Kolkata Court August 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: Central Calcutta Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal625
ORDERH.K. Bose, J.1. This is an application by the Official Liquidator under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act 1913 for the examination of the conduct of Directors, Mr. Birendra Kishore Roy Chowdhury, Asit Kumar Ghosal, Dinesh Chandra Roy, Lakshmi Narayan Hazra, Baidya Nath Mallick, Bhupendra Nath Roy Chowdhury, Kshitish Chandra Dutt and Debidas Roy (Managing Director) and for an order compelling these persons to pay or restore to the Liquidator certain sums of money belonging to the Company with interest at such rate as the Court thinks fit.2. The facts which have given rise to this application are shortly as follows: The Central Calcutta Bank Ltd. was incorporated in 1928 under the name of Shahazadpur Trading and Banking Corporation Ltd. In 1934 the name of the Bank was altered to Central Calcutta Bank Ltd. In July 1947 it was amalgamated with the Bank of Mymensingh Gouripore Ltd. The authorised capital of the Bank is Rs. 5,00,000/- divided into 35,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 10...
Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Mr. C. Balakrishnan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal114,64CWN85,[1959]37ITR267(Cal)
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J. 1. In this case the short facts are as follows : The petitioner company is a company in-corporated under the Indian Companies Act and has its registered office in Calcutta, The Wealth Tax Act 1957 (Act No. 27 of 1957) came into effect on the 1st of April, 1957. On or about the 12th of December, 1957 the Wealth Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta, issued a notice under Section 14(2) of the said Act calling upon the petitioner to submit a true and correct statement of the petitioner's assets and liabilities as on 31st March, 1957, being the relevant valuation date for the purpose of the Wealth Tax Act. The petitioner submitted its return. On the 31st March, 1957 the assessment order was made by the Wealth Tax Officer, Companies District 1, Calcutta. A copy of the assessment order is annexed to the petition and marked 'B'. On the 7th of March, 1958 the Wealth Tax Officer issued a notice of demand under Section 30 of the Wealth Tax Act, a copy whereof is annexur...
Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Ha ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal695,63CWN439
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by the Life Insurance Corporation of India under Sections 397, 398, 399 and 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956, for an order that the Special Officer already appointed hereunder may be authorised to enter into an arrangement with the State Bank of India by which all the accounts now standing in the name of Richardson and Cruddas Ltd., may be consolidated into one account and to operate the said account or any other account that may be opened in the said Bank either himself or through a person or persons duly authorised and to execute all documents necessary for confirming the existing mortgage, hypothecation agreement and cash credit agreement with the said Bank and also to execute such other supplemental documents for the purpose of giving effect to the agreement by which the Government of India will guarantee the indebtedness of Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. to the said Bank to the extent of Rs. 95,00,000/-. There can be no objection ...
Kishan Chand Arora Vs. the Commissioner of Police
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal123,1959CriLJ180,62CWN799
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J. 1. The facts of this application are briefly as follows: One Prafulla Kumar Mitra is tenant of premises No. 2, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta, wherein he runs a Hotel called the 'Bristol Hotel'. In October 1953, he sub-let the ground floor of the said premises to the Respondent No. 2 Haripada Bhowmick as a monthly tenant. The said Haripada Bhowmick was carrying on the business of an eating house therein, known as the 'Kalpataru Cafeteria.' The running of such an eating house requires the grant of a license by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta under Section 39 of the Calcutta Police Act 1866 read with Section 6(2) of Bengal Act V of 1909 and Section 3 of Act VII of 1912. Bhowmick had taken out such a license. Section 39 of the Calcutta Police Act 1866 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') runs as follows:'The Commissioner of Police may at his discretion, from time to time, grant licenses to the keepers of such houses or places of public resort and entertainment us af...
Jhagru Tewari Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal176,1959CriLJ318,63CWN455
K.C. Das Gupta J.1. The accused Jhagru Tewari was convicted by a Magistrate of an offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code on a charge of having caused grievous hurt to one Rajendra Nath Biswas. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more. It was ordered that out of the fine, if realised, Rs. 500/- would be paid to Rajendra Nath Biswas. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burdwan.2. The prosecution case was that on 27-10-1956 at about 7 O'clock in the morning when Rajendra Nath Biswas was on his way to the Colliery from his quarters this petitioner who had been lying in ambush suddenly attacked him and inflicted numerous injuries including fractures of some of the bones. The injured man was taken to the Colliery hospital and from there he was taken to Sanctoria hospital. A charge sheet under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted ...
Khagendra N. Sen Sharma and ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal785
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1. The petitioners were employed in various life insurance companies and became workers employed by Life Insurance Corporation of India after its incorporation. It is stated that the petitioners are now receiving basic monthly pay at various rates ranging from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 150/- per month. The complaint made in this application is that they are not being paid dear-ness allowance, although according to the orders made under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) they are entitled to receive the same. Reference has been made to Section 11 of the Act. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 11, every whole-time employee of an insurer, whose controlled business has been transferred to and vested in the Corporation, becomes an employee of the Corporation and would be entitled to the same remuneration and the same terms and conditions upon which he was being employed until his employment in the Corporation is terminated or until his remun...
Michel Golodetz and ors. Vs. SerajuddIn and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal603,63CWN128
ORDERA.N. Ray, J.1. This is an application for stay of the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioners case is that there was an agreement in writing dated 5-7-1956 by which the petitioners agreed to buy and the respondents agreed to sell 25,000 tons of manganese ore of certain specification and at a price mentioned in the contract. The contract contained the following arbitration clause:'Any dispute arising out of the contract is to be settled by arbitration in New York according to the rules of the American Arbitration Association'.2. Disputes and differences arose between the parties and on or about 15-1-1958 the petitioners referred such disputes and differences in terms of the contract to the arbitration of the American Arbitration Association in accordance with the rules thereof.3. The petitioner states in paragraph 7 of the petition that the arbitrators entered on the reference and fixed 13-3-1958 for the hearing of the matter. The petitioner has annexed two le...
Panchanan Ballav and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal207,1959CriLJ320,63CWN195
J.P. Mitter, J.1. These Rules are directed against an order of commitment of the petitioners for trial under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The petitioners Panchanan Ballav and Bibh-abati Ballav alias Bibha Ballav were respectively the husband and the mother-in-law of one Provabati Ballav, deceased. The petitioners along with Bibhuti Bhusan Ballav, a younger brother of Panchanan, were sent up by the police upon a charge of murdering the said deceased Provabati Ballav.3. The case for the prosecution was that at about 4.30 a.m. in the early hours of the morning of June 2, 1957, Provabati was thrown down on the pavement by Bibhuti from the first floor verandah of the petitioners' house and that, as a result, the woman died. It was also the prosecution case that for a considerable time preceding the tragedy, the deceased, had been subjected to great cruelty and torture in which all the petitioners had participated.4. The defence is that the deceased took her o...
Shyamlal Roy Vs. Madhusudan Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal380
P.C. Mallick, J.1. This is a suit for partition. Properties sought to be partitioned are six items of immovable properties and certain businesses. Common ancestor of the parties is one Budhuram Saha, who had four sons, Gangasagar, Anandamohan, Harimohan and Brajamohan. It is alleged in the plaint that the four sons of Budhuram carried on family businesses under various names and styles. The shares of the parties arc set out in paragraph 6 of the plaint. It is alleged that the senior managing members of the family are mismanaging and misappropriating joint family funds, have refused the plaintiff access to the books of account, have not furnished information with regard to the joint family businesses, assets and their own dealings. Usual reliefs in a Partition suit have been claimed.2. There is a number of defendants, more than 30. Out of them, only six have filed written statements. Defendants Nos. 2, 9 and 20 have filed a written statement jointly. Defendants Nos. 8 and 17 have filed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›