Justice Chittatosh Mookerjee, who was born on January 1, 1929, served as India’s Calcutta and Bombay High Court’s Chief Justice. He is the nephew of Shyama Prasad Mookerjee and the grandson of Ashutosh Mukherjee, a scholar and educator of Bengali descent. Honourable Mr. Chittatosh Mookerjee was appointed as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court on 2nd November 1987.
Justice Mookerjee was born in Kolkata, British India on January 1st, 1929 and came from the renowned Mookerjee family of Judges. Rama Prasad Mukherjee, his father, served as a judge on the Calcutta High Court. He received a First Division grade in his matriculation exam at Mitra Institution in Bhowanipore. He completed his graduation and obtained First Class Honours in Economics. His lordship passed the M.A. examination in 1951. His Lordship excelled in the intermediate and final exams of the Calcutta University’s preliminary, intermediate, and final law examinations, earning a First-Class grade. His Lordship practised mostly on the Appellate Side of the Calcutta High Court after enrolling as an advocate there on November 24, 1953. From 1955 through 1968, His Lordship taught law at the University College of Law.
His Lordship practised mostly on the Appellate Side of the Calcutta High Court after enrolling as an advocate there on November 24, 1953. From 1955 through 1968, His Lordship taught law at the University College of Law. On April 2, 1969, he was appointed to the Calcutta High Court as an additional judge; on November 25, 1970, he was made a permanent judge. The Judgments of His Lordship are remarkably succinct and yet quite clear. His Lordship was appointed Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court on November 1, 1986. On November 2, 1987, he was transferred to become Chief Justice of Bombay, and on January 1, 1991, Justice Mookerjee gave up his judicial position. He also served as Maharashtra’s temporary governor. He presided over the Kaveri River water dispute tribunal in 1990. He served as the West Bengal Human Rights Commission’s first chairman from 1995 to 1998 after retiring. It is also said former chief justice of the Bombay High Court Chittotosh Mukherjee, was a household name in Kolkata.
Some Judgements by Justice Chittatosh Mookerjee-
In ‘Probhat Kumar Mitra vs Sukriti Mitra’, the petitioner ‘Provat Kumar Mitra’ presented an application under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act in the court. The petitioner claimed that the respondent was incapable of engaging in sexual activity due to her insurmountable aversion to consummation and indomitable repugnance to it. Because having sex with the respondent required using extreme violence, the petitioner also claimed that the marriage was never finalised. In response, the petitioner requested that the marriage be ruled invalid due to the respondent’s impotence. The petitioner later also filed a petition stating that the respondent should submit a medical examination of her. Th court asked the respondent to do so by the medical expert provided by the court in order to find whether she was impotent or not, the wife clearly refused stating that it would be utter humiliation on her part. The refusal on wife’s part led court believe that it was reasonable to assume that the petitioner’s claims about the respondent’s impotence were true. The decree declaring the petitioner’s marriage with the respondent was declared as null and void.
In “Gopi Nath Kund vs Bank Of India And Ors.”, The petitioner worked as a clerk/cashier for the Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Branch, at the time in question. In a memo dated 3 January 1976, the Executive Regional Manager of the Bank of India’s Eastern Region stated, among other things, that it had been reported against him that on November 25, 1975, during bank hours, he had shouted and abused the Area Manager and an officer of the Bank; of India and the officers generally in fifth, indecent and vulgar language. The Executive Regional Manager called upon the petitioner to explain within 7 days of the receipt of the memo. By the same order, the Executive Regional Manager of the Eastern Region suspended the petitioner from receiving services from the Bank with immediate effect while an investigation into the petitioner’s aforementioned activities is ongoing. According to the guidelines, the petitioner was to get subsistence payments. In a letter to the Executive Regional Manager of the Bank dated January 21, 1976, the petitioner refuted the allegations made against him. He objected to being suspended. The petitioner issued writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to recall and withdraw the aforesaid order. Additionally, the petitioner sought for an order directing the respondents to pay his regular wage and benefits. Seeing the timeline, it was held that when the petitioner was suspended by the Executive Regional Manager of the Bank of India, Bhubaneswar branch, there was absolutely no disciplinary investigation against him. There will be no further orders in this Rule as the disciplinary investigation against the petitioner had begun on April 23, 1976, and the petitioner’s suspension accordingly became effective on that day.
In “Satyendra Nath Maitra And Anr. vs Balaram Chakraborty”, minor’s father Tanmoy Chakraborty wed Mira, a daughter of the current appellants, in accordance with the Special Marriage Act’s 1954 regulations. It would seem that Mira’s parents, the present appellants, were against Tanmoy and Mira’s alleged marriage. Additionally, the current appellants were unwilling to accept Tanmoy even after the aforementioned marriage, which negatively impacted their relationship with Tanmoy. Tanmoy and his wife Mira started residing in a rental home close to Dum Dum Airport. A daughter named Mitashree was born to Tanmoy’s wife Mira on September 19th, 1976, at a nursing facility. Mira suffered burn injuries at their Dum Dum house and after removal to a hospital, she died on 21st March, 1977. Since Mira’s death, her daughter has been living with Mira’s parents. Tanmoy, the father of Mitashree, a juvenile, committed suicide on May 18, 1977. The paternal grandpa of the minor Mitashree, Balaram Chakraborty, applied for custody of the child in the Alipore District Judge’s Court. He then asked for himself to be chosen as the minor’s guardian as well. The present appellants, who are the minor’s maternal grandparents, objected to the respondent’s aforementioned prayer. The end results of the case was that the court held that it is not necessary to appoint a guardian in respect of minor Mitashree’s person. The parents also had not decided the guardian beforehand so the court decided that appellants i.e., Mitashree’s maternal grandparents to continue being the guardians however the court also gave the directions that the child should also not be deprived of not knowing their father’s side of the family.
- CHIEF JUSTICE MR. CHITTATOSH MOOKERJEE, Official website of High Court of Bombay, https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/cjshow.php?bhcpar=amdldGlkPTI0JnBhZ2Vubz0y
- Probhat Kumar Mitra vs Sukriti Mitra AIR 1971 Cal 1, 75 CWN 168
- Satyendra Nath Maitra And Anr. vs Balaram Chakraborty AIR 1981 Cal 206
- Gopi Nath Kund vs Bank Of India And Ors. (1980) IILLJ 332 Cal
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at firstname.lastname@example.org