Kolkata Court January 1960 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.
P. Srinibash Naidu Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Cal162
Debabrata Mookerjee, J. 1. This is a Rule requiring the opposite parties to show cause why a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus should not issue and the petitioner P. Srinibash Naidu alias Sinha be set at liberty. 2. By an, order dated the 1st of September, 1959, made by the District Magistrate Midnapore the petitioner was directed to be detained under Section 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act for the reason that he had been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detenue was served on the same clay with a copy of the grounds upon which the detention order had been made. A report was made to theState Government and its approval to the order of detention was accorded in due course. The detenue was apprised to his right to make a representation to the Advisory Board. A representation was made to that Board and the detenue having expressed a desire to be heard, he was given an opportunity of being heard personally by the Board. On a consideration of the...
Niranjan Agarwalla Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal391,64CWN502
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This appeal raises two points for determination.One is whether notice under Section 80 of the CivilProcedure Code is at all a part of the cause ofaction. The other is whether, in any event, theplace from where such notice is issued or postedgives the Court of that place jurisdiction. 2. The relevant facts on which these questions are raised may be stated briefly. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the then Dominion of India for a decree for the sum of Rs. 10,746-3-4p. for loss and short delivery of certain goods' sent over the Assam Railway. The places from where the goods were despatched were Sealdah and Wadi Bandar, G. I. P. Railway both outside the original jurisdiction of this Court. The destination of these goods was Cooch Behar also outside the original jurisdiction of this Court. The plaint pleaded service of the notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code on the General Manager of the Assam Railway also outside the original jurisdiction of th...
Katras Jharia Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal646,66CWN304
ORDERSinha, J. 1. The petitioner in this case is the Katras Jharia Coal Co. Ltd. a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Mousas Seebpore and Koithi, Sub-registry Ranigunj, thana Ranigunj in the district of Burdwan, appertained to the zamindary of the Maharaja of Burdwan. In the year 1864-65 it was granted as a patni tenure to one Ram Krishna Chatterji by a patta. By the year 1895, after many devolutions, the interest came to be held by one Purno Chandra Daw. By an Indenture of Lease dated the 26th July, 1895 Purno Chandra Daw demised the lands and collieries mentioned in the said Indenture of Lease to the Katras Jharia Coal Co. Ltd., upon a permanent lease. The Indenture of Lease purports to demise to the petitioner company, the lands hereditaments and premises known as the 'Seebpore and Koithi Collieries' together with all lands of every description and tenure, belonging to or held with, the Seebpore and Koithi Collieries, as also all mines beds and seams of coals and o...
Matuk Lal Sao and ors. Vs. Smt. Drawpati Devi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal103,64CWN528
Banerjee, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition and accounts.2. Raghunandan, the deceased husband of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are sons of one Karulal, who died in the year 1939. Defendants Nos. 4 and 4(a) ate sons of defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 5 is the son of defendant No. 2. The coparcenary, of which Karulal was at one time the Karta, possessed, according to the plaintiff, considerable movable and immovable properties and a business carried on under the name and style of 'Nathun Sao-Karulal'.3. Plaintiff alleged that her husband Raghunandan died on June 18, 1938, leaving the plaintiff, the widow, and Kamala and Bimala, two minor daughters, as his heirs. Since then Kamala has been given in marriage. Bimala remains unmarried. Plaintiff claimed to have become entitled to her husband's interest in the co-parcenary properties, under the provisions of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937.4. After the death of Karulal, plaintiff further alleged, de...
Shree Shew Sakti Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. Judge, Second Industrial Tribunal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal227,65CWN478,[1961(2)FLR407],(1961)IILLJ36Cal
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by the petitioner Puran Mal Kyal for notice to show cause on Shew Sakti Oil Mills Ltd., the Second Industrial Tribunal and the State of West Bengal, being the opposite parties, why Civil Revision Case No. 2958 of 1957, disposed of on June 5, 1959, should not be re-heard on notice to him. His case is that he was not properly served. I allowed him to appear on notice to the opposite parties and gave him an opportunity not only of being heard but also of making his full case against the order made on June 5, 1950.2. The order of the 5th June, 1959 was made by me in these proceedings holding that the order of withdrawal and transfer dated March 9, 1957, was illegal and ultra vires the powers of the State Government in the facts of this case and that the Second Industrial Tribunal, to whom such transfer was made, had no jurisdiction to make the award in question I further held that the order of reference being bad, illegal and without jurisdic...
Nalini Kanto Bhattacharjee Vs. Mohan Chand Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal477,64CWN422
Bose, J.1. The main question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether the Respondent's application for final decree for sale of certain mortgaged properties, in a mortgage suit, is barred by limitation. Bachawat J. who originally heard this application, has passed a final decree for sale overruling the contention of the mortgagor appellant that the application is barred by limitation.2. Before us, the learned Advocate for the appellant has raised the question of limitation and another point which was not raised before the trial Court, namely, whether the notice of the application for final decree purported to have beengiven by the respondent under Section 34 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940, is invalid, not being in the form prescribed by the Rules framed under the provisions of the Bengal Money Lenders Act.3. Adverting to the question of limitation, it appears that the preliminary decree for sale was passed on the 10th July 1953 under Section 34 of the Bengal Mone...
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Annapurna Far ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1960
Reported in: [1962]44ITR640(Cal)
[As the first and second questions are not relevant they are omitted.]LAHIRI C.J. - The third question referred to us relates to the Auditorss fee Rs. 146 which was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as by the Tribunal. Upon the materials before us and also upon the admission made by learned counsel on both sides, this audit fee was paid for the purpose of auditing the balance-sheet and the revenue account of the assessee. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 150 the whole of which was disallowed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, but since the income of the assessee was partly agricultural and partly non-agricultural, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed a proportionate amount of Rs. 146 out of the total of Rs. 150 claimed by the assessee. The question before us is whether it is an allowable deduction under section 7 (9) of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act. That section provides that one of the items which may be allowed as a deduction in the computation of ...
Sushila Bala Dasi and ors. Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Pandit and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal180
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This is the defendants' appeal, arising out ofa suit for a declaration that a sale-deed, executedby pro forma defendant No. 4 Santosh Bala (whowas a minor at the time) through her father Rakhal.was not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiffclaims to be the reversioner to the estate of hisdeceased brother Golok. Santosh Bala, was thewidow of Golok. The sale appears to have beenmade by her on account of certain alleged legalnecessities, which were stated before the Courtsbelow by the answering defendants, who are thepurchasers under the aforesaid kobala and who arethe appellants before us, as necessities for her maintenance, necessities for meeting the expenses of treatment and Sradh of Golok and the necessity ofmeeting or paying some arrears of tent in respectof Golok's properties. 2. The trial Court accepted the above defence of legal necessity and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The actual findings of the trial court were that the necessity for maintenance had b...
Suresh Chandra Banerjee and anr. Vs. United Bank of India Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal534,65CWN535
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This is the mortgagor-judgment-debtors' appeal against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court, 24 Parganas, rejecting their application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the setting aside of an ex parte final mortgage decree, passed against them. The suit in question was Title Suit No. 55 of 1950 of the Second Court of the Subordinate Judge, 24Parganas, in which the respondent Bank, or, rather, its predecessor, was the plaintiff and the appellants were the defendants. The claim was on a mortgage to the tune of over Rs. 75,000/-.2. The suit was preliminarily decreed on contest on April 26, 1955. Under the said preliminary decree, the period of grace extended up to June 26, 1955. No payment having been made within the aforesaid time allowed, the decree-holder, on October 13, 1955, applied for making the prelimnary mortgage decree final.3. On the aforesaid application, the learned Subordinate Judge, by his first order (No. 96,...
Govinda Chandra Nityagopal Shaha Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal571
Bhattacharya, J. 1. In this appeal by the plaintiff-appellant, arising out of a suit for compensation for non-delivery of a part of the consignment, the only point urged is whether on account of non-service of the notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act the plaintiff's claim is liable to be dismissed.2. The plaintiff was the consignee in respect of two bales of handloom saries. At the time of taking delivery on 20-7-1950 at Howrah it was found that the bales were torn. Open delivery however was obtained, and on checking the contents 74 pieces of saries worth Rs. 1460/10/- were found short. P.W. Nityagopal Shaha, the only witness examined in this case, stated that at the time of delivery he saw the iron beltings of the bales removed. The learned munsif found that there was no 'loss' and that, consequently, the notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act was not essential. The learned lower appellate court inferred 'loss'. The main reasons appear in the following observ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »