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.
Kanchan Bhusan Dutta Vs. Sailendra Nath Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Cal595,1958CriLJ1315
N.K. Sen, J. 1. This appeal which is under the provisions of Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be allowed.2. A complaint was filed by the appellant against the respondent Sailendra Nath Sen before the S.D.O., Basirhat, alleging that the respondent had committed offences under Sections 352 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate who tried the case decided to proceed under the provisions of Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears from the order-sheet of the case that on 22nd April, 1957 four prosecution witnesses were examined in chief and two were cross-examined before charge. On the next date two more prosecution witnesses were examined and cross-examined before charge. On the next date of hearing prosecution witnesses Nos. 1 to 4 were cross-examined. On 16th May, 1957 the respondent was said to have been examined under Section 343 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate then adjourned the case for examination of ...
Ram Dass Ghosh Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Cal615,1958CriLJ1388,62CWN687
ORDERN.K. Sen, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order by which the petitioner was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 50/- as compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to each of the three opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4, in default: to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.2. Upon a complaint made by the petitioner, opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were tried by a Magistrate at Katwa on charges under Sections 323 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate acquitted the opposite parties and found that 'prosecution signally failed to prove the occurrence' and that the complainant brought a maliciously false and frivlous case against the accused. While passing the order of acquittal, by the same judgment, the learned Magistrate asked the complainant to show cause by 1-5-1957 why he will not be ordered to pay Rs. 50/- each as compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the accused. On 21-5-1957 the petitioner showed, cause w...
Sudhakar Mukherjee Vs. Gofur Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal386,63CWN354
K.C. Das Gupta, J. 1. After the present petitioner has been recorded in the draft record of rights published under Section 44(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, as the person in actual possession of certain plots of' land, an objection was taken in accordance with the provisions of that section and was rejected by the Revenue Officer. Against this order of rejection, the present opposite parties, who claimed to be the persons in actual khas possession as korfa tenants, appealed to the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 44(3) of the Act. That appeal is still pending for decision. In the meantime, immediately after the appeal was filed, the opposite parties made an application for an order of temporary injunction, restraining the present petitioner from dispossessing or causing obstruction to the appellant's peaceful possession of the disputed land. The Tribunal overruled the objection raised by the present petitioner that a Tribunal under this Act had no jurisdic...
A.P. Misra Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Cal612,1958CriLJ1386
ORDERN.K. Sen, J.1. A.P. Misra was tried along with two others R.S. Sarma and S.P. Mukherjee under Section 7, Sub-section (1) of the Essential Commodities Act (Act X of 1955) for violation of the provisions of Clause 3(1) of the Calcutta Wheat (Movement Control) Order, 1956, Accused S.P. Mukherjee who was the goods clerk at Nimtola goods office was in charge of accepting forwarding notes. The petitioner A.P. Misra was said to have produced on 1-10-1956 ninety-eight bags of wheat on behalf of accused R.S. Sarma, a school boy aged about 14 years for booking Ex-Nimtola to Kharakpur on behalf of self. S.P. Mukherjee was charged for abetment of the offence for export of wheat without a permit. The learned Magistrate who tried them acquitted the two co-accused but convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to rigorous imprisonment for four months. The seized quantity of wheat was ordered to be confiscated. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Add...
Racecourse Betting Control Board Vs. Young (inspector of Taxes). Racec ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1958
Reported in: [1960]39ITR553(Cal)
Their Lordships took time for consideration.May 7. LORD EVERSHED M.R. read the following judgment : Two appeals by the Racecourse Betting Control Board (which I shall hereafter refer to as 'the board'), and corresponding cross-appeals on the part of the Crown have been heard together. One appeal and the corresponding cross-appeal are concerned with the boards liability to income tax; the second appeal and cross-appeal relate to profits tax. It has been agreed before us that identical principles apply, so far as is relevant to these appeals, to both income tax and profits tax, so that the answer as regards the one necessarily involves the answer also as regards the other. In the circumstances I shall confine myself in this judgment to income tax.The board has been assessed to income tax under Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1952, for the income tax years 1953-54 and 1954-55, in reference to its trade as a totalisator operator. Although Mr. Heyworth Talbot was not prepared unreservedly...
Nirode Mohan Chatterjee Vs. Indu Bhushan Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal74,1959CriLJ41
Renupada Mukherjee, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the District Judge of 24 Parganas in connection with an insolvency case. 2. In order to understand the points in controversy involved in this appeal it is necessary to state the following facts : 3. Appellant Nirode Mohan Chatterjee filed an application in the Court of the District Judge, Alipore, 24 Parganas, under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act for being adjudicated an insolvent. By an order passed by the learned District Judge on 8-6-1955, the Official Receiver who was Mr. Indu Bhusan Ghosh at the relevant time, was appointed interim Receiver under Section 20 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and he was! directed to take possession of all the assets of the prospective insolvent. The order-sheet of the Court below would show that the debtor did not comply with the order of the Official Receiver regarding production of some title deeds, account books and other documents. Order No. 12, dated 17-6-195...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›