Kolkata Court June 1959 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.
Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Cal697,64CWN963,[1960]38ITR316(Cal)
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: One Hulas Chand Rampuria also known as Bhanwarlal Rampuria was, until his death, the karta of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his two minor sons. He was a partner of the firm of Hazarimull Hiralal and held shares in two companies, namely, Rampuria Properties Ltd., and Rampuria Cotton Mills Ltd. The Hindu, undivided family, of which he was a karta, was assessed in the name of Hulas Chand Rampuria H. U. F. upto the assessment year 1942-43. The said Bhanwarlal Rampuria died sometime in the year 1947 leaving him surviving his widow Sushila Devi Rampuria and two minor sons. The assessments for the assessment years 1943-44 to 1947-48 were made in the name of 'Sushila Debi Rampuria for self and as natural guardian of her minor children. Since the assessment year 1948-49, the assessment had been made in the name of 'Sushila Debi Rampuria representing H. U. F. known as Hulas Chand Rampuria'. All the returns ...
Sudhanya Kumar Halder Vs. Haripada Halder
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal34,63CWN677
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against an appellate decree reversing the decree passed by a learned Munsif.2. Plaintiff's father Dhruba, at one time, was the owner of about 17 1/2 Bighas of land. Dhruba either sold or mortgaged the major portion of his land and at the time of his death in the year 1342 B. S., was left with about 4 Bighas of cultivable land and a homestead. Dhruba was succeeded by the plaintiff, his infant son. Plaintiff's mother and guardian was an ignorant woman and used to work as a maid servant in the house of the defendant, Haripada, on whom she was said to have implicit faith and confidence.3. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant induced his mother and guardian to sell to him land measuring .6 of an acre, forming the front portion of the residential house of the plaintiff. On the 17th Bhadra, 1344 B.S. the mother of the plaintiff, acting as the natural guardian of the minor plaintiff, sold the aforesaid land to the defen...
Kirtibash Das and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal269,1960CriLJ469,64CWN282
Mitter, J.1. The appellants were tried by a learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Midnapore with the aid of a Jury, Appellant No. 1 was charged under Ss. 304 and 326 or the Indian Penal Code. Appellants Nos. 2 to 9 were charged under Section 304, read with Section 149, I.P.C. The Jury returned unanimous verdicts of guilty under Section 326 on two counts against appellant No. 1 and under Section 326 read with Section 149 against the rest. They were sentenced to divers terms of imprisonment.2. The prosecution case was that the complainant Chandra Mohan Nanda and his brothers were the owners in possession of plot No. 659 of Mouza Gotsanda, recorded in Khatian No. 221, measuring about 1.99 acres. It was alleged that the disputed plot belonged to the deity Raghunath Jiu alias Keshab Jiu which was installed in the house of Abinash Rakhal and Niranjan. The deity along with the disputed debuttar land was alleged to have been given to the Nandas and since then Mrityunjoy, the uncle of the complai...
Model Electric Oil Mills and ors. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal388,1960CriLJ817,63CWN776
ORDERS.K. Sen, J. 1. This revisional application is directed against the conviction of the petitioner M/s Model Electric Oil Mill under Section 442 taken with Section 537 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, and the sentence passed on the firm of a fine Rs. 20/- only; also against the conviction of the petitioner Moni Mohan Banerjee, Lalit Mohan Banerjee and Shib Charan Mukherjee who are the proprietors of the mill, under the same section and the nominal sentence passed thereunder of a fine Re. 1/- each only. The petitioners were prosecuted under Section 442/537 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, on the ground that no license had been taken out for the year 1955-56 under Section 442 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. Section 442 provides that no person shall without or otherwise than in conformity with the terms of a license granted by the Commissioner in this behalf, keep any eating-house, tea-shop, hotel, boarding house, bakery, aerated water factory, ice factory or other place where f...
Sudhir Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Berhampore Municipality and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1959
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ607Cal
Sinha, J.1. The petitioner was appointed in 1946-47 as a tax collector of the Municipality of Berhampore. According to the affidavit of the chairman, his services from its inception had been unsatisfactory. A long list of commissions and omissions of the petitioner has been set out in the affidavit in opposition affirmed by the chairman. It appears that the petitioner committed various acts for which disciplinary actions were about to be taken but at his importunity he was excused. He was put in various departments, but he proved inefficient in all of them, until in May 1955 he was deputed to work as a sarkar at the burning ghat at Khagra. On 22 August 1955 the petitioner made an application to the chairman declining to accept the responsibility of maintaining the register of stock of fuel at the burning ghat. The chairman on the same day directed the petitioner to maintain the register. A complaint has been made before me that the actual order was that 'he must maintain the stock,' an...
Shree Shew Sakti Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. Judge, Second Industrial Tribunal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Cal690,63CWN782,(1959)IILLJ603Cal
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is a petition by Shree Shew Sakti Oil Mills Ltd. under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the award of the Second Industrial Tribunal, made on the 24th June, 1957 on the point of reference whether the dismissal of Shri Puranmal koyal was justified and, if so, to what relief was he entitled. 2. The challenge to the award is made on a new and important point. The original order of reference by the Government was made on the 19th April, 1956 to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. While the reference was pending before the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, the Government, by an order dated the 9th March, 1957. withdrew the reference from the Fifth Industrial Tribunal and referred the same dispute on the same point to the Second Industrial Tribunal. The petitioners challenge this order of the 9th March, 1957, withdrawing the reference from the Fifth Industrial Tribunal and making a reference to the Second Indus...
Farid Ahmed Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal32,1960CriLJ56,63CWN901
Mitter, J.1. This Rule was issued upon the District Magistrate of Howrah to show cause why an order ofa learned Magistrate dated May, 1, 1958, allowingthe investigating officer to take the specimen writings and signatures of the petitioner should not beset aside. The petitioner is an accused in a caseunder the Bengal Excise Act. The point involvedis whether the impugned order infringes the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Article20(3) of the Constitution. 2. Before we deal with the point, we must say that the order concerned could not have been made under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the order was made in the course of an investigation. It is not disputed that there is no provision in the Code which allows a Magistrate to make such an order.3. Article 20(3) is in these terms:'No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to he a witness against himself.' That the petitioner is a person accused of an offence admits of no doubt. There is also no doubt th...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Khetra Mohan Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal190
K.C. Das Gupta, C.J.1. This appeal is from a decision by Mitter, J. In a suit brought by the respondent Khetra Mohan Banerjee, a contractor, against the appellant the Union of India for a sum of money said to be due to him for work done in accordance with a contract, by which the learned Judge after recording his decision on several of the issues has directed a reference for the ascertainment of the amount due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, after'(1) ascertaining on evidence the market rate for 145 items of work out of the 170 items done by the contractor;(2) ascertaining the increase in labour charges in respect of the excess quantities of work done under the remaining 25 items; and(3) determining the quantity of work done under the different items on the basis of the measurement books, Exhibit 'C' series, and the correspondence which the plaintiff addressed to the authorities, the Referee being given liberty to rectify 'arithmetical and other manifest mistakes.' and o...
State of West Bengal Vs. United Rubber Works Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Cal759,1959CriLJ1431
N.K. Sen, J.1. This appeal is by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Government of West Bengal on behalf of the State of West Bengal and is directed against an order of acquittal passed on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore, by which he acquitted the respondents who had been convicted under Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by a Magistrate, 1st class, Sealdah.2. The prosecution case was that there was an award made by the 2nd Industrial Tribunal. West Bengal on the 29th December, 1953 published in Calcutta Gazette on the 28th January, 1954. The respondent Company, i.e., United Rubber Works Ltd., was directed by this award to pay bonus at a certain rate for the years 1951 and 1952 and the payment of certain monthly emoluments to certain workers of the respondent Company. It was alleged that in spite of the existing award the respondents who were all Directors of the Company or concerned with the management of the Company...
Provabati Kunwar Vs. Kaiser Kunwar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Cal642
ORDERP.C. Mallick, J.1. This is an application for amendment of plaint in a suit for partition. The plaintiff instituted this suit impleading the husband's other co-sharers as parties. Two other defendants--Monmohanmull and Bhowarmull have been impleaded. By a deed of adoption executed by the plaintiff the defendant Monmohanmull appears to be adopted as a son of the plaintiff's husband. Bhanwarmull is the natural father of Monmohanmull. The deed is challenged and it is alleged that it is tainted with fraud. Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was obtained inasmuch as some of the properties were situate outside the jurisdiction of this court.2. The plaintiff's case as made in the original plaint is that she as the widow of Jitmull an admitted co-owner was entitled to one-sixth share in the joint properties. On that title the instant suit was instituted. Allegations have been made in the plaint of fraud having been committed by the defendant Bhanwarlal by reason of which, it is c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›