to produce the originals which they have failed to produce. However, this does not matter, because Mr. Kar appearing on behalf of the opposite parties himself relied upon them. These letters make it clear that for the purpose of selecting subordinates for promotion to gazetted ranks, Selection Boards should always be constituted for purposes of recommendations. These recommendations for promotion are always in practice to higher post in an officiating capacity, because promotions are always made in that fashion; first of all an employee is promoted to a higher post in an officiating capacity and if he proves himself efficient then he is confirmed therein.    The Railway     Board has expressly disapproved of the action on behalf of the railway officials ignoring the panels made by the Selection Boards;   it has   even     disapproved  of  an   arbitrary cancellation or amendment of such panels without reference to the Railway Board.    Looking at the Rules and the circulars of the Railway Board, it appears  that such promotions  should be made according to the panel, that is to say, according to the recommendations made by the Selection Board. There is no rule anywhere empowering the General Manager, by himself, to either ignore the panel or strike a person’s name off the panel, by himself.    Assuming, however, that the General Manager had that power,  it is clear to me  that this action must be by way of punishment.    When an employee   is  reverted   from   an   officiating   post   to a substantive post, whether it is by way of punishment or not,  is  a vexed  question.    There     have been   various   decisions   on  this   point,   culminating in   the   Supreme   Court   decision,   Parshotam Lal Dhingra v.  Union of India,<\/a> .    This- decision I  have  analysed in the case of Dhajadhari Dutta v. Union of    India, .    In    the Supreme     Court     decision,     the     learned     Chief Justice has held that such a reduction of an employee would be penal if there is any penal consequence,   viz.   forfeiture  of  pay   Or  allowances,   loss of his  seniority  in   his  substantive   rank,   stoppage or  postponement  of his  future  chances  of promotion.    The question is  whether the striking o the petitioner’s  name  from  the panel,  has  affected his future right of promotion.    In my opinion, the inescapable conclusion is that it has so affected the petitioner.    As I have mentioned above, promotion from Class  III post  to  a Class  II post is to be done  according   to  the  recommendations   made  by Selection   Boards.     Where  there  is   such   a  list  or a panel, then a person not in the list cannot hope to be promoted.    In fact, this position is admitted in   the   affidavit-in-opposition,  paragraph   12,   where it  has  been  said  that  by  reason  of  the  fact  that the petitioner’s name is no longer in the panel, no question of promotion  arises  and consequently,  no question   of   supersession.     It   is   implied,   that   in order to have a chance of promotion, the petitioner would have  to be  in  the  selection list,  that is  to say,   in   the  panel.     Mr.   Kar  appearing  on  behalf of the opposite parties  has argued that a panel is but a stepping stone to the higher service and to be deprived of being included in the panel means nothing.     I   am   unable   to   accept   this   argument. In view of the rules and regulations and the practice prevailing  in the  Railway which  I have mentioned above,   it appears  that exclusion  from  the panel is  fatal to  an  employee in Class  III,  so far as  his  chances   of  promotion  are  concerned.   It  is then   said   that   the   petitioner   was   given   several chances  to  appear  before  a   new   Selection   Board but he refused to appear.    I have already pointed out   the  stand   the   petitioner   took.     He   correctly said   that   the   matter   was   being   decided   by   the higher authorities and he could not appear before a   Selection   Board   unless   the   authorities      agreed that  it  would  be  without  prejudice  to  his  rights. To   this   course,   however,  the  authorities   did   not agree.    The position, therefore, is that with regard to  the  first  part   of  his   contention,   viz.   that   the reversion  to the substantive post is by itself,  apart from  anything  else,  a  punishment,  the  petitioner’s contention  cannot be  upheld.     But with  regard  to the   second   contention,   viz.   that   the   striking   out of his name from the panel affected his chances of future promotion, it is a point of substance and must be upheld, What the authorities should have done before striking out the name of the petitioner from the panel was to give him an opportunity of showing cause as to why his name should not be struck off from the panel and the order could only be made after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard,<\/p>\n
3. Lastly, it was urged that the matter had gone to the Railway Board which had made its decision and that the Railway Board is not within my jurisdiction. As has been pointed out in a recent Supreme Court decision, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh,<\/a> (1958) SCA 73 : (AIR 1958 SC 86), all orders in departmental proceedings do not necessarily merge in the appellate order. But quite apart from this, it will appear from the facts mentioned above that the Railway Board never considered or passed any order on this part of the contention, viz. about striking of the petitioner’s name from the panel, I do not see, therefore, why I am not competent to deal with it.\n<\/p>\n
4. The result is that this Rule must be made absolute only in part. While the order of reversion of the petitioner to his substantive rank is upheld, that portion of the order passed by the General Manager which relates to the removal of the petitioner’s name from the panel of Class III staff, approved for promotion to the lower gazetted services, must be quashed and\/or set aside and a Writ is the nature of certiorari is issued therefor; there will also be a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to give effect to the same, and to restore his name in the panel,<\/p>\n
5. If the opposite parties wish to remove the petitioner’s name from the panel, it must be done in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
6. There will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
7. I must make it clear, however,  that what
\never action may have been taken in respect of other
\npersons in the panel who are not before me,  will
\nnot be affected by this order.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Calcutta High Court Dineshwar Bhattacharyya vs Chief Commercial … on 2 July, 1958 Equivalent citations: AIR 1960 Cal 209, 62 CWN 921 Author: Sinha Bench: Sinha ORDER Sinha, J. 1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows. The petitioner joined the Bengal Nagpur Railway, sometime in 1945 in a Class III post, as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-72555","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-calcutta-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDineshwar Bhattacharyya vs Chief Commercial ... on 2 July, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dineshwar Bhattacharyya vs Chief Commercial ... on 2 July, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1958-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-10T23:38:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dineshwar Bhattacharyya vs Chief Commercial … on 2 July, 1958\",\"datePublished\":\"1958-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-10T23:38:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958\"},\"wordCount\":2602,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Calcutta High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958\",\"name\":\"Dineshwar Bhattacharyya vs Chief Commercial ... on 2 July, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1958-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-10T23:38:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dineshwar Bhattacharyya vs Chief Commercial … on 2 July, 1958\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dineshwar Bhattacharyya vs Chief Commercial ... on 2 July, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dineshwar Bhattacharyya vs Chief Commercial ... on 2 July, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1958-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-10T23:38:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dineshwar Bhattacharyya vs Chief Commercial … on 2 July, 1958","datePublished":"1958-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-10T23:38:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958"},"wordCount":2602,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Calcutta High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958","name":"Dineshwar Bhattacharyya vs Chief Commercial ... on 2 July, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1958-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-10T23:38:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshwar-bhattacharyya-vs-chief-commercial-on-2-july-1958#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dineshwar Bhattacharyya vs Chief Commercial … on 2 July, 1958"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72555","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=72555"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72555\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72555"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72555"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72555"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}