Kolkata Court July 1957 Judgments
Monmatha Nath Ghosh Vs. Director of Public Instruction, Government of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal49,61CWN944
ORDERSinha, J. 1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: Prior to the partition, the petitioner had been working in East Bengal in different departments under the Government of Bengal since 1941. After the partition, on or about the 19th January 1948, the petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Assistant in the office of the Registrar of Orphans under the Education Directorate of the Government of West Bengal. A copy of the letter of appointment is Annexure 'X(1)' to the further affidavit filed by Sri Tamash Ranjan Roy, dated the 18th June 1957. It appears from that letter that the appointing authority is the Orphanage Officer and Registrar of Orphans of the Government of West Bengal. It is admitted in the petition that the Orphanage and Registration Section is a section of the Education Directorate of West Bengal. My attention has been drawn to a notification, being West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1950, which was published in the Calcutta Gazette, Extraordin...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupati Bayen and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Cal446,1959CriLJ832,63CWN393
ORDERN.K. Sen, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Kandi, Murshidabad, by which he ordered the return of the seized paddy to one Hossain Reza, as prayed for by the Police by their report dated 23-1-1956. A preliminary point was taken by Mr. All who appeared on behalf of the complainant opposite party and his point was that this Rule was obtained without informing the Court that the customary period of limitation of sixty days had expired in the present case. It was, however, conceded by him later on that the period did not expire and the application was moved in time.2. Hossain Reza lodged an information with the Police charging the petitioners with having committed offences under Sections 147, 148, 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. His complaint was over the cutting of paddy forcibly from the field of the said Hossain Reza. It was further stated that the object of this noting was to dispossess Mowla Rakha Bibi from her unobstructed possess...
Tag this Judgment!Saktipada Lauha and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ167
ORDERSen, J.1. The petitioners in this case were convicted under Section 11 of the Bengal Public Gaming Act (Bengal Act 2 of 1867) and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30/-, in default, to rigorous imprisonment for one month. Some materials said to be gambling materials were ordered to be destroyed and other goods seized including a sum of Rs. 303-4-0 were also ordered to be confiscated. The present Rule was directed against this order of conviction on a limited ground, viz. ground No. 2 which is in the following terms:For that the place of gambling not being proved by the prosecution to be a 'public' place as defined by the Act, the conviction is illegal.2. The prosecution case was that on an information that gambling was going on in the village of Purandarpur the police went to the place which was just near a Hindu temple and succeeded in apprehending the three petitioners who along with others were found betting on a gambling board. This board with the money amounting...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Chandra Ghose Vs. Income-tax Officer, District V. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal159,[1959]35ITR379(Cal)
ORDERSinha, J.1. These are three applications arising from a common set of facts. There are also two contempt applications arising therefrom. They have been heard together and it will be convenient to dispose of all the five applications by one judgment.2. The facts in these cases are briefly asfollows:The petitioner's assessment for the year 1945-46 was completed on 18tn August, 1945. With regard to the assessment which had been made, he has paid the amount which I am told is Rs. 10,107-7-0. Under Section 2(11) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'), the words 'previous year' have been defined. The relevant part of the definition is as follows : ''(11). 'previous year' means. (i) in respect of any separate source of income, proats and gains, (a) the twelve months ending on 31st day of March next preceding the year for which the assessment is to be made, or, if the accounts of the assessee have been made up to a dute within the said twelve months in respect of an order en...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. P.K. Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal51,[1958]34ITR729(Cal)
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This is a Reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, by which the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this Court a short question of a familiar shape. The question asks whether certain payments received by a director of a company of Chief Agents which was a part of the total payment made by the principal company on the termination of the Chief Agency, were income receipts in the hands of the director or were capital receipts. The tribunal have held that the sums were capital receipts. The Commissioner of Income-tax, being dissatisfied, has brought up the question before us for an expression of the Court's opinion. 2. The Reference relates to two assessment years, namely, 1950-51 and 1951-52. It has arisen out of the following facts. 3. The assessee is, or perhaps was, a director of a company, going by the name of D. M. Das and Sons Ltd. I say 'was', because it is not clear whether after the termination of the Chief Agency, the company w...
Tag this Judgment!Rajed Sheikh Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal735,1957CriLJ1398,62CWN129
ORDERSen, J. 1. This Rule which was issued on limited grounds is directed against an order of conviction under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and a sentence of fine passed on the petitioner by Sri A. P. Goswami, Magistrate, 2nd Class, Burdwan which was confirmed on appeal by Sri H. N. Sen, Assistant Sessions Judge, Burdwan. 2. The two grounds on which the Rule was issued were these : 'Ground No. II: For that there has not been proper compliance with the provisions of Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as Such the order of conviction ought to be set aside.Ground No. IV : For that the learned Judge has not considered the defence evidence at all and as such the order of conviction is bad in law.' 3. In my view, the more substantial point arising in this case is that the learned Judge has not considered the defence evidence at all. 4. The Prosecution case was that the complainant was staying with his wife in the house of his father-in-law. As the relevant date the peti...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. Khanna Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal663,1957CriLJ1252
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. The appellant was convicted by a Presidency Magistrate of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months more. The appeal waspresented to this Court on the 7th of February, 1955. It came up for hearing before this Bench (Guha Ray and Sen JJ.) on the 22nd February, 1955. The prayer made in the memorandum of appeal was in these words :'In the circumstances the appellant prays that your Lordships will be pleased to admit the appeal, call for the records of the case and after hearing the parties and perusing the records allow the appeal and set aside the order of conviction & sentence and to pass such other order or orders as to your Lordships may seem fit and proper............'There was also a prayer for bail and stay of realisation of fine pending the hearing of the appeal. The learned Judges, passed an order, the...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Bag and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal118,1958CriLJ362
K.C. Das Gupta, J. 1. These eleven appellants along with eleven other persons were tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Hooghly on charges under Sections 148 and 458 of the Indian Penal Code. The first appellant Hari Bag was tried in the same trial on a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty as regards this charge under Section 302 and in accordance therewith the learned Judge acquitted him of the offence. As regards the charge under Section 148 of the Indian penal Code, a majority of the jury -- the majority not being the same in all cases -- returned a verdict of guilty against these eleven appellants. Against six of them, the jury returned a verdict of guilty under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. In accordance with the majority verdict, the learned Judge sentenced the appellant Madan Das alias Madan Chandra Das to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and the rest to rigor...
Tag this Judgment!J.P. Mitter Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1960Cal158
ORDERN.K. Sen, J. 1. In this case the petitioner was convicted under Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to six weeks rigorous imprisonment; and out of the fine, if realised, a sum of Rs. 50/- was ordered to be paid to P. W. 1 as compensation. Against this order of conviction and sentence the present Rule was issued. 2. In short the prosecution case was that the petitioner had a ferocious Alsatian doe which was allowed to roam on the street without any escort and that the dog had bit persons before the dog bit the complainant on the 17th Feburary 1956 at Deodar Street. 3. What the defence of the petitioner was does not appear from the judgment. But his plea shows that he did not admit the above offence. The case was tried summarily under Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears from the summary sheet that six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and one for the defence. 4. The point taken before thi...
Tag this Judgment!Paresh Nath Biswas Vs. Kamal Krishna Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal614,61CWN776
Renupada Mukherjee, J.1. The facts involved in this appeal are no longer in dispute and the decision of the appeal turns on a pure question of law.2. The respondents brought a suit for restraining the appellant from entering into possession of some plots of land described in the schedule of the plaint on the allegation that those plots comprise a dwelling house and its appurtenant land belonging to the respondents and their co-sharers, and the appellant who has taken a permanent lease of a fractional share of the plots and who is a stranger to the family has no right to enter into joint possession of the property.3. The trial court decreed the suit in part granting a permanent injunction in respect of all the disputed plots excepting two which were held to be not appertaining to the dwelling house. This decree was confirmed in appeal. So the defendant has preferred this second appeal.4. The only point urged in this appeal by Mr. Ghosh on behalf of the appellant is that such a suit is n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »