Kolkata Court June 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.
In Re: Hindusthan General Electric Corporation Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal679
ORDERH.K. Bose, J.1. This is an application under Section 391 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, for sanction of a scheme of arrangement involving re-organisation of the share capital of the company. The company was incorporated in June 1945 with an authorised capital of Rs. 50 lakhs divided into 3,75,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each, 10,000, 5 per cent cumulative participating preference snares of Rs. 100/- each and 50,000 deferred shares of Rs. 5 each. The total paid up capital of the company is Rs. 29,20,300 comprising of 1,89,985 ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each, 8,452 preference shares of Rs. 100 each and 35,050 deferred shares of Rs. 5 each. The company carries on the business of manufacturers, exporters and importers of radios, radiograms, gramophones, refrigerators and various electrical goods and equipments. It has its factory at Karampura in Bihar. Although the company was started with the blessings of a very rich financial and managing agents, Karamchand Thapper and Brothers...
Jyotish Chandra Sen Vs. Rukmini Ballav Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal35,62CWN588
ORDER1. This Rule is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, 24-Parganas, extending, in modification of a previous order, time for payment of certain to is which had been made the condition precedent for acceptance of additional written statement. It appears that on 22-4-1957 the court ordered that :'the additional written statement filed by pro forma defendant No. 7 will be accepted so far as paras 2 and 5 are concerned provided defendant No. 7 pays a cost of Rs. 16/- to the plaintiff by 16-5-1957. In default of payment of costs the additional written statement will stand rejected.'Costs were not paid by 16-5-1957 but on that date an application was made praying for extension of the time. The application, however, wa not moved on that date but was moved and heard in presence of the parties' lawyers later on. On 5-7-1957, the court passed an order, in spite of the objection of the plaintiff, extending the time for payment of the costs to 11-7-1957. Costs were paid b...
Haradhan Sarkar Vs. Godhan Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal582,1959CriLJ1068,64CWN101
ORDERN.K. Sen, J. 1. The petitioners in this case were tried by Shri P.C. Roy Choudhury, Sessions Judge of Birbhum with the aid of a jury. There were two charges against each of the opposite parties, namely, one under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and the other under Section 304/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge in agreement with the unanimous verdict of not guilty returned by the jury acquitted the opposite parties of both the charges.2. Of the several grounds taken by the complainant petitioner in support of the Rule, Mr. Amal Kumar Basu, has referred to only one, namely, that the learned Judge did not take the verdict of the jury in respect of each of the charges against each individual accused and as such the order that followed was illegal. What happened appeared to be this. The jury was asked to state first if they were unanimous and then what their verdict was with regard to each of the accused persons. What the learned Judge did not ask the jury was : what ...
Basanta Kumar Pal Vs. Chief Electrical Engineer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Cal657,62CWN765
P. Chakravartti, C.J.1. A short point involved in this appeal has been argued shortly.2. The appellant, Basanta Kumar Pal, entered service under the old East Bengal Railway on 6-9-1919 as, according to himself, a clerk, but as, according to respondent No. 1, a Fitter. There is, however, no dispute that in October, 1920, he was confirmed in a post of a Clerk under the Railway. After the Partition of India in 1947, he opted for the Dominion of India and his services having been transferred to the East Indian Railway, he was posted under the District Electrical Engineer, Dhanbad. It was there that he continued to serve till the date of his retirement.3. The appellant was due to reach his fifty-fifth year on 1-7-1950. On 19-5-1919, he received a notice, dated the 18th May, by which he was informed that it was proposed to retire him from service on his attaining the age of fifty-five years and that if he disired to make any representation against such retirement, it would be considered befo...
In Re: Hindusthan General Electric Corporation Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal672,62CWN889
ORDERH.K. Bose, J. 1. This is an application for confirmation of a reduction of capital. The petitioner is a public limited company which was incorporated in June 1945 under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. Its registered office is at 12, India Exchange Place, Calcutta. It carries on business of manufacturers, importers and exporters of radios, radiograms, gramophones, refrigerators, cables, electric switches, switch gears and other electrical goods and equipments. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. 50,00,000/- divided into 3,75,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 10/- each, 10,000 five per tent, cumulative participating preference shares of Rs. 100/- each and 50,000 deferred shares of Rs. 5/-each. The total paid up capital of the company is Rs. 29,20,300/- made up as follows: (i)1,89,985 Ordinary shares of Rs. 10/- each...Rs. 18,99,850/-(ii)8452 preference shares of Rs. 100/- each...Rs. 8,45,200/-(iii)35,050 deferred shares of Rs. 5/- each...Rs. 1,75,250/- Total...Rs. 29,20,300/-2. Th...
Amal Chakraborty and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal761,1959CriLJ1434
ORDERN.K. Sen, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why the order of commitment of the petitioner to the Court of Sessions should not be quashed. 2. By an order, dated 20-11-1957 Sri T.K. Mutsuddi, Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta committed the petitioner to take his trial in the court of Sessions on a charge under Sections 397/395 of the Indian Penal Code. 3-4. It is not necessary for the present purpose to narrate the facts upon which the prosecution case was founded. An enquiry preliminary to commitment was held under the provisions of Section 207A of the amended Code of Criminal Procedure. After the matter reached the stage of trial before the City Sessions Court a point was taken that the whole commitment was wrong inasmuch as the procedure which was to be followed by the learned Magistrate, was the one laid down not under Section 207A, but under Section 208 of the Code. This argument was based on the two decisions of Chakravart...
Muhammad Zephyr Vs. Shibraj Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Cal142,1960CriLJ329
ORDERN.K. Sen, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order of acquittal passed by Shri P. N. Lahiri, Additional Sessions Judge, 24 Parganas, in a Sessions trial where the jury unanimously found the three opposite parties not guilty of the respective charges upon which they were tried. The learned Judge held that the verdict which he accepted was not against the weight of evidence. He did not, however, express himself as to whether he agreed with the verdict. 2. Opposite party No. 1 Shibraj Singh was tried on charges under Sections 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge under Section 302 was for shooting Sk. Monjur to death and the other charge under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code was for causing grievous hurt to a boy named Ranjit Pal, who is prosecution witness No. 24 in the case. The two other opposite parties were charged for abetment of the aforesaid offences. 3. The prosecution case which may be shortly narrated was as follows: There is a manufacturing concern on ...
Dawood Ali Arif and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Cal565,62CWN729
ORDERSinha, J. 1. The facts in these two cases are shortly as follows : The petitioner in the first case is Dawood Ali Arif Bham and the petitioner in the second case is his wife. The petitioner Dawood Ali Arif Bham says that he is the Mutwalli of a wakf situated in Calcutta, the wakf estate having been created by the petitioner's grand-father Hazi Kasem Arif Bham, deceased. He says that in 1950, when there was recrudescence of communal disturbances in Calcutta, he and his wife Aziza Begum, petitioner in the second case, left for Amnura in Rajshai situate in Eastern Pakistan. There, he resided for some time and eventually he applied for a Pakistan passport. In the meantime the passport-cum-visa system had been introduced in India, sometime in October, 1952 and the special passport obtained by the petitioner from the District Magistrate, Rajshai, is dated 28th November, 1952. With this passport, the petitioner and his wife came back to India. On or about 5th May, 1954 it is alleged that...
Sm. Parbati Devi Vs. Kashmirilal Sarma and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal69
K.C. Das Gupta, J. 1. The property in litigation belonged originally to Mangrulal Ahir. The plaintiff's case is that on MangruYal's death, his widow and minor sons, defendants Nos. 3 to 7, became owners of the land as his heirs. The plaintiff purchased this property from defendants Nos. 3 to 7 by a kobala dated the 12th July 1948. In the meantime, on the 1st April 1946 defendant No. 1 had obtained a lease from Kanai Lal Ahir in respect of the land described in Schedule B of the plaint, forming part of the property left by Mangiulal. Kanai Lal executed that deed of lease on behalf of himself and also as guardian of Keshab Prasad Ahir, defendant No. 3. After obtaining the lease, defendant No. 1 filled up the tank in the land of Schedule B and also erected a structure. In that lease, Kanai Lal described himself as the son of Mangrulal Ahir. The plaintiff's case is that Kanailal was not Mangrulal's son but was the son of Mangrulal's wife Babuna by a former husband. He had, therefore, no in...
Smt. Sobhana Sen Vs. Amar Kanta Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal455
K.C. Das Gupta, J. 1. This appeal is against an order made by the District Judge, 24-Parganas on an application by tile wife for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband started the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act and prayed for a decree of divorce. In the application under Section 24 of the Act, the wife, who is the appellant before us made a prayer for a sum of Rs. 3000 'or such other Bum as the Court may think reasonable and sufficient'' for the expenses of this suit and Rs. 650/-per month for her maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings. The learned District Judge has made an order directing the husband to pay maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 200/-per month with effect from the 1-5-1956. As regards the prayer for expenses of the proceedings, e passed the following order :'I tentatively assess the probable cost of the respondent in this divorce proceeding at Rs. 500/-. The peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »