Kolkata Court March 1957 Judgments
Dhirendra Nath Banerjee Vs. Jamini Kanta Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal163,1958CriLJ496
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This Rule was issued upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta and on the opposite party to show cause why certain proceedings under the Indian Penal Code pending against the petitioner should not be quashed or why such other or further order or orders should not be made as to this Court might seem fit and proper.2. In November 1946, the petitioner was appointed Chief Accountant of the Bengal Textiles Association, Calcutta. On 8th September, 1945, Ordinance No. XXXII of 1945 had been promulgated to incorporate and regulate the Bengal Textiles Association for the purpose of improving procurement and whole-sale distribution of piece goods in the Province of Bengal as it then was. By an order of this Court on the Original Side dated 30th August, 1948, the Association was directed to be wound up, and Sri Bhagawati Prasad Khaitan and Sri Uma Prosad Mookerjee were appointed official liquidators. On 21st May. 1951, the official liquidators presented an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Saha Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal191,1958CriLJ500,61CWN557
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order under Section 109(a) of the Code of Criminal procedure requiring the petitioner to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 250/- with one surety to be of good behaviour for a period of eight months.2. The allegations on which the present proceedings were initiated were briefly that on the 19th January, 1950, the petitioner was seen by some plain-clothed policemen at about 6-15 p.m. moving from place to place on the Howrah Railway Station platform. It was said that he was found going about with passengers of the platform and feeling their pockets. He moved from one third class compartment to another, and this he did on two platforms where the Bombay and the Punjab Mails were on the lines getting ready to start. One of the witnesses for the prosecution kept a watch on him and noticed his suspicious movements which included the covering up of his head with a piece of chaddar. When he thus came to be suspected he was searc...
Tag this Judgment!Patit Paban Bose Vs. the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal720
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. The appellant, Patit Paban Bose, commencedhis employment under the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta on the 20th of September, 1921, as a Ticket Collector in their Perry service. By 1950, he had risen to be one of the Forwarding Clerks at the Calcutta Jetties of his employers. 2. In 1950, the Commissioners came to detect certain cases of theft of goods lying in their jetties. It was found that on the 13th of April, 1950, a wagon had been loaded from the Import Warehouse (South) of the Calcutta Jetty without any proper document and that it had been drawn out without any shunting order being issued therefor. On the next day, the wagon had been placed before the compartment of a firm called Prayagdas Mathuradas at the Strand Warehouse and the contents of the wagon delivered to a representative of the firm without any invoice at all. Similarly, on the 9th of June, 1950, another wagon had been loaded, drawn out and delivered to the same firm without any authority....
Tag this Judgment!Sasadhar Majumdar Vs. Aminaddi Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1957
Reported in: 1957CriLJ671
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This is a petition for revision of order made by a Magistrate of the First Class at Basirhat, discharging the opposite party under Section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of an offence under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code.2. It appears that consequent on proceedings before a Bhag Chas Conciliation Board, a certain award or order had been made. This order, it is said, was not implemented by the opposite party who is the Bargadar of the lands to question. The petitioner is the owner who then preferred a complaint charging the opposite party with having committed an offence under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of paddy which had been awarded to him by the Board.3. The learned Magistrate took some evidence and made an order under Section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure holding that no case had been made out against the opposite party which, if unrebutted, would warrant a conviction of the accused. In the explanati...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Prosad Agarwalla Vs. A.A. D'Cruz
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal19,61CWN740
S.R. Das Gupta, J. 1. This appeal raises a point of some importance. It arises in this way. 2. The appellant before us obtained a decree in the Original Side of this Court for RS. 14,290-5-4. In execution of that decree the appellant attached through the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Gazipore, the salary of the respondent and during the twenty-four months the salary remained attached the appellant realised a total sum of Rs. 4964/- leaving a balance of Rs. 9326-5-4 still due and payable to the appellant. Under Clause (i) of the Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure the salary of any public officer or any servant of the railway company or local authority can be attached to the extent of the first 100 rupees and one half of the remainder of such salary. There is a proviso to the said clause which lays down that wherethe whole or any part of the portion of such salary liable to attachment has been under attachment whether continuously or intermittently ...
Tag this Judgment!J. Thomas and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, West Be ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1957
Reported in: [1958]34ITR454(Cal)
CHAKRAVARTTI C.J. - This is a reference under section 63(I) of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944, by which the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, West Bengal, has submitted to this court the following question of law :'Whether the dividend received by the assessee as shareholders from tea companies or any part thereof is agricultural income within the meaning of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944, and assessable as such ?'The assessee is a firm going by the name of J. Thomas & Co. During the accounting year 1943-44 relative to the assessment year 1944-45, it received from several tea companies dividends which were calculated to contain Rs. 1,65,141 as agricultural income. About the correctness of that calculation there is no dispute, but whether the amount was agricultural income is disputed. The contention of the assessee was that no part of any dividend received by a shareholder, even if such dividend might have been paid out of the agricultural income o...
Tag this Judgment!Bimal Chandra Patra Vs. Mahadeb Adak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal684,61CWN688
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. A simple but interesting question of succession under the Daya-Bhaga School of Hindu Law arises for decision in this appeal. 2. The relevant facts He within a short compass. They have either been admitted or proved and they stand as follows : 3. The plaintiff claiming to be the father's sister's son of one Jagannath Bera brought this suit for declaration of his title to and recovery of possession of the disputed property, comprising some lands in khatians Nos. 93 and 94 of Mouza Ghatugram in the Diamond Harbour sub-division of district 24-Parganas. These lands formed part of certain joint properties, belonging to five brothers Rakhal, Dharmadas, Gurudas, Nandalal and Maniklal Bera. Dharmadas had, accordingly, l/5th share in these lands along with a similar share in the ether lands, comprised in the said joint pro-perties. Dharmadas died, leaving a wife Khudubala, who was his second wife, and a son Pancha, non and a daughter Murari Dassi by his first wife who had p...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Kumar Hazra and anr. Vs. Banka Mahato
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal393,1957CriLJ720,61CWN624
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Midnapur and the opposite party to show cause why certain proceedings pending against the petitioners under Sections 147 & 379 of the Indian Penal Code' should not be quashed or why such other or further orders should not be made as, to this Court might seem fit and proper.2. A petition of complaint was filed on the 16th December, 1954, in respect of an occurrence which had taken place on the 13th of that month, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Midnapur. On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate did not take cognisance of the offence disclosed, but directed the police to do so under the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police thereafter took cognisance and held an investigation which resulted in a final report. Directly after the submission of the final report, the complainant submitted a Naraji petition, and the learned Magistrate, without ...
Tag this Judgment!G.D. Bhattar and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal483,61CWN660
Guha Ray, J.1. These three revision cases arise out of three prosecutions under Section 73 of the Indian. Mines Act. There are altogether six petitioners, the first five of whom are common to all the three cases. The sixth petitioner in Cases Nos. 304 of 1956 and 297 of 1956 is K. N. Nag, whereas in the third case, namely Case No. 303 of 1936 the sixth petitioner is K. P. Chatterjee. Admittedly the first four petitioners are the directors of Messrs. Bhattars Agency, Ltd., Managing Agents of Ghusick and Muslia Collieries Ltd., owners of Kalapahari Colliery and the Muslia Colliery. M. L. Daga. the fifth petitioner in all the cases is the Agent of the Kalapahari Colliery and the Muslia Colliery and K. N. Nag, petitioner No. 6 in the first two cases is the Manager of the Kalapahari Colliery. K. P. Chatterjee is the Manager of the Muslia Colliery.2. The first prosecution was for contravention of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Coal Mines Pit-head Bath Rules. 1946 in respect of the Kalapahari ...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Dutt, Income-tax Officer and anr. Vs. Anglo-India Jute Mills Co. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal514,[1958]33ITR866(Cal)
Chakravartti, C.J.1. The principal point involved in this appeal has been called by the learned trial Judge a point of first impression. It is undoubtedly a point which has never arisen before and that was perhaps because no one ever thought of raising a point of this character.2. The facts are as follows. The respondent, Anglo-India Jute Mills Co., Limited, is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and carries on business in India. In 1947, the company purchased the entire share capital in Landale & Clarice Limited and the second largest lot was purchased from Clive Investment Trust Co., Ltd., a Sterling Company registered in the United Kingdom, The transaction concerned 1,900 Preference Shares, purchased at the rate of Rs. 135 per share and 2,450 Ordinary Shares, purchased at the rate of Rs. 332-8-0 per share. The total price paid by the respondent company to its vendors for that lot of shares was Rs. 10,71,125. Out of that sum, the respondent company retained in its h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »