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.
Balai Lal Sen Vs. Pramatha Nath Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal71
ORDER1. This application is for permission to sue Balai Lal Sen, Kanai Lal Sen, Sisir Kumar Basu and Bibhuti Bhusan Sen on the basis that they were receivers appointed by this Court of the firm Sen Brothers and Company. It has to be noticed that Balai Lal Sen, Kanai Lal Sen and Sirir Kumar Basu are no longer receivers and have been discharged. It was held in Dinshaw v. Amrit Lal and Co., ILR 10 Pat 379 : (AIR 1931 Fat 298) (A) that no leave was necessary to sue a discharged receiver. This was stated to be the correct law in Sir John Wood-toffe's 'Law relating to Receivers.' The same view appears to have been taken in England in a case reported in Botibol v. Botibol, (1947) 1947-1 All E. R. 26 (B). The principle appears to be that when a receiver has already been discharged, there is no question of any interference with the Court's management of the property through the receiver, and no leave is necessary to bring a suit against a receiver after discharge. In our judgment, that is the c...
Paritosh Khan and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Cal709,1958CriLJ1480
ORDERN.K. Sen, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Midnapore whereby he ordered further enquiry into a case which ended in an order of discharge under Section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a Magistrate at Midnapore. 2. It appears that on the 16th December, 1956 there was a first information report by one Radha Gobinda Sing against the petitioners alleging that they had unlawfully entered upon the land which was Plot No. 176 of mouza Aulara, police station Salbani, in the district of Midnapur, and cut away and removed the paddy grown thereon by the informant Radha Gobinda Singha. Afterinvestigation the police submitted a charge sheet under Sections 143 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate after examining the documents and statements made by the witnesses before the police and after hearing the Court Sub-Inspector and defence lawyer discharged the petitioners under Section 251-A of the Code ...
Trilock Chand Agarwalla Vs. Dominion of India (Now as the Union of Ind ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal281
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This appeal can be disposed of on two points of (1) jurisdiction of the Court and (2) notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act. The learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit and held against the plaintiff on both these points. The plaintiff is the appellant before us.2. Before discussing and deciding these two points it will be useful to make a short reference to the facts.3. The plaintiff instituted the suit on the 11th November, 1948 as a commercial cause against the Dominion of India describing it as the 'successor of the former Central Government which owned the Bengal Assam Railway carrying on the business of carriage of articles and having its principal place of business at No. 3, Koilaghat Street, Calcutta'. The plaintiff's case is that he is a displaced person within the meaning of the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act, 1948. His pleading in the plaint is that he left Bogra in East Bengal which is now in East Pakistan in the las...
Commissioner of Burdwan Division Vs. Mrinal Kanti Chatterjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal326,63CWN1
P. Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Burdwan Division against an order of Sinha, J., dated the 1st of December, 1954, whereby the learned Judge quashed an order made by the appellant Commissioner on the 18th of July, 1952 and, consequentially, quashed an order dated the 5th of May, 1952, of the Regional Transport Authority for the Hooghly Region. In my opinion, the appeal is absolutely without any merits. 2. The learned Judge's order was made on an application made under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Mrinal Kanti Chatterjee, who is respondent No. 1 in this appeal. It appears that Mrinal Kanti Chatterjee's father, and after him Mrinal Kanti himself, held a stage Carriage permit for Route No. 2 (Chinsurah-Serampore), but the permit was lost on account of non-payment of the renewal fee which is said to have been caused by certain circumstances stated in the petition. Thereafter, Mrinal Kanti asked for and obtained a temporary permit for a period of th...
Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corpn. Vs. Official Assignee of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal616,63CWN316
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is a mortgage suit under Order 34 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was originally instituted against Khwaja Shamshuddin. On or about 19-9-1957 on his application Khwaja Shamshuddin was adjudicated insolvent by an order of this Court. By an order dated 21-1-1958 the Official Assignee of Calcutta was brought on the record as the defendant.2. The plaintiffs case is that the defendant carried on business in the sale, purchase and export of goat skins and hides under the name and style of East Asiatic Trading Company. The defendant had a current overdraft account with the plaintiff. In the said account from time to time the plaintiff used to lend and advance various sums of monies to the defendant and the defendant from time to time used to draw on such monies and repay various sums from time to time.3. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it is stated that the overdraft account was secured by (a) pledge and/or hypothecation of all stocks of goat skins and hides o...
Ramdass Prasad and anr. Vs. Raghubir Chand Soni and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal72,62CWN722
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. This appeal is against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Darjeeling dismissing an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which the judgment-debtors objected to the execution of a decree as prayed for in an application made on the 10th September, 1954. The prayer there was in these words:'As the judgment-debtors defaulted in paying the instalments as provided in the modified decree the decree-holders pray that they be put into possession of the properties which are described in the schedule herein and which were mortgaged in favour of the plaintiffs-decree-holders and auction purchased by them in consequence of the execution of the re-opened decree, as provided in Section 36(2) (e) of the Bengal Money Lenders' Act, 1940.'It appears that on an application under Section 36 of the Bengal Money Lenders' Act, a new preliminary decree was made by the Subordinate Judge, Darjeeling, on the 25th May, 1942. This decree was for a total sum of Rs. 35,29...
Baburam Lal and anr. Vs. Debdas Lala
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal73
K.C. Das Gupta, J. 1. This appeal is against an order allowing an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code and rejecting an application for amendment of the execution petition. The suit was one for partition and accounts. A preliminary decree was passed on 20-2-1940. The appeal against the preliminary decree was dismissed on 12-1-1944. The final decree was made on 3-12-1946. The application for execution, in which the application for amendment and the objection under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code-were made, was filed on 8-6-1949. The decretal sum was mentioned there as Rs. 1,483-1-6 pies, this being the amount of the decree on the basis of the Commissioner's report. Certain other sums were asked for as costs of copy of the decree & costs of execution but set off was also given & the net total was mentioned as Rs. 1,342-14-9 pies. By the application for amendment, the plaintiff wanted to add to the sum realisable on account of the decree itself a sum of Rs. 495/...
Saibal Kumar Gupta and ors. Vs. B.K. Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal106,1959CriLJ172
P. Chakravartti, C.J. 1. The three petitioners before us have been found by a Division Beach to have committed contempt of this Court as also the Court of a Magistrate and have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-each. They are all Councilors of the Corporation of Calcutta and one of them, Mr. S. K. Gupta, is also the present Chairman of the Calcutta Improvement Trust. The finding against them is that they, as members of a Special Committee set up by the Corporation, took it upon themselves to investigate into and decide certain matters which were awaiting decision by this Court and the Court of the Magistrate in a criminal proceeding against one Mr. B. K. Sen. Mr. B. K. Sen, who is the Commissioner of the Corporation of Calcutta, was the petitioner before the learned Judges and is the sole respondent before us. The learned Judges have found that the petitioners before us embarked upon an enquiry as to Mr. Sen's conduct in relation to the litigation and thus embarked upon a course...
Ostime (inspector of Taxes) Vs. Australian Mutual Provident Society.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1958
Reported in: [1960]38ITR35(Cal)
JENKINS L.J. - This is an appeal by the Crown from a judgment of Upjohn J. dated December 20, 1957, whereby he affirmed a determination of the special commissioners dated July 24, 1956, in favour of the present respondents, a company called Australian Mutual Provident Society. The case concerns the effect on the companys tax liability of the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Australia) Order, 1947.The company, and this is important, is a mutual insurance company, which was incorporated in New South Wales in 1849 and is now regulated by certain later Australian statutes. The company has a branch office in London and carries on part of its business here.I should next refer to some of the income tax provisions relating to insurance companies. Rule 15 of the rules applicable to Schedule D, Cases I and II, in the Income-tax Act, 1918, provides as follows by sub-rule (1) : 'Where an insurance company carries on life insurance business in conjunction with assurance business of any oth...
Pannalall Kishanlal Vs. Lal Chand Sohanlal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Cal261,63CWN745
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J.1. The plaintiff petitioner instituted a suit against the defendant opposite party, in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, claiming Rs. 1704-8-6.2. The case made by the plaintiff petitioner was that by an agreement in writing between the plaintiff firm and the defendant firm entered into en September 28, 1951, through broker Makhanlal Jain and evidenced by a Bought Note (Ext. 1.), the defendant firm agreed to sell 25 tons of groundnutoil, loose in returnable drums, at the rate of Rs. 65/8/- per maund, the time for delivery being November 1951. Thereafter, the defendant firm, it is stated, expressed its inability to deliver the goods and requested the plaintiff firm to come to a settlement. Such a settlement was arrived at and io terms of the settlement the plaintiff petitioner resold the goods, covered by the Bought Note (Ext. 1), to the defendant firm at the rate of Rs. 68/- pet maund. The re-sale is evidenced by a Sold Note of broker Radheshyam Brothers (Ext. 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »