Kolkata Court March 1953 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 Nath Vs. Anil Chandra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal689,57CWN716
ORDERChunder, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of a complainant against an order dismissing the complainant's petition under Section 500, Penal Code. The complainant came to Court with the allegation that at the instance of one Krishna Chandra Mukherji, an auditor appointed under the Co-operative Societies Act, viz., Sri Anil Chandra Banerji, had 'mala fide' submitted an audit report containing grave allegations of a defamatory character 'against him.2. The learned Magistrate in dismissing thepetition has now given reasons that unless theaudit is done over again it is difficult to saywhether the allegations are 'mala fide' or not.This is the main reason for dismissing thepetition of complaint. Two things may be saidagainst this. The first is that the complainantshould then have been given an opportunityto prove that these were really 'mala fide'statements in the audit report by such mate-rials as might satisfy the learned Magistrate or an enquiring officer. Before his petition...
Ramtaran Das Vs. Adhar Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal646
Das J. 1. This is an appeal by Ram Taran Das and is directed against an order of Mr. B.P. Bakshi, learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly, dated 5-10-1950.2. The appeal arises out of certain proceedings in arbitration which arose out of a dispute between the descendants of one Ram Jiban Das. The relationship of the parties is set forth in the following genealogical table. RAM JIBAN DAS | ________________________________________________ | | | | Nibaran Chandra Adhar Chandra Banku Bihari Gagan Chandra | Opposite party | (predeceased) | No. 7 | = Jogmaya Gostho | Opposite PartyOpposite Party | No. 5 No. 6 | _______________________________________________ | | | Purna Chandra Ram Tarao Nalini Kanta = Renu Bala = Binapani Opposite Party Opposite Party No. 2 No. 1 | ________________ | | Amar Nath Probhat KumarOpposite Party Opposite Party No. 3 No. 43. In consequence of disputes between the descendants of Ran Jiban Das there was an agreement to refer such disputes to the arbitration o...
Khudiram Ghosh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal573,57CWN512
Mitter, J.1. This is a petition for setting aside an order of transfer of a case, purporting to be under Section 192, Criminal P.C.2. The case concerned was transferred under the following circumstances: On 7-11-1952, Mr. P.C. Bala, Magistrates 1st class, Bankura, took cognizance of the case and adjourned it to the 13th. Mr. Eala not being available on the last mentioned date, another 1st class Magistrate, Mr. Moitra, dealt with the General File and transferred the case to his own file, although he had not taken cognizance of the case. Therefore, the actual trial commenced and proceeded before Mr. Moitra. It is this order of Mr. Moitra transferring the case to his own file that is sought to be set aside by this application.3. Section 192 is in these terms :'192. (1) Any Chief Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate may transfer any case, of which he has taken cognizance, for inquiry or trial, to any Magistrate subordinate to him. (2) Any District Magistr...
Ahmed HossaIn Vs. Aswini Kumar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal542,57CWN421
Guha, J. 1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 115, Civil P. C. by Sheikh Ahmed Hossain who was a candidate for election to the Garden Reach Municipality at its fourth general election. In order to appreciate the various points urged before us, it is necessary to set forth in some detail the relevant facts. 2. Three seats were allotted for Ward No. 3 of the Garden Reach Municipality and the present petitioner was one of the candidates. His name was finally published in the final Electoral Roll of Male Voters of the same Ward. The date of final publication of the Electoral Roll was 16-12-1951. 9-2-1952 was fixed by the Chairman of the Municipality as the last date for submission of nomination papers and the Chairman held scrutiny qf the nomination papers on 18-2-1952, and found the nomination papers of the present petitioner along with those of eleven other candidates to be valid as complying with all the requirements of Rule 17(2), Bengal ...
Khusiram Murarilal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, CalcuttA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1953
Reported in: [1954]25ITR572(Cal)
CHAKRAVARTTI, C.J. - This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, made by the Calcutta Bench of the Appellate Tribunal under the directions of this Court. Previously, the Tribunal had rejected the assessees application for a reference in the view that no point of law arose out of the appellate order.The assessee is a registered firm and was assessed in that status. It appears that in the course of its assessment for the assessment year 1942-43, a notice under Section 22(4) of the Act was served upon it for the production of certain Sauda Khatas, Patan Bahis and Sahi Bahis for the Diwali year 1997-98. The assessee failed to comply with that notice and accordingly a penalty of Rs. 15,000 was imposed on it under the provisions of Section 28(1)(b) of the Act. The assessees appeals against that imposition were successively dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal.The grounds of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal appear to have been all...
Birla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Dulichand Pratapmull
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal450,57CWN756
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from an order of S.R. Das Gupta J., dated 11-2-1952, by which the learned Judge dismissed the appellant's application under Section 34, Arbitration Act, and refused to stay a suit instituted by the respondent. 2. The facts are as follows: On 8-1-1951, the appellant, Birla Jute ., entered into a contract with the respondent, Dulichand Protapmull, for the purchase of 250 bales of jute, each weighing 400 lbs., at Rs. 225/- per bale, the goods to be delivered free at the buyer's Mill Ghat for shipment withinone month. The Sold Note was signed by a firm of brokers, named Jaichandial Dugar. 3. At the relevant time, the Raw Jute (Central Jute Board and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, West Bengal Ordinance No. 17 of 1950, was in force. Section 6 (1) of that Ordinance required any person intending to enter into a contract for the sale of raw jute with the owner of a jute-mill to apply to the Central Jute Board, 'specifying the quantity, quality and t...
Satya Charan Pal Vs. Asutosh Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal657
G.N. Das, J. 1. This is an appeal by the propounder and is directed against a judgment and decree made by Mr. B.M. Roy Choudhury, learned District Judge, Berhampore, dated 27-4-1951, refusing an application for the grant of probate under Section 237, Succession Act, 1925.2. The testator Nandalal Pal executed a Will on 30-9-1913. It was registered by him at Domjur Registration Office. At the time the testator used to live ordinarily at Dhulian in the district of Murshidabad where he practised as a Medical Practitioner and also carried on business. The Will was executed at Dakhinpara Jhapardaha in the district of Howrah which was the ancestral residence of the plaintiff. At the date of the Will the testator had his wife Sreemati Lakshmimoni Dasi living who ordinarily resided at Dabhinpara Jhapardaha. He had five sons, Ashutosh, the objector, Abinash, Surendra, Debendra and Satyacharan, the propounded of the five sons of the testator, Debendra predeceased him. Abinash and Surendra survive...
Atulya Kumar De and ors. Vs. the Director of Procurement and Supply an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal548,57CWN397
ORDERSinha, J. 1. This is a Rule issued upon the opposite parties to show cause why the West Bengal Food Grains (Intensive Procurement) Order 1952, and the notices complained of in the petition issued on the petitioners in pursuance thereof, should not be declared null and void and, as such set aside, or why appropriate writs should not issue prohibiting them from taking any further steps in pursuance of the said order and the notices issued thereunder or why such other or further order or orders should not be made as to this Court may seem At and proper.2. The petitioners are eighteen in number and are all owners of lands situate in villages within Police Stations Sadardighi and Nawapara in the District of Murshidabad. They state that they cultivate paddy in these lands with the help of the hired labour. They further state that the yield from these lands is their only source of income, out of which they have to maintain themselves and their dependents.3. At the time that this applicat...
Haji Sattar and anr. Vs. Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal591
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 45, Specific Relief Act, for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing certain orders made by the respondents refusing to grant import licences for cloves and betel-nuts and also for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to deal with and consider certain applications of the petitioner's firm for import licences for cloevs and betel-nuts, on merits and in accordance with law.2. The petitioner No. 1 Haji Sattar has been carrying on the business inter alia of importers and wholesale dealers for the last 17 years underthe name and style, of Haji Sattar Haji Pir Mohammed. The principal place of business of the said firm is at 23, Amratola Lane Calcutta. The petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the said premises and while in Calcutta he resides at the said premises. The said firm has branches at Bombay, Madras, Kanpur, Agra, Delhi, Bhatinda, 'Vizianagaram, Cochin, Calicut, Jamnagar...
Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Hanuman Prasad BagariA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1953
Reported in: [1953]24ITR495(Cal)
.CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.-In our opinion, the statements in the case referred are clearly insufficient to enable us to determine the question raised. The appellate order passed in the case is striking example of what appellate orders sgould not be and the statement of the case itself is an exaple of the consequences that must sometimes follow when the appeal is heard by two particular members of the Tribunal and the reference is made by two other members.The question raised in the case is whether there was any material before the Tribunal on which it could be held that the gold which the assessee sold in the accounting year had been purchased in the year 1918 and that the amount entered in the books represented the proceeds of that sale. The amount in question is Rs. 72,523 and it appears in the books of the assesseein the name of his father. The assessees explanation was that he had purchased some gold in 1918 at Bombay and kept it with him till the accounting year when he had sold it for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›