Kolkata Court February 1959 Judgments
Sardar and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Cal181,1961CriLJ374
Debabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This Rule raises the question whether certain proceedings in commitment should be held under the provisions of Section 207-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Section 208 and the succeeding sections of Chapter XVIII of the Code.2. Consequent on an information lodged at the Burtolla Police Station that about five Sikhs had on the 16th of December, 1957, forcibly abducted a man named Gobinda Prosad Banerjee, since deceased, from his house and taken him away in a taxi, an investigation followed which resulted in a charge-sheet against these petitioners. The charge-sheet was submitted on the 24th of April, 1958 and it purported to be one under Section 173 of the Code.3. Question arose before the learned Magistrate holding the enquiry under Chapter XVIII, whether the inquiry was to be held under the new provision contained in Section 207 A or under Section 208 and the sections that follow. The Question became pertinent by reason of the extension of Section...
Tag this Judgment!Sukiman and ors. Vs. Sm. Kancha Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Cal663,63CWN442
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. The appellants before us were the plaintiffs in O. C. Suit No. 16 of 1949 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, West Dinajpur. In that suit, the prayers were, inter alia, as follows:'That a decree may be passed, 'declaring that the sole-decree passed in Partition Suit No. 104 of 1947 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dinajpur, is fraudulent' and 'that a decree for injunction may be passed against the defendants restraining them from taking possession of the (suit) lands, according to Sahams, by putting the said sole-decree into execution and from realising any cash money from the plaintiffs.' '2. The sole-decree, referred to above, was passed in the above Partition Suit No. 104 of 1947 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dinajpur on or about November 22, 1948, and the plaintiffs' main allegation in the present suit was that the said decree had been obtained by fraud by the defendants. In the plaint, there was also an allegation that, in pursuance of th...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwati Prosad Harlalka Vs. Kamala Mills Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Cal687
Das Gupta, C.J.1. The main question for decision in this appeal against an order of Ray, J., allowing an application, under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for the stay of a suit, is whether the agreement as contained in the arbitration clause in the contract, in respect of which the suit was brought, is void and unenforceable because of vagueness and uncertainty. The clause is in these words :'All disputes and questions whatsoever which shall arise between the parties hereto out of or in connection with this agreement or as to the construction or application thereof or the respective rights and obligations of the parties hereunder or as to any clause or thing herein contained or any account or valuation to be made hereunder or as to any other matter in any way relating to these presents shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the rules of the Miliowners' Association. Bombay, for the time being in force regulating arbitrations with respect to piecegoods.'According to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Nath Jute Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Vs. Commrrcial Tax Officer and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1959
Reported in: [1959]10STC241(Cal)
Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner is the Kedar Nath Jute ., a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having its principal place of business in Calcutta. It is a dealer registered under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act (VI of 1941) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). In respect of the accounting period ending with 31st December, 1954, the petitioner submitted a return to the Commercial Tax Officer on 21st October, 1955. In this return, the gross turnover was shown to be Rs. 70,99,928-10-0. Of this sum, exemption was claimed under two headings. One was under Section 5(2) (a) (i), for goods included in the schedule of exemptions amounting to Rs. 1,33,730-7-6. In this application we are not concerned with this. What we are concerned with is the exemption claimed under the second heading, namely, under Section 5 (2) (a) (ii), amounting to Rs. 69,65,979-9-6, which practically wiped off the entire liability, and, indee...
Tag this Judgment!Aryan Mining and Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs. B.N. Elias and Co. Ltd. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Cal472
R.S. Bachawat, J. 1. Appeals Nos. 45 of 1955 and 100 of 1955 from original decrees have been heard together.2. Appeal No. 45 of 1955 is against a decree passed by Bose J., in suit No. 3434 of 1952 instituted by B. N. Ellas and Co. Ltd., against Aryan Mining and Trading Corporation Limited. Appeal No. 100 of 1955 is against a decree passed by Bose J., in suit No. 3433 of 1952 instituted by the Agarpara Co. Ltd., against Aryan Mining and Trading Corporation Limited. B.N. Elias and Co. Ltd., is the Managing Agent of the Agarpara Co. Ltd.3. Both the suits were heard together by Bose J, He delivered his main judgment an suit No. 3434 of 1952 and a subsidiary judgment in the other suit. Both the appeals have been heard together; This judgment is intended to cover both appeals.4. The subject-matter of suit No. 3434 of 1952 is a contract dated 26-12-1950, whereby Aryan Mining and Trading Corporation Limited agreed to sell to B. N. Elias and Co. Ltd., 4000 tons of manganese ore with 46/48 per c...
Tag this Judgment!Panchu Vs. Hrishikesh Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal446
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. This is a second appeal from a decree of the lower appellate court, affirming the decree of a learned Munsif.2. Plaintiff who is the appellant, brought a suit for declaration of his title to and recovery of possession of the southern half portion of c.s. plot No. 712 of Mouza Bilashi. There was an alternative prayer for partition of the said plot No. 712, if the plaintiffs claim for separate possession of the southern half of the plot was uot made out.3. Plaintiffs case was that defendant No. 1, Hrishikesh Ghose, was the owner of a moiety share of c.s. plot No. 712. During the minority of defendant No. 1, his paternal grandmother and guardian, Haribala Dasi, granted a permanent settlement of the southern half portion of plot No, 712 to one Satish Chandra Ghose, by a patta, dated Chaitra 17, 1349 B.S. (corresponding to March 31, 1943). Satish Chandra Ghose remained in possession of the said portion of c.s. plot no, 712 for some time and thereafter, by a conveyance, d...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Darjeeling Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Cal335,[1960]30CompCas50(Cal)
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J. 1. Some of the contributories in this case belonging to the Sonepur Raj family are objecting to this call being made upon them. Necessary applications have been made by them for setting aside the order settling the list of contributories on the 7th September, 1955 and the order of the 5th June, 1956 granting leave to the liquidator to make calls and for rectification of the share register by deleting their names from the register. Their main contention is that they were not shareholders at the time this Banking Company was wound up and the share register showing them as share-holders is incorrect and should be rectified.2. The facts are not disputed. These shares were sold by the Maharaja of Sonepur and his family as early as 20th November, 1945. The copies of the sold notes are annexed with the records. The fact of sale cannot really be disputed. In fact, on the 20th December, 1945, the bank itself wrote stating that it had received the relative receipts for all...
Tag this Judgment!Bullock Vs. Unit Construction Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1959
Reported in: [1961]42ITR322(Cal)
February 12. JENKINS L. J. The judgment which is about to be read by Romer L. J. is the judgment of the court.ROMER L. J. The question on this appeal is whether three wholly owned subsidiary companies of Alfred Booth & Co. Ltd., namely, Booth & Co. (Africa) Ltd., Booth & Co. Ltd. and Bulleys Tanneries Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as 'the subsidiaries'), were, in 1952 and 1953, resident in the United Kingdom for the purposes of section 20 of the Finance Act, 1953. The special commissioners held that they were, but their decision was reversed by Wynn-Parry J. on the ground that it was wrong in law. The unit Construction Co. Ltd., who are concerned to uphold the decision of the special commissioners, have appealed to this court against the judges order.It was admitted on behalf of the Unit Construction Co. Ltd. before the commissioners that the subsidiaries were at all material times resident in East Africa. We think it is quite clear that this submission was rightly made; a...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra Nath Lahiri Vs. P.K. Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal75,63CWN460
ORDERB.K. Guha, J.1. This is an application for stay of all further proceedings in Title Execution case No. 177, of 1955 of the Court of the second Munsif Alipore. The defendant appellant is the petitioner before me. Against him a decree for ejectment from certain premises was obtained by the plaintiff respondent opposite party. Thereupon the defendant preferred a second appeal to this Court which is numbered as S. A. 1388 of 1955. In the meantime the plaintiff respondent started an execution case in Title Execution case No. 177 of 1955 in the Court of the second Additional Munsif at Alipore for enforcement of the decree for ejectment. The defendant petitioner applied to this Court for stay of execution of that decree and for stay of alt further proceedings in the said execution case and obtained a Rule from this Court, namely Civil Rule No. 2730(s)/55. On 8-12-55, by consent of parties that Rule was made absolute by Lahiri, J. on certain terms. Some of the said terms are reproduced be...
Tag this Judgment!Jivandas Khimji Vs. Smt. Narbada Bai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Cal519
Das Gupta, C.J. 1. The main question raised in this appeal is a question of law, namely, whether an award made by a Land Acquisition Collector under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act is a nullity, because of the omission of the Collector to include therein compensation claimed by the owner of an adjoining land in respect of easement over the land acquired, when such omission is the result of the Collector's opinion that no such compensation should be allowed. The respondent Narbada Baa brought the suit for a declaration that she was entitled to a right of easement in respect of certain windows on the ground, first and second floors on the westernside 6f her premises No. 161, Lower Chitpore Road and to have access of light and air into the rooms, thereof through the said windows; for an injunction restraining the appellant, Jivraj Jivandas Khimji, from interfering with the right of easement and with the access of light and air through the windows for a permanent injunction directin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »