Kolkata Court June 1951 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.
Steel Products Ltd. Vs. Amelda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal145,56CWN481
Harries, C.J.1 This is an appeal by the employers from an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation granting the respondent compensation amounting to Rs. 2400/- together with certain costs.2. The respondent-applicant was the widow or one Isac Francis, a fitter employed by the appellants. There was evidence that he had been sent, to Writers Buildings to repair a handle of an almirah, obviously therefore the work which he was sent to do was of the lightest kind.3. There was evidence of a lower division assistant employed in the Writers Buildings. According to this assistant Sailendra Nath Chatterjee, the deceased workman took measurements of the almirah which was in a room on the ground-floor of the building. He went outside & started working. This assistant said that the workman had a fit & began foaming at the mouth. According to this witness the workman did not have an accidental fall.4. Medical evidence was given by Dr. Ashok Kumar Mukherjee, the Resident Medical Officer o...
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Sultan Ali Gharami.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1951
Reported in: [1951]20ITR432(Cal)
CHAKRAVARTTI, J. - This is a reference under Section 63(1) of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act and concerns a somewhat tricky point of procedure, arising out of the following facts.On the 8th February, 1945, a general notice under Section 24(1) of the Bengal Agricultural income of the 'pervious year', relative to the assessment year 1944-45. The respondent assessee did not file any return in compliance with that notice nor was any individual notice under Section 24(2) served on him at any time during the assessment year. About three years later, on the 16th March, 1948, he received a notice under Section 24(2), requiring him to file a return for the assessment year 1944-45. He complied with that notice and on the 15th June, 1948, filed a return in which he showed an income of Rs. 1,242-6-3 for 1350 B. S., which was the 'previous' or accounting year in his case. the Income-tax Officer was not satisfied that the return was correct and so on the 9th July, 1948, he served two further...
Khetra Mohan Sannyasi Charan Sadhukan Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1951
Reported in: [1951]20ITR423(Cal)
CHAKRAVARTTI, J. - This is a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, read with Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, by which the following question of law has been referred to this Court for its opinion :- 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, there is a change in the persons carrying on the business, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Excess Profits Act, 1940, with effect from 14th April, 1943, when the business, which had previously been carried on by a partnership between two Dayabhaga Hindu undivided families, was carried on by a partnership between the separated male members of the two families ?'The facts incorporated in the question itself are (1) that a business was being carried on by a partnership composed of two partners each of which was a Hindu undivided family governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law; (2) that there was a disruption of both the families and (3) that on and after such disruption the business was carried...
Narendra Nath Sashmal Vs. Binode Behari Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal138,56CWN23
Harries, C.J.1 This is a petition for revision of orders of a Bhag Chas Conciliation Board & of an Appellate Officer under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The present petitioner cultivated a big area of land in two moujas in the Sunderban area & for this purpose he entered into an agreement with the opposite parties who cultivated the land as bhagchasis.3. On 9-1-1951 one of the bhagchasis, Benode Behari De, filed a petition before the Bhagchas Conciliation Board & this he appeared to do on behalf of himself & a number of other bargadars. The petitioner filed an objection & contended that this application was not in form in that it was vague & indefinite & the names of the other bhagchasis were not given. The area, location & other particulars of the lands cultivated were not given & the petition was not verified as required by Rule 6 Sub-rule (2) of the rules made under the West Bengal Bargadars Act.4. The Board directed by an order that each bhagchasi should file a separa...
Ananda Sankar and ors. Vs. Chief Secretary to the Government of West B ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal129
Harries, C.J. 1. These are applications for writs in the nature of habeas corpus filed by persons detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 as amended by the Preventive Detention Act of 1951. A number of the detenus were detained under orders made in February 1950 and in the cases of these detenus what are called supplementary grounds were served in July, 1950 and in some instances additional supplementary grounds were served later in the same month. In other cases the grounds served contained very detailed particulars, and in those cases the grounds were served either at the time the orders were made or very shortly afterwards. 2. These applications were made after the Act of 1951 amending the Preventive DetentionAct of 1950 was passed and it was contended on behalf of all the detenus that this Amending Act was ultra vires the Constitution. We heard a full argument on this question before the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the cases of -- 'S. Krishnan v. State of Madras',...
Nani Lal Roy Vs. Satyendra Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal1,55CWN636
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of Banerjee J. dated 3rd March 1949 dismissing an application made under Section 45, Specific Belief Act. The petitioner was one of the sons and heirs of the late Samrangini Roy Chowdhuri, who was one of the recorded joint owners and occupiers of a market which was situate at 180 Kalighat Road, Bhowanipore. This market was supplied with filtered and unfiltered water by the Corporation of Calcutta and the owners were charged for this supply of water as water supplied for domestic purposes.2. On or about 22nd May 1917 the Corporation informed the owners that it had been resolved that the filtered water supply to markets and bazaars and the unfiltered water supply for cleansing the stalls, drains, streets (paths) of the markets and bazaars should be charged for under Section 230, Calcutta Municipal Act, at the ordinary rates for the supply of water for non-domestic purposes. The quarterly charge for water for non domestic purpos9...
Kazem Sardar Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal425
Chakravartti, J. 1. The petitioner Kazem Sardar was placed on his trial along with his son Moslem for an offence of arson in respect of a hut belonging to one Narendra Haldar. Moslem is about 14 years of age. The allegation against him was that he actually set fire to the hut and the allegation against Kazem was that it was at his instance that Moslem did so. The trial was held by an Assistant Sessions Judge of Alipore with the aid of a jury and resulted in a verdict of guilty by a majority of 3 to 2. The learned Judge accepted the verdict and sentenced the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for two years and also a fine of Rs. 250/- in default rigorous imprisonment for six months more. It was also directed that if the amount of line was realised, half of it was to be paid to the complainant as compensation. In the case of Moslem, the learned Judge took into account his extreme youth as also the fact that he had acted under the orders of his father and so he passed on him only a sente...
Madhai Mondal Vs. Pran Krishna Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal139
Roxburgh, J.1 This is an appeal against a decision of the subordinate Judge of Berhampore reversing a decision of the Munsif, First Court, Berhampore, in a case arising under Section 37 A (8), Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act.2. The applicant, now appellant, obtained an award in a case where it was held that the debt had been extinguished by long possession of the land given in usufructuary mortgage. The Munsif granted the application & set aside the sale.3. The lower appellate Court has followed the decision in the case of 'Bonamali Pramanik v. Radhagobinda Ghose', : AIR1947Cal388 , & has held that the application must be dismissed on the ground that the Board had no jurisdiction. The learned Judge has remarked that the decision in the case of 'Sukhendu Bikash v. Srish Chandra', 52 CWN 612, has no application to the case.4. How the learned Judge was able to say this is beyond my comprehension. The latter case was, it is true, one which arose in revision of a District Judge's order unde...
Aga Mirza Ahmad and ors. Vs. Bhudar Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal23
Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit purporting to be under Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The facts of this case are that the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs obtained a settlement of lot No. 88 Touzi No. 145S from the Government, the settlement to expire on 31-3-1942. Thereafter on 28-8-1869, the plaintiffs' predecessors-in-interest granted a lease in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant.2. One of the contentions between the parties is what is the rent payable under this lease? Shortly before the expiration of the term of the settlement in favour of the plaintiffs' predecessors proceedings under Ch. X Pt. II of the Bengal Tenancy Act were proceeded with and a draft record of rights was prepared. In the draft record of rights under the column headed as 'Rent' a sum of Rs. 3043-3-0 was shown to be payable. Thereupon the defendant raised an objection under Section 104E of the Bengal Tenancy Act. This objection was overruled by the ...
Dhanapati Devi Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal467,55CWN751
Chakravartti, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order dated 7-10-1950 passed by the learned Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta whereby he ordered the demolition of certain unauthorised structures erected by the petitioner. The Rule is an open Rule, but of the seven grounds mentioned in the petition, Mr. Banerjee, who appeared for the petitioner urged only three.2. The facts are as follows: The petitioner Dhanapati Debi is the wife of one Banwarilal Rajghorja and the owner of premises No. 10/2 Syed Sally Lane, Calcutta. In or about February 1945 she became desirous of making certain additions to the fourth storey of the building and applied to the Corporation for the necessary sanction. The additions she proposed to make were two rooms in the. fourth storey and a stair case leading from the third storey to the fourth. No sanction was given. On 4-7-1946, a Building Inspector of the Corporation visited the premises, apparently on receipt of some information, and discovered that constructi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »