Kolkata Court July 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.
East India Commercial Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal1,64CWN256
Das Gupta, C.J. 1. On 20-9-1950 the Collector of Customs, who has his office at Customs House Calcutta, made an order directing confiscation of 50 drums of Mineral Oil out of 2000 drums of Mineral Oil which had been imported by the petitioner, the East India Commercial Company Ltd., and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 61,000/- on the said company under Section 167 Clause 8 and Section 37 of the Sea Customs Act. Aggrieved by this order the company appealed from it to the Central Board of Revenue under the provisions of Section 189 of the Sea Customs Act. On 8-4-1952 the Central Board of Revenue made the following order in disposing of the appeal: 'At the request of the appellants the Board had arranged for a retest of samples of the oil by the Chief Chemist. Central Revenue. The Chief Chemist on examination of the remnant samples has now confirmed the findings in the test report of the Calcutta Customs House Laboratory. The Board has carefully considered all the pleas put forward...
Abdul Rauf Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal436,1960CriLJ900
D.N. Das Gupta, J.1. This is a revisional application for setting aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under by-law No. 25 of the by-laws made under Section 245 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, (Bengal Act XV of 1932). The case for the prosecution is that the petitioner who owns a house by the side of a public lane within the Municipality of Asansol constructed a wall on the said lane by encroaching upon it. He did not remove the wall in spite of the requisition of the Chairman on behalf of the Commissioners of the Municipality made under the provision of Section 240(l)(b) of the said Act.2. The petitioner denied that he had made any encroachment.3. The petitioner was found not guilty of the offence under Section 240(1)(b)/500 of the Act and acquitted by the learned Magistrate who tried him. But the petitioner was found guilty under by-law No. 25, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- in default to undergo simple imprison-ment for two days.4. Section 245 of...
Barclays Bank Ltd. Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1959
Reported in: [1960]38ITR88(Cal)
XFCG July 21. The following judgments were read.LORD EVERSHED M. R. The plaintiffs in this action are the personal representatives of one, Tom Shipside, who died on December 15, 1955. The assets of the deceaseds estate included 1,100 fully paid shares of pound 1 each in the capital of a company, T. Shipside Ltd., formed in the year 1917 to acquire the motor business formerly carried on by the deceased. The share capital of the company was and is pounds 10,000, divided into 10,000 shares of pound 1 each, carrying the right, upon a poll, of one vote per share at general meetings of the company. The issued share capital was at all material times, and is, pounds 8,350. The companys regulations include clause 61 of Table 'A' in the companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, whereby, in the case of joint holders of shares 'the vote of the senior who tenders a vote, whether in person or by proxy, shall be accepted to the exclusion of the votes of the other joint holders; and for his purpose seniori...
T.C. Hornby and anr. Vs. Mr. E.T. Farmer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal36
ORDERG.K. Mitter, J.1. This is an originating summons taken out by the trustees of a trust instrument. The defendants are three in number. The first defendant Mrs. E.T. Farmer was at one time the wife of one Mr. Gardner, deceased, a principal director of the defendant No. 3 Kettlewcll Bullen and Company Limited. The second defendant is a company appointed executors under the will of the said Mr. Gardner. The third defendant is a company which acts as the managing agent of many industrial concerns of repute.2. The central question in this summons is whether or not the 1st defendant is entitled to any benefits under a trust created by the third defendant on 25-11-1949, the object whereof was to provide for and pay to the said Mr. Gardner a pension for life and other benefits for himself and his wife. Counsel appearing for the plaintiff put the case very fairly. He cited authorities both in favour of the first defendant and against her and so did counsel for the third defendant. In fact, ...
Narasingh Routh and ors. Vs. Calcutta Dock Labour Board and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal9
ORDERSinha, J.1. In this application there are nine petitioners. They are all registered Dock-workers under the Calcutta Dock-labour Board. The first respondent is the Calcutta Dock Labour Board, a Statutory Body constituted under Clause 4 of the Calcutta Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1956 which was framed by the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section, (1) of Section 4 of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (Act IX of 1948). The second respondent is the Chairman, Calcutta Dock Labour Board. The third respondent is the Deputy Chairman thereof. Under Sub-clause (4) of Clause 4 of the said scheme, the Chairman of the Board is nominated by the Central Government from among the members representing the Government, and the Deputy Chairman is appointed by the Central Government as a wholetime officer. The fourth respondent before me is the 'Administrative Body', constituted under Clause 5 of the said scheme.2. Under Sub-claus...
Babulal Bajpai Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Cal693,1959CriLJ1313
Debabrata Mookerjee, J.1. Appellant Babulal Bajpai was tried with three others by Sen. J., in the Sessions Division of this Court, In accordance with the unanimous verdict of the Jury, Babulal was convicted under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years.2. Babulal was placed on trial along with Lachmi Narayan Singh alias, Batarua, Ram Cnandra Singh alias, Ramaiya and Kaloo Khati alias Kaloo Mali. Batarua and Ramaiya were charged along with Babulal under Section 307/34 of the Code while Kaloo Khati was charged under Section 307/109 of the Indian Penal Code. The three co-accused of the appellant having unanimously been found not guilty of the respective charges framed against them, they were acquitted by the learned Judge. Babulal, the appellant was alone convicted and sentenced as indicated above.3. The case for the prosecution briefly, was that on the night of 7-5-1957 at about 9-45 p. m., one Kishorilal Mali (P. W. 3) was sud...
Hem Chandra Dev and ors. Vs. Dhirendra Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal691,64CWN711
Bachawat, J.1. This Rule is directed against the decision on the preliminary issue as to jurisdiction. The suit was instituted in 1950 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, first Court, Howrah. The plaintiff claims a decree for administration of the estate of Girish Chandra Das by the Court, for accounts and for Receiver during the pendency of the suit. The particulars of the estate were given in a schedule annexed to the plaint. Two items of property were mentioned. The second item was the fish business carried on at Dobson Road, Golabari, in the district of Howrah. The defendants contended that the court had no jurisdiction to try this suit. The trial court decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff. The matter came up on revision to this Court. By a judgment dated 6-1-1953 this Court decided that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Howrah court and as such that court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The Court, however, went on to observe:'Had it be...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Sudhamoy Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal444
Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal by special leave is at the instance of the Corporation of Calcutta. The respondent, Sudhamoy Bose. was acquitted by the Municipal Magistrate on the ground that no permission to prosecute the accused opposite party had been obtained from this Court which had appointed him Receiver (in suit No. 1224/50 of this Court in its Original Side; Jagmohon Kotari v. Dawdoyal Kotari..2. Briefly, the facts are as follows; The opposite party is a Receiver in respect inter alia of premises No. 201A, Harrison Road. He was prosecuted for exercising the calling of a Private Market Owner at 201A Harrison Road without a license under Section 222 read with Schedule VII of the Calcutta Municipal Act (West Bengal Act XXXIII. of 1951); for the second half-year, 1956-57, on payment of Rs. 60/-. It was alleged that the Corporation staff had to remove on average more than 5 cubic feet of refuse matter daily. The case of the opposite party was that the premises did not constitute a P...
Lakshminarayan Ramniwas Vs. Compagnia Genovese D' Esportazione and Ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal545
ORDERG.K. Mitter, J. 1. This is an application for stay of a suit filed against (1) the shipper of a quantity of mild steel bars from Naples, (2) the shipping Company Lloyd Triestino, described as a company incorporated in Italy having its principal place of business at Trieste in Italy and carrying on business at Calcutta through its agent M/s. Turner Morrison and Co., (3) Turner Morrison and Co. (Private) Ltd. and (4) the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta. The claim is made for damage suffered by reason of non-delivery of 110 bundles of bars valued at Rs. 74,647/- with interest and other charges totalling Rs. 83,954/-.2. The facts of this case are practically on all fours with the facts in the suit which was filed by the very same plaintiff in this Court being L. T. Societa v. Lakshminarayan, Suit No. : AIR1959Cal669 . There the suit was not directed against the shipper, but against the same shipping company through its agents, and the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta. The...
Mukunda Das Nandy and ors. Vs. Bidhan Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal67,63CWN834
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This appeal is by some of the substituted defendants and it arises out of a suit for ejectment and mesne profits. The suit has had chequered career. It came up once to this Court on appeal from the decree, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge on an earlier occasion. The said appeal was allowed in part, the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial court for final disposal in accordance with the directions, contained in the judgment of this Court. 2. After remand, the suit was decreed again by the learned Subordinate Judge and, against this new decree, the present appeal was preferred in this Court on 24-12-1958. 3. In the appeal, the appellants filed, on 24-2-1959, an application, for stay of execution of the decree, appealed from, and that application was eventually heard by the Court as a contested application and allowed on 6-3-1959, with a direction, inter alia, that the paper books in the appeal were to be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›