Kolkata Court August 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.
Major J. Phillips Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Cal25,1957CriLJ54
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This is a Rule to show cause why certain proceedings pending against the petitioner Major J. Phillips before the 1st Special Court, Alipore constituted under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 as amended by Act 12 of 1952, should not be quashed or why such other or further orders should not be made as to this Court may seen fit and proper.2. It appears that the petitioner Phillips along with four other persons, named, Captain A. J. Rodrigues, Jagat Bhusan Biswas, Edward Ezra and Nandalal Dey have been summoned to take their trial before the 1st Special Court, Alipore under Section 120B/409, Penal Code. There are besides allegations against Phillips under Section 409, and under Section 409/109, Penal Code against the rest. The petitioner and his co-accused have appeared before the Special Court in obedience to the processes issued and it was after the examination in part of one witness for the prosecution that Phillips alone ...
State of West Bengal Vs. Lakshmi Narayan Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal87
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The plaintiff respondent brought the suit out of which the present appeal arises for recovery of Rs. 5,570/-, being the price of a motor vehicle which had belonged to his father and which had been delivered to defendant No. 2 Messrs. W. Leslie (Motors) under the directions of the Provin-cial Transport Authority purporting to be under the provisions of Civil Motor Transport Vehicles Control Order, 1944. There was a further claim for damages against the defendants.2. The plaintiff had impleaded the State (then the Province) of West Bengal as defendant No. 1 and Leslie (Motors) as defendant No. 2. Although notices of the filing of the suit were duty served on the province of West Bengal neither did the Province appear nor file any written statement in the trial Court.The defendant No. 2 filed a written statement admitting that the motor vehicle in question had been received in their workshop for submitting an estimate for repairs to the Government.No sanction of the e...
Charu Bala Das Vs. Madhu Sudhan Kundu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal170,60CWN121
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, but on appeal, it has virtually been dismissed as the deposit which the learned Subordinate Judge directed the contesting defendant tenant to make to avoid ejectment has already been made. Against this appellate decision, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. 2. The suit property comprises premises No. 38/1-G, Manicktola Main Road. The contestingdefendant 1 was a tenant therein from the time of the previous owner Sahajadi Begum, fromwhom the plaintiff purchased the premises on 15-3-1951. In July 1951, the plaintiff gave the tenant defendant a notice to quit, requiring him to vacate the suit premises on the expiry of August, 1951, and upon the tenant's failure to quit, the present suit was instituted on 6-11-1951. The tenant was made defendant 1 and certain alleged sub-tenants were made defendants 2 to 4. 3. Ejectment was claimed, inter alia, on the ground of r...
Sharma Electric Engineering Works Vs. Sm. Radha Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal45
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. Twelve ejectment suits, instituted by the plaintiff Sm. Radha Debi against her tenants in occupation of different portions of her premises No. 31, Mallick Street, Calcutta, were decreed by the trial Court (Third Bench, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta) on 8-3-1954. Eight of the tenants went up on appeal to the Special Bench. The appeals failed on 5-8-1954, and four tenants have now come up in second appeal to this Court.2. The suits were brought long after the coming into operation of the Rent Control Act of 1950 and they are admittedly governed by that Act The ground of ejectment, so far as rent control law is concerned, in the four cases which have now come up to this Court, was the plaintiff's reasonable requirement of the suit premises for building and re-building.3. Premises No. 31, Mallick Street, Calcutta, comprises a fairly big four-storeyed building on about 3 to 3 1/2 cottahs of land. It is about 70 or 80 years old. The immediate requirement, as it appear...
PulIn Behari Shaw Vs. Miss Lila Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal106
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against an appellate decree of ejectment from a shop-room in the ground-floor of a certain building at Strand Bank Road. The defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the said shop room at a rental of Rs. 130/3/6 per month. The trial Court dismissed the suit but, on appeal, it has been decreed. Hence this Second Appeal by the unsuccessful defendant.2. The property originally belonged to the plaintiff's brother Amulya Kanjan Dey, under whom the defendant occupied the suit premises as the tenant. The dispute between the parties, namely, the plaintiff and the defendant and between Amulya and) the defendant, started a long time back and there were various proceedings, but, for my present purpose, it is sufficient to refer to the following facts:3. On 12-8-1949 Amulya sold the suit premises to the plaintiff. The defendant was then depositing rents with the Bent Controller in the name of Amulya because of disputes wit...
Firm Khestsidas Ratanlall Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal313,[1955]28ITR726(Cal)
Chakravartti, C.J.1. In our opinion this Reference is incompetent and for the following reasons.2. The assessee is a firm, going by the name of Khestsidas Ratanlall, Calcutta, and composed of two partners, named Khestsidas Dugar and Labhuram Nakhata, whose shares are equal. The firm is stated to have started business on 16-8-1944. The books of the firm showed that on that date two sums of Rs. 25,000/- each were deposited by the two partners, each depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/-Naturally, the Income-tax Officer asked the assessee to satisfy him as to the source of the deposits and the explanation given was that the partners had brought the money from their native place at Bikaner. The Income-tax Officer was not satisfied and brought the two sums under assessment income of the firm from undisclosed sources. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed that finding..When the matter was taken on further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, it was no longer contended that the explanation gi...
Tarakeswar Bysack Vs. Sakina Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal185
ORDERR.P. Mookerjee, J. 1. The petitioner is the landholder-who had filed an application under Section 5(1), Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act for directing the opposite party to vacate the holding and put the petitioner in-possession. One of the grounds urged was that the-opposite party had not paid rent and taxes for a certain period. This was resisted by the tenant. The Thika Tenancy Controller allowed the petition directing the opposite party to vacate the holding within thirty days from the date of the Order.The collector immediately proceeded to pass-an order under Section 6 of the said Act. The operation-of the order was stayed for thirty days within which the opposite party was directed to deposit the rents in arrears, for the months of Sraban and Bhadra, 1361 B. S. (the opposite party having deposited with the Controller rents up to Asar) with interest and costs in default, execution was to proceed as provided in Section 6 ox the Act.It was further ordered that if the opposite party ...
D.C. Auddy and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal295,[1955]28ITR713(Cal)
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This is a Reference under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act by the Calcutta Bench of the Appellate Tribunal of two questions of Law. One of them is concluded by the judgment we have just delivered in the case Re. -- 'R. C. Miter and Song v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta' : [1955]28ITR698(Cal) . 2. The facts are as follows: The assessee is Messrs. D. C. Auddy and Brothers, Calcutta, described as an unregistered firm. It is said that the firm commenced on 30-6-1944, and that a deed of partnership was executed on 2-6-1948. An application for registration of the firm was made on 24-8-1949, with, respect to the assessment years 1945-45 and 1946-47. The accounting year relative to the first of the assessment years was the period between 30-6-1944 and 13-4-1945 and that relative to the second assessment year was the period between 14-4-1945 and 13-4-1946. The deed of partnership was thus executed long after the expiry of even the second of the assessment ...
R.C. Mitter and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West-bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal303,[1955]28ITR698(Cal)
Chakravaetti, C. J.1. This is a Reference under Section 66(1), Indian Income-tax Act of a question of law which so far as this Court is concerned, is a question of first impression. Broadly stated, the question is whether the only partnership which can be registered under Section 26A, Income-tax Act for the purposes of a particular assessment is a partnership created, by an instrument executed at or before the commencement of the relative accounting year or whether a partnership created by verbal agreement can also be registered, if the agreement is subsequently embodied in an instrument although, so far as the relative accounting year is concerned, the partnership may have rested solely in the verbal agreement,2. The facts out of which the question has arisen in the present case are as follows. With respect to its assessment for the assessment year 1949-50, an alleged firm, calling itself Messrs R. C. Mitter and Sons, made an application for registration and, along with the applicatio...
The State Vs. Madan Mohan Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal614,1955CriLJ1582
J.P. Mitter, J. 1. This is a reference by a Presidency Magistrate under Section 432(2), Criminal P. C. for a decision by this Court as to the validity of Railway Stores (Unlawful possession) Ordinance, 1944 (Ordinance 19 of 1944). The questions propounded by the learned Magistrate are as follows:'(1) Did Ordinance 19 of 1944 expire on 1-4-46 or is it a law in force under Article 372 of the Constitution of India? (2) Was Ordinance 19 of 1944, passed under Article 72 of Schedule 9, Government of India Act, 1935, even though the Ordinance might be extended beyond 1-4-46, automatically repealed with effect from 15-8-47 when Schedule 9 itself was repealed by the India (Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947? (3) If the answers to points (1), (2) be in the affirmative, should the accused persons be discharged u/s 253(2) Criminal P. C. or should they be tried u/s. 54A-IV-66?' 2. In our view, successive enactments, as we shall presently show, kept alive the Ordinance which is still in force as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »