Kolkata Court November 1954 Judgments
Subodh Kumar Banerjee Vs. Hiramoni Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal267
S.K. Das Gupta, J. 1. The appellant before us was one of the judgment-debtors. The appeal arises out of an application under Section 47, Civil P. C., filed by the appellant. The suit out of which the application under Section 47, Civil P. C., arose was a suit for specific performance of a contract. There were several defendants of whom the judgment-debtor was one. The judgment-debtor' was the transferee from the original vendor who was also made one of the defendants in the suit. The appellant had purchased the said property with knowledge of the agreement for sale made with the purchaser. In the plaint which was filed one of the prayers was that the contract for sale be specifically performed.The suit was decreed by the lower Court and the opening words of the decree were that the suit be decreed with costs. In the subsequent portion of the said decree it was stated that the defendants on getting the payment of the consideration money do execute and register a conveyance in favour of ...
Tag this Judgment!Glasgow Printing Company Ltd. Vs. Peary Mohan Santra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1954
Reported in: (1955)ILLJ390Cal
P.B. Chakravartti, C.J.1. Mr. Sanyal appearing on behalf of the employers has urged only one short point in this appeal and that point is a point of limitation. The respondent, who was employed under the appellants in the capacity of a linotype operator, claimed compensation on the ground that he had contracted the occupational disease of lead-poisoning by reason of his peculiar employment. He admitted having felt some pain in 1949 and again in 1951 and also having had to absent himself for a few days in those two years. In 1951 he was absent on 1 May and also on 2 May but when he went to the press on 3 May, he was told by the manager that he was unfit for work and could not be allowed to join. I need not do anything more than refer in passing to the case of the appellants that the respondent had been, in reality, dismissed because of misconduct, inasmuch as he had been detected stealing bars of lead for use in a business which he had started in his own account.2. The application for c...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Meah Vs. Bird and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1954
Reported in: (1955)ILLJ671Cal
ORDERP.B. Chakravartti, C.J.1. The appellant whose claim for compensation has been dismissed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was employed under the respondents, Bird & Co., Ltd., as a spinning shifter and suffered an injury in his right arm as the arm got entangled in a spinning frame when it was in motion. The case made by him in his application for compensation was vague to a degree and all that was said was that he had met with the accident when he was on duty. That bare case was subsequently developed in the course of the evidence into a case of an accident suffered while the appellant was cleaning the machine, although it was in motion, which it was one of his duties to do. The respondent-company admitted that the appellant was a workman under them and also admitted that he had suffered the injury in his right arm by reason of the arm having got entangled in a spinning frame. What they contended by way of setting up a plea in bar was that the accident had not arisen...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Kissen More and ors. Vs. E. Rajaram Rao and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal241
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This appeal must fail on two technical grounds, although Mr. Roy was able to make some kind of One point, which also was, however, technical in character.2. The appeal is directed against an order or Base J. dated 4-6-1952, by which the learned Judge discharged a Rule obtained by the appellants under Article 326 of the Constitution for the issue of various writs upon respondent No. 1. In the end Mr. Roy limited himself to only one ground of attack.3. It is not necessary to state the facts at any great length. Suffice it to say that, in the year 1949, the appellants imported 1,000 drums of what was described by them as 'solvent oil mineral spirits.' The goods were cleared on 9th and 10th of August, 1949, when a duty of only 3 annas per Imperial Gallon was charged and paid upon the appellants executing a guarantee bond to the effect that if the substance contained In the drums turned out to be something different from what they had declared it to be and to be liable ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdas and ors. Vs. K.M. Sen, Manager, Oriental Gas Co. Ltd., Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal517,1955CriLJ1340,59CWN209,(1956)IILLJ323Cal
Sen, J. 1. This revisional application is directed against the conviction of the petitioners under Section 26 and 27 or both of the Industrial Disputes Act and to the sentences passed thereunder. The prosecution case was briefly as follows--The petitioners Ramdass, Monmatha De, Mom Bose and Sheikh Karim are workers of the Oriental Gas Co. Ltd, whereas petitioner No. 5 Parimal Das is not a worker of the Company but is a labour leader. There was a labour Union comprising of some workers of the Oriental Gas Co. Ltd. with Parimal as Secretary which functioned till 1948 when Parimal was placed in detention. After the orders of detention of Parimal, a new Union was formed under a different leadership and this new Union was registered and recognised by the Company. In 1951 Parimal was released from detention and he reorganised his Union comprising some workers of the Oriental Gas Co. Ltd. But this Union which was freshly reorganised was not registered and the Company did not recognise the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Amjad Sheik Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal141,1955CriLJ446
Guha Ray, J. 1. This Rule at the Instance or the petitioner Amjad Sheik who was arrested in connection with a case under Section 304, I. P. C., is directed against an order, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Malda cancelling his bail and ordering that he should be forthwith taken into custody. It appears that after his arrest the petitioner was placed in custody by the Magistrate who refused his prayer for bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge being moved granted his bail. Subsequently on behalf of the prosecution a petition was made before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge alleging that the petitioner was tampering with evidence and praying for the cancellation of his bail. On that petition the learned Addl. Sessions Judge went into evidence allowing the petitioner full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution. On the evidence before him he came to the finding that the allegations made against the petitioner were correct and well ...
Tag this Judgment!Bambridge Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1954
Reported in: [1955]27ITR118(Cal)
EVERSHED, M.R. I will ask Jenkins, L. J., to deliver the first judgment.JENKINS, L.J., having stated the facts and read section 18 of the Finance Act, 1936, as set out above, continued : The case was stated by the special commissioners with great amplitude and elaboration but, in truth, the matters debated before us fall within a narrow compass. There is no doubt that Mr. and Mrs. Kipling did, within the meaning of section 18 of the Finance Act, 1936 make transfers of assets by virtue of which or in consequence whereof, either alone or in conjunction with associated operations, income became payable to a person resident or domiciled outside the United Kingdom, namely, Kamouraska Investments Ltd. There is further no doubt that Mrs. Bambridge did, within the meaning of the section, acquire rights by virtue of which she had power to enjoy the income of Kamouraska Investments Ltd., partly under the provisions of her fathers settlement and partly under the provisions of her mothers will. Bu...
Tag this Judgment!Stow Bardolph Gravel Co. Ltd. Vs. Poole (inspector of Taxes).
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-16-1954
Reported in: [1955]27ITR146(Cal)
EVERSHED, M.R. - The question raised in this appeal is whether the Stow Bardolph Gravel Co. Ltd., to whom I will hereafter refer as the taxpayers, were entitled to bring into their trading and profit and loss accounts for the two years ended March 31, 1949 and 1950, by way of expenses and in reduction of the profits or gains in respect of which they were being assessed, an item representing the purchase of gravel made during the year in question, less any stock of gravel so purchased at the end of that year. It is necessary to make it clear that the taxpayers are admittedly being charged for tax in respect of the gainful occupation or business of sand and gravel merchants. Therefore, prima facie it seems reasonable enough that in arriving at the taxable gains at the end of any given year the taxpayers should be entitled to deduct and to bring into account as an expense any sums laid out by them during the year in buying the stock-in-trade in which they dealt, namely, sand or gravel; bu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›