Kolkata Court June 1957 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.
Divisional Accounts Officer, Eastern Railway Vs. Radha Kissen Khaitan ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Cal666
Lahiri, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the Divisional Accounts Officer, Eastern Railway, Dinapore, against two orders of attachment under Order 21, Rule 48 and Order 21 Rule 52 of the Civil Procedure Code. The facts which are undisputed are these :2. Opposite party No. 1 obtained a decree for money against opposite party No. 2 who is the driver of a railway engine under the Eastern Railway and levied execution of that decree in Money Execution Case No. 2 of 1955 of the 3rd Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore. In that execution case, the decree-holder opposite party No. 1 obtained an order for attachment of the salary of opposite party No. 2 from the month of May, 1955 and a further order of attachment of a sum of Rs. 3000/- which was held by the petitioner on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. The order of attachment of the salary was obtained under Order 21, Rule 48 and the order of attachment of the sum of Rs. 3000/- was obtained under Order 21, Rule 52 of the Civil Proce...
General Electric Co. of India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Corporation of Calcutt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Cal413
1. These are two Municipal Assessment Appeals, arising out of the same judgment of the learned Judge, Second Bench, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta. Appeal No. 324 is by the assessee Messrs. General Electric Company of India Limited, to be hereinafter referred to as the Company, and Appeal No. 325 is by the Corporation of Calcutta, The premises under assessment are No. 6, Chittaranian Avenue, Calcutta, which contain 33 cottahs-12 chittacks and 23 sq. ft, of land and a building which is not used for letting purposes. At the sexennial general re-valuation, which was effective from the 1st of April, 1948, the premises were valued under Section 127(b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act. The land of the premises was valued at Rs. 4,72,947/- at the rate of Rs. 14,000/- per cottah and the old building, existing thereon, was valued at Rs. 12,42,168/-. There had been some new constructions made after the earlier re-valuation of 1942-43 which ...
Taraprasanna Bhanja Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1957
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ304Cal
Bose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect to an order of reversion dated 27 May 1949 passed by the Chief Engineer of Eastern Railway.2. The petitioner is an Engineering Graduate of the Benares Hindu University and he is an Associate Member of the Institute of Engineers. In March 1938, the petitioner was employed in Bengal-Nagrpur Railway Company, Ltd., in the Subordinate cadre of the Bridge Branch. Immediately thereafter he was confirmed as a Bridge Inspector. On or about 1 October 1946, the said Bengal-Nagpur Railway Company, Ltd., was taken over by the Government of India and was renamed as Bengal-Nagpur Railway. The petitioner having elected to continue in service under the State was employed by the Government of India through the then General Manager, Bengal-Nagpur Railway, under terms and conditions contained in a letter of employment dated 5 July 1946. In Feb...
Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal591,61CWN758,[1958]33ITR794(Cal)
ORDERSinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows :The petitioner is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom and is managed and controlled from there. For income-tax purposes, it is a nonresident. Its income includes inter alia dividends from companies (a) resident in India (b) resident outside India, but having income accruing or arising in British India. In making its returns for the years 1940-41 to 1943-44 inclusive, the petitioner proceeded on the footing that category (b) was to be excluded. In view of the decision of this High Court in the case of Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd. v. Governor-General in Council, : [1943]11ITR393(Cal) (A), this was allowed. The petitioner thereafter submitted claims under Section 49 of the Indian Income-tax Act for relief against double taxation, and relief was obtained. The decision in the case of Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd. (A) (supra) was upset by the Federal Court and the Income-tax Authorities issued notices under Section 34, o...
Broja Behari Sen Vs. Ved Prokash Kumar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal261
B.S. Bachawat, J.1. This is a suit for the recovery of Rs. 8,436-14-0 on account of arrears of rent for the period from February 1950 to June 1956. Since April 1947 the defendant is the tenant of a portion of No. 26B, Asutosh Mookerjee Road. The agreed rent is Rs. 200/- per month. On 20-12-1949 the defendant applied before the Rent Controller in Calcutta for fixation of standard rent. On 23-3-1950 the Rent Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 96-4-0 per month with effect from 1-12-1949. An appeal was filed from this order. On 31-3-1950 the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 came into force. By Section 17 of the Act further proceedings in the rent fixation matter was continued under the new Act. On 13-3-1951 the subordinate Judge. Alipore, dismissed the appeal. Later on in Civil Revision case No. 1303 of 1951 this appeal was remanded for rehearing by the District Judge on the ground that the Subordinate Judge was not competent to hear the appeal On 3...
PulIn Behary Shaw Vs. Miss Lila Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal627
Lahiri. J.1. The appellant Pulin Behari Shaw, was a monthly tenant under one Amulya Ranjan Dey, brother of the plaintiff respondent, in respect of a shoproom on the groundfloor of premises No. 66/4 (formerly 48) Strand Bank Road at a monthly rent of Rs. 130/3/6. The plaintiff sued the appellant for ejectment on the allegation that she had purchased the interest of her brother and served a notice of attornment and had determined the defendant's tenancy by a notice to quit dated 2-1-1952 17th Pous. 1358 requiring the defendant to vacate on the expiry of the month of Magh. According to the plaintiff the defendant is not entitled to the protection of the Rent Control Act of 1950, because the plaintiff reasonably required the room for her own occupation and also for building a stair ease; she further alleged that the defendant was a defaulter from Chaitra, 1356 up to Kartik, 1357 which disentitled him to the protection under the Act of 1950. The plaintiff's case of reasonable requirement ha...
Kali Das Ghosal Vs. S.K. Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal660
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This case must go back as in my opinion, there has been no proper determination of the issues involved in the case upon a proper consideration of the evidence.2. The appellant Kali Das Ghosal made an application for compensation on the 21st of June, 1954, in respect of injuries said to have been suffered by him by an accident which had taken place on the 18th of August, 1950, while he was in the employment of the respondent and in the course of that employment. The application stated that while the applicant had been on duty as a Watchman at night, his left hand got entangled in two live electric wires as a result of which he received a severe electric shock culminating in a weakening and disfigurement of his left hand, permanent loss of hearing and loss of teeth. According to him, his monthly wages were RS 70 and on that basis he claimed a lump sum payment of Rs. 2,000. That figure was arrived at after giving credit for Rs. 58 which, it was said, had already been...
Dharmadas Paul Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, West Bengal and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal302,62CWN65,[1958]9STC194(Cal)
ORDERH.K. Bose, J. 1. This is an application under Article 220 of the Constitution for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to rescind or withdraw three notices issued under the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act calling upon the petitioner to produce certain books of accounts and documents and also calling upon the petitioner to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 11(2) of the said Act and why the petitioner should not be prosecuted for not getting his firm registered in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is one of the Aratdars at the Howrah betel-leaf market. It is alleged that the pan or betel-leaf cultivators of Howrah and Hooghly bring their produce to the Howrah panhat where these are sold to purchasers. In that market there is a class of middle men or Aratdars who help the cultivators in the sale, by bringing the seller-growers and purchasers togeth...
Santosh Kumar Ganguly and anr. Vs. Registrar, Appellate Side, High Cou ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Cal317,63CWN339
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This Rule must fail on a preliminary ground. 2. The Rule is directed against an order of the learned Registrar, Appellate Side, of this Court, acting as the Taxing Officer under Section 5 of the Court-Fees Act, deciding a dispute between the appellant and the Stamp Reporter of this Court as to the amount of court-fees, payable on the memorandum of the present appeal. 3. In the view we are taking, it is not necessary to go into the facts of this case in any detail or the merits of the appellant's contention that his memorandum was duly stamped and the Taxing Officer was wrong in demanding further court-fees from him. 4. The Rule was obtained under Article 227 of the Constitution, and the question is whether the Registrar, acting as the Taxing Officer, is a tribunal whose orders are revisable by this Court in the exercise of its powers under that Article. 5. In our opinion, the answer should be in the negative. The Registrar is an officer of this Court and forms par...
Jaria Devi Vs. Shyam Sundar Agarwalla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Cal338,63CWN295
ORDER1. This Rule raises a short question. It is directed against an order of the learned District Judge of Jalpaiguri in Misc. Judicial Case No. 21 of 1956 under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, whereby the learned District Judge has refused the petitioner's prayer for payment to her of a moiety share of the award of Rs. 2,400/- on account of compensation for a masonry wall which had been deposited by the Collector in court under the said provision of law. The petitioner claims payment on the ground, inter alia, that, whatever might have been the position before the new Hindu Succession Act of 1956, under Section 14(1) of that Act her interest in that money is no longer the limited interest of a Hindu widow but has become absolute interest making her absolute owner thereof. The question is whether the case would come under Section 14(1) or would be governed by the exception thereto as enacted in the next sub-section. 2. The petitioner Jaria Devi claims title to the money as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›