Kolkata Court June 1954 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.
Kali Charan Duary Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Cal577,58CWN1035
Debabrata Mookerjee, J.1. The question that falls to be determined in this revision petition is whether a person proceeded against under the provisions of Section 110, Criminal P. C. has, on transfer of the enquiring Magistrate, the right to have evidence re-heard by the successor Magistrate.2. The petitioner was required under Section 110, Criminal P. C. by the Sub-divisional Magistrateof Contai to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with sureties for his goodbehaviour.The proceedings have had a chequered career. They were being dealt with by Mr. A. K. Sen, Sub-divisional Magistrate, before whom a large number of witnesses were examined. Mr. Sen was, however, transferred, and he was succeeded by Mr. S. C. Bhattacharjee who took up the proceedings from the point reached by his predecessor.An application was then made on behalf of the petitioner praying that the witnesses already examined before Mr. Sen might be re-summoned and their evidence re-heard by the succes...
A. and J. Kucklow Ld. (In Liquidation) Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioner ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1954
Reported in: [1955]28ITR850(Cal)
Per EVERSHED M. R. - Where the question involved is the question of fact whether a reasonable part of the companys income has been distributed it is plainly wrong that the question should not be investigated till years after the event. It is further essential that the commissioners findings of fact should be expressed in clear and unambiguous language and that in particular it should not be left in doubt whether or to what extent evidence is accepted.Decision of HARMAN J. affirmed.APPEAL from Harman J.This was an appeal from a judgment of Harman J. dated November 17, 1953, affirming a decision of the special commissioners, which upheld a direction made against the appellant company, A. & J. Mucklow Ld. (in liquidation), under section 21 of the Finance Act, 1922, and section 31 of the Finance Act, 1927, to the effect that the actual income of the company from all sources, for the period from the close of the last complete financial year of the company on April 30, 1943, to the commencem...
Santosh Kumar Datta Vs. the Commissioner of Police,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal81,58CWN756
ORDERSinha, J. 1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner Santosh Kumar Dutt, was appointed in the year 1919 as a member of the Calcutta Police Force, to work as a literate . Constable. It is a matter of dispute as to who appointed him. The learned Government Pleader says that the original record of his appointment is not available. Mr. Das Gupta however has drawn my attention to Section 10(1), Calcutta Police Act (hereafter referred to as the 'Act') as it stood before the Government of India 'Adaptation of Indian Laws Order 1937'. It ran as follows:'The appointment of the members of the Police Force shall rest with the Commissioner of Police; and he may at any time suspend or dismiss any member of the force whom he shall think remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duties or otherwise unfit for the same.'2. The learned Government Pleader admits that the Commissioner of Police did have such power, but he argues that under Section 5 of the Act, the Provincial ...
Gopal Chandra Vs. BepIn Behari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal353,58CWN1047
ORDERK.C. Chunder, J. 1. This Rule was issued at the instanceof a plaintiff whose suit for money due on a handnote was dismissed by the Small Cause Court Judgeof Midnapore. 2. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant executed a handnote in favour of the plaintiff and the handnote contained the words that it was payable to the plaintiff or to his order. 3. The learned Judge has found that the defendant did execute the handnote and that the amount is due. There were two defences, namely, that the suit was barred by limitation and secondly the suit was not maintainable in view of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, Section 60. 4. The learned Judge has found that the suit is not barred by limitation. The learned Judge, on the other hand, has held that the suit is hit by the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. There was a prayer for instalments. This question has not been finally decided by the learned Judge. 5. As regards the question of maintainability, the learned Judge is clearly wrong...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›