Kolkata Court May 1955 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.
Laduram Taparia Vs. D.K. Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal504,[1956]29ITR103(Cal)
Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows :2. The petitioner is a firm carrying on business in 'partnership under the name and style of Laduram Taparia. According to the petitioner, it has 3 partners -- Laduram Taparia, Ganpat Ram Taparia and Bhairodan Maheswar. This firm was registered under Section 26A, Income-tax Act. It was duly assessed as such for the assessment years 1042-43, 1943-44, and 1944-45. In July 1947, the firm submitted a return for the assessment year 1945-46, showing a total income of Rs. 33,105/-, subsequently corrected as Rs. 33,703/. The Income-tax Officer had information that the constitution of the petitioner firm was not genuine, and he refused to continue the registration under Section 26A, Income-tax Act, and assessed the petitioner firm as an un-registered firm. He also added to the total income of the said firm, the total income of 5 other firms, namely,(1) Jagannath Hanumanbux, (2) Jagannath. Harnarayan, (3) Ganpatirai Jorawarmal, (4) Seth ...
Raghupati Roy and ors. Vs. Debu Karmakar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal79,60CWN385
S.R. Das Gupta, J. 1. This appeal has been argued with great abi-lity by the learned Advocates on both sides and as a result of their arguments the questions involved in it have been narrowed down to a very short compass. 2. The facts are as follows: The plaintiffs are the appellants before us. The suit out ofwhich this appeal arises was a suit for resumption of chakran lands. The trial Court passed a decree, but the lower appellate Court set it aside on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. It is against that decision of the lower appellate Court that the present appeal has been preferred to this Court. 3. I should mention that in the settlement khatian in which the lands in suit are recorded one Bam Kumar, trie father of the defendants, was recorded as dakhalikar; 'Chakran Kamar'was the entry in the next column. In the place provided for noting the rent the entry is 'nish-kar'. In the year 1925 a suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of the sai...
Dwijendra Kumar Roy and ors. Vs. Monmohan De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Cal209
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. A short point requires consideration in the Second 'Appeal. The point is not altogether free from difficulty but it appears to be covered by certain decisions of this Court, to which, reference will be made in the course of this judgment, and, giving the matter my best consideration, I have myself reached the same conclusion as found favour with the learned Judges on these previous occasions, and, as that conclusion favours the plaintiff-respondent, this appeal must eventually fail.2. The appeal arises out of a suit for specificperformance of a contract to settle the suit landsat an annual rental of Rs. 70/- per annum on receipt of a selami of Rs. 700/-. The suit landsbelonged to Defendants Nos. 1 to 4. On 28th Ashar,1364, B.S., Defendant No. 5 Nibaran Chakrabartywho was an officer of Defendants Nos. 1 to 4, underdue authority from them, accepted the plaintiff'soffer to take settlement , of the suit lands on theabove terms arid received from him a sum of Rs.100/- t...
income-tax Officer, Midnapore-bankura Vs. District Magistrate, Midnapo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal500,1955CriLJ1259,59CWN914
J.P. Mitter, J. 1. This is an application for transfer of a criminal case from the Court of Shri J. M. Ghosh, Magistrate, 1st Class, Midnapore, to some other Court. There is also a prayer for setting aside an order of the said learned Magistrate, dated 26-11-1954, whereby the evidence or P.W. 3, a Government handwriting expert, was expunged.2. The applicant is the Income-tax Officer of Midnapore. Upon his complaint, opposite party No. 2, Saroj Kumar Roy, a practising lawyer of Midnapore, was sent up to stand his trial upon a charge of perjury under Section 193, Penal Code. The proceeding concerned commenced in March, 1954. The Public Prosecutor of the district was engaged on the complainant's behalf to conduct the prosecution.3. The said P.W. 3, the handwriting expert whose evidence was expunged, was undoubtedly a very material witness in the case. It appears that on 23-4-1954, the date fixed for prosecution evidence, the said handwriting expert was absent. His inability to appear in C...
Paritosh Jana and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal474,1955CriLJ1247
ORDERBedabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of Sri J. N. Roy, Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhargram, dated 9-8-1954, by which the petitioners were convicted under Sections 147 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Each of the petitioners was sentenced under Section 427 to pay a fine of Rs. 30/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. No separate sentence was passed under Section 147, Penal Code.2. An application was made before the learned Sessions Judge of Midnapore for a reference to this Court with a recommendation that the convictions of and the sentences imposed upon the petitioners be set aside but the learned Judge declined to interfere. Thereafter the petitioners applied to this Court and obtained the present Rule,3. The facts shortly stated are that the complainant had taken settlement of about 12.50 acres of land comprised in C. S. Plot No. 3/702 and 4/703 under interest No. 1 of mouza Rajpahari, Police Station Nayagrarn, from the Nawab Esta...
Govinda Chandra Ghose Vs. Provabati Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal147,59CWN886
Renupada Mukherjee, J.1. The appellant before me wasthe sole judgment debtor in the executing court. Respondent Srimati Provabati Ghose filed an application for execution of a decree passed in a suit for specific performance of a contract of re-conveyance of some immoveable property on the strength of a purchase from some Mahomedan decree holders, one of whom, namely, Sajita Bibi was admittedly a minor. The interest of Sajita Bibi in the decree purports to have been conveyed to the respondent by her mother and 'de facto' guardian Nurjehan Bibi (vide kobala Ex. A).Appellant Gobinda Chandra Ghose took several objections to the execution of the decree. The objection material for the purpose of this appeal was that under the kobala executed by the original decree-holders an interest in immovable property was transferred and as the 'de lacto' guardian had no authority to transfer the minor's interest, the share of the minor in the decree was not acquired by the respondent.This objection was...
R.N. Ghosh Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal247,1956CriLJ732
ORDERDebarbrata Mookerjee, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order made by a Presidency Magistrate dated,14-12-1954 by which certain proceedings under the Cal-cutta Police Act against the petitioner were revived and the petitioner was summoned to tafca his trial.2. It appears that on 18-10-1954 a police challan was submitted in the Court of the learned Magistrate against the petitioner and another under Section 62A, Calcutta Police Act (Act 4 of 1866). The charge set out in the challan was in these words;'All the accused persons are charged with not keeping order in and put by shouting at the top of their voice over share business and also causing obstruction to the general traffic at Royal Exchange Place on the 18th of October at about 5/.15 P. M.'On the next day the petitioner appeared in Court and his plea was taken under Section 242, Criminal P. C.; but the complainant, that is to say, the police officer concerned who had submitted the challan was found absent whereupon the lea...
Lalua Dom and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal461,1955CriLJ1174
Renupada Mukherjee, J.1. The three appellants before us were tried by the Sessions Judge of Midnapore sitting with a jury on charges under Section 396, Penal Code, and also alternatively under Section 395 read with Section 397, Penal Code. The jury found the accused persons unanimously guilty under Section 395, Penal Code, but they unanimously found them not guilty of the remaining charges. The learned Judge accepted the verdict of the jury and convicted the accused persons under Section 395, I. P. C., and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. The present appeal is directed against the above conviction and sentence,2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows: One Bejoy Pal of village Ellaboni within district Midnapore is a person of some affluence. The village is 13 miles sway from Midnapore Kotwali P. S. On the night of the 16th Bhadra 1360. B. S. corresponding to the small hours of the morning of 3-9-1953 there was a dacoity at...
Manindra Nath Choudhury and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal512,1955CriLJ1261
J.P. Mttter, J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of conviction under Section 5 of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1950. Each of the petitioners was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The copper telegraph wires concerned were confiscated.2. The prosecution case inter alia was that on the morning of 16-2-1954, the petitioner boarded the Ghatal-Midnapore bus with two suit cases in each of which was a certain quantity of copper wires. The copper wires were alleged to be telegraph wires. At first the petitioners were charged with offences under Sections 379 and 411, Penal Code. These charges had to be abandoned owing to lack of evidence. Thereafter upon a complaint made by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Midnapore, on 26-4-1954, each of the petitioners was charged with an offence under Section 5 of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1950, for being in unlawful possession of telegraph wires. The learned Magistrate upon a consid...
Jainta Kumar Banerjee Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal632,1955CriLJ1584
Mitter, J. 1. This Rule was issued by the Bench taking undefended criminal cases to show cause why the petitioner's sentences should not be made concurrent.2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as follows:1. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and 6 months under Section 408 of the Penal Code, passed on 19-5-1951; 2. A sentence of 4 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 3 months more under Section 420 of the Penal Code, passed an 5-9-1951; 3. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6months and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default,rigorous imprisonment for 2 months moreunder Section 420 of the Penal Code, passed on22-9-1951; and lastly, a sentence of 2 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 474 of He Penal Code passed by Sen, J. on 20-8-1(sic)2. 3. The petitioner prays that the several sentences imposed upon him be directed to run (sic) currently. It is clear that so far as the petitioner (sic) conviction and the s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »