Kolkata Court May 1958 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.
Indian Standard Wagon Co. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer Etc.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Cal25,[1958]9STC553(Cal)
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1. This application and a number of other applications involve the question of inter-State trade and commerce and the imposition of sales-tax in respect thereof by the State. They all involve a further question about the applicability to such transactions of a Central Act, namely, the Sales-tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 being Act No. VII of 1956. These cases have been heard together and common sets of argument were advanced. This particular case, however, has some special features inasmuch as (1) it is not an instance of what has been called an 'explanation sale', and (2) no point has been taken herein about any violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It will be convenient, therefore, to deal with this case separately, but decide herein also the common questions of law involved. So far as the other matters are concerned, they are all instances of 'explanation sales'. They also involve the point of an infraction of ...
Pratul Chandra Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Chairman, Calcutta Dock Labour B ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Cal636
P. Chakravartti, C.J.1. The nine appellants are registered and licensed tevedores, carrying on business in the Fort of Calcutta. Besides them, there are nineteen other stevedores, carrying on business at the same port. The appellants are memhers of a body, called the Calcutta Stevedores Association, whereas fourteen of the other nineteen stevedores are members of a body, called the Master Stevedores Association. The remaining five are unattached.2. The work of a Stevedore consists in loading and unloading ships and on occasions in preparing a vessel for the reception or discharge of cargo. Such work requires the aid of human labour. Naturally, a large body of men, capable of offering such labour, congregate at ports where ships call,but it is in the nature of things impossible that they should be able to get regular employment unless the work is controlled and equitably distributed. Inorder that stevedoring work may be available, there must be ships to load or unload, but no one can ex...
Blackstone Products Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1958
Reported in: [1958]9STC796(Cal)
Sinha, J. 1. The facts in this case are similar to the facts in Matter No. 146 of 1957 (Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, Calcutta [1958] 9 S.T.C. 624). In this case, the petitioner carries on business at Pakur in the State of Bihar. It is said that there is no business of the petitioner in Calcutta. The petitioner carries on business in Pakur in quarrying and selling stone chips known as Pakur stone chips. It carries on business in the State of Bihar and is a registered dealer under the Bihar Sales Tax Act. The transactions relate to sales and purchases whereby Pakur stone chips have been delivered in Bengal to be consumed in that State. The State of West Bengal claims to levy sales tax on such sales and purchases. The petitioners have taken the same points as have been taken in Matter No. 146 of 1957 (Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, Calcutta [1958] 9 S.T.C. 624). These matters have been heard together and there has bee...
Ashoka Marketing Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1958
Reported in: [1958]9STC624(Cal)
Sinha, J. 1. In these matters the petitioner is the Ashoka Marketing Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It has its head office at Dalmianagar in the State of Bihar, and a branch office in Calcutta. The Calcutta branch has been registered as a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The petitioner is the sole selling agent of Messrs Rohtas Industries Ltd., which carries on business in the manufacture and production inter alia of cement, cardboard, paper, sugar, chemical and other commodities at Dalmianagar in the State of Bihar. This application relates to transactions in which goods were manufactured at Dalmianagar and sold to parties in West Bengal and the goods were despatched from Dalmianagar to West Bengal. It is not disputed that the goods were meant for consumption in West Bengal. That these transactions were in the course of inter-State trade and commerce is not disputed. But they come under the Explanation to Article 286(1) of the Consti...
Sm. Krishna Dassi Saha Vs. Akhil Ch. Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Cal671
P.C. Mallick, J.1. This is an application by a Hindu mother for an order that the properties to be allotted to her under the preliminary decree in this suit be allotted to her as a full owner, and the preliminary decree be amended accordingly. The preliminary decree directed that the properties to be allotted to her 'be held and enjoyed by her as a Hindu mother during the time or her natural life in the manner prescribed by Hindu Law'. The, preliminary decree was passed on 31-1-1951. Since then, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force- The plaintiff contends that under Section 14 of the Act she is now entitled to hold and enjoy the properties to be allotted to her on partition as a full owner and not as a limited owner. It is contended by the contesting defendant that she is not entitled to the order under the said section. The decision will depend on the construction of Section 14 of the Act, which reads as follows :'(1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquire...
Bothra Brothers Ltd. Vs. Sm. Pramila Bala Dutt Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal309,63CWN653
R.S. Bachawat, J.1. The plaintiff is the owner of the house and premises at No. 146/2, Old China Bazar Street, Calcutta, formerly being portion of premises Nos. 142, 143, 144, 145 and 146, Old China Bazar Street. The defendants 1 to 5 claim to be the owners of the adjoining premises 141 to 145 Old China Bazar Street.2. The root of the plaintiff's title is the return of the Commissioner of Partition dated 8-1-1885, in Suit Nos. 349, 360 and 363 of 1878 (Ex. A-2). By and under the return the house and premises Nos. 142, 143, 144, 145 and 146 Old China Bazar Street were allotted to the plaintiffs predecessor-in-title one Prannath Dutt. The return provided that the common passage in dispute being premises No. 146 Old China Bazar Street might be used by the said Prannath Dutt and one Kedareswar Dutt without any objection by the other of them and that both the parties would have the right to drain their respective portion that is to say the premises respectively allotted to them by undergrou...
Joseph Pyke and Son (Liverpool) Ltd. Vs. Kedarnath Mohanlal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal328
P. Chakravartti, C.J.1. The appellants obtained an arbitration award against the respondents in London and thereafter made an application to this Court under Section 15(1) of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, for an order that the award be filed. On 3-8-1955, Sarkar, J., dismissed the application on the ground that the award related to a matter which could not be lawfully referred to arbitration in India and that to give effect to it would be to act against the law and the public policy of this country. The appellants question the correctness of that decision and have appealed.2. The facts are these. By an exchange of Bought and Sold Notes, dated 15-10-1953, the appellants purported to purchase from the respondents and the respondents purported to sell to them 125 tons of Indian groundnut oil, the term as to delivery being that the goods would be shipped in bulk as per a bill or bills of lading, dated between the 1st of January and the 15th ot February, 1954, from a ...
Jaharlal Pagalia Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal273
ORDERA.N. Ray, J.1. This is an application for amendment of the plaint. The amendment sought for is proposed paragraph 12(a) namely, that due notice under Section 80 was duly served on the defendant over two months prior to the institution of the suit. The suit was instituted on 26-4-1958. The summons is dated 3-5-1958. Two points were urged against the proposed amendment. First, that the application is a belated one, second, that the application introduces a new cause of action.2. I shall first deal with the question whether the amendment sought for is one which introduces a new cause of action. In other words, thequestion is whether notice under Section 80 of theCode of Civil Procedure is a part of the plaintiffscause of action. If it is a part of the plaintiffscause of action the defendant contends that theapplication should be refused because first, thecause of action is barred by limitation and secondly, leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is,necessary therefor and the sam...
In the Goods of Ganapati Sarkar and Pradip K. Sarkar Vs. Umarani Bose ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal277
ORDERP.C. Mallick, J.1. This is an application for revocation of a grant. This Court granted probate of the Will of Ganapati Sarkar deceased, dated 6-10-1954 to the daughters of the deceased, who are also named executors in the Will. The grant was made on 25-7-1957. The ground on which this grant is sought to be revoked is that by a subsequent Will dated 25-12-1954, the testator revoked the former Will. Under the subsequent Will, the petitioner, a son of Bidhu Bhusan Sarkar, is the sole executor, to whom practically the entire estate has been bequeathed. Bidhu Bhusan is a cousin of the testator. The testator had no son but 8 daughters. The testator's wife died years ago, in 1936, when the daughters were very young. The testator did not marry again. 2. Surendra, Bidhu Bhusan and Ganapati, the testator, were 3 sons of one Ram Charan. Ram Charan had a brother, Gagan Chandra, who had no son. Gagan adopted Ganapati, and by his will bequeathed half the estate to his adopted son Ganapati, and...
The State Vs. Ram Abatar Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Cal451,1960CriLJ899
J.P. Mitter, J. 1. This is a Reference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by the learned Additional District Magistrate of 24-Parganas recommending that an order of a learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Alipore be set aside.2. Mr. Kali Mohan Chakrabarty appearing OB behalf of the opposite party contends that this Reference is incompetent, because so far as the Additional District Magistrate is concerned, the court of an Assistant Sessions Judge is not an inferior criminal court. This contention appears to us to be unanswerable and is supported by Queen Empress v. Karamdi. ILR 23 Cal 250, and Hiraman De v. Ram Kumar Ain. ILR 18 Cal 186. We must accordingly reject the Reference and leave it to the State to take such steps as it may be advised to set aside the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge.Bhattacharya, J. 3. I agree....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »