Kolkata Court November 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.
Sarkar Estates (Private) Ltd. Vs. Kusumika Iron Works (Private) Ltd. a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal439,[1962]32CompCas575(Cal)
Bose, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of U. C. Law, J., dated March 4, 1960, directing the winding up of the appellant company. The appellant company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, on May 30, 1945. The Registered Office of the company is at 34A-B Sashi Bhusan Dey Street, Calcutta. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. . 10,00,000/- divided into 8,000 shares of Rs. 125/- each and the issued and paid up capital of the company is Rs. 1,000/-divided into 8 shares of Rs. 125/- each. It appears that under instructions from the appellant company the respondent company undertook certain constructional work in respect of premises Nos. 167C and 167/1 Bowbazar Street, Calcutta, and disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, the respondent company instituted a suit in this Court being Suit No. 3983 of 1948 against the appellant company for realisation of the sum of Rs. 85,902-15-0 for work done and materials supplied. On August 22, 1958' a decre...
Phanindra Chandra Shome Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1960
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ457Cal
D.N. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner entered service in 1928, in Eastern Bengal Railway. In 1929, he became an assistant station master and in 1957, he was posted as a station master at Port Canning On 29 July 1957 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet signed by the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Sealdah, a copy whereof is annexure A to the petition. There were five charges. Some of these charges were quite serious, for example, charge 1 was that he was carrying on a straw business under the fictitious name of his brother-in-law. The second charge was one of forgery. The third charge, although not so serious, is also of some gravity. The fourth charge is one of giving undue preference to his brother-in-law and the fifth charge seems to be a minor charge, namely, that he granted a money receipt in respect of a consignment to a person other than the consignor. The petitioner gave his explanation. On 27 August 1957 the order for a Joint enquiry was made by the Divisional Superin...
Lakshminarayan Ramniwas Vs. Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal616,1961CriLJ635
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner is a firm of established importers of Iron and Steel materials. On or about 31st December, 1957 the petitioner got a license from the Government of India being License No, STC/BK/TDS/98 for the importation at the Port of Calcutta and Bombay of 9299.379 tons of Mild Steel plates, from the areas mentioned therein, of the value c.i.f. of Rs. 94,69,500/-. It has been pointed out in the license itself, the original of which has been produced in court, that it was issued subject to the policy outlined in the Import Trade Control Book, published by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi, and that the limiting factor in the license was the weight and c.i.f. value. It has also been stated therein that the importers, who mention incorrect prices in the application fora custom permit will be penalised. On or about 15th January, 1958 the petitioner imported through Messrs. 'Gosho Co. Ltd., of Tokyo, Japan...
Madan Mohan Dhamma Mal Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ158
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This is an appeal by special leav against the order of the Calcutta Hig Court affirming the conviction of the appel lants Messrs. Madan Mohan Damma Ma Ltd., and Om Prokash Manglik, its Mana ger, under Section 462 of the Calcutta Municipa Act, 1951 West Bengal Act XXXIII of 1951 hereinafter called the Act.2. The facts leading to this appea are that Messrs. Madan Mohan Damma Ma Ltd., hereinafter called appellant No. 1 sent a consignment of mustard oil, about 499 maunds in weight, from Firozabad, the place of manufacture, to itself, at Calcutta on December 25, 1954, in tank wagon No. 75612. This wagon was placed at the Pathuriaghat siding at Calcutta at about 8-45 a. m., on January 3, 1951. Dr. Nitya-nanda Bagui, Food Inspector of the Calcutta Corporation, accompanied by certain police officers, went to that siding and took three samples of mustard oil contained in this wagon, after arranging with Om Prokash Manglik, appellant No. 2, who was found near the wagon, the ...
Saifar and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Cal133
S.K. Sen, J.1. This revisional application was filed by the petitioners Saifar Sheikh and five others for quashing the proceedings against them pending in the Court of Sri R. N. Sarkar, Magistrate, First Class, Suri. The facts are briefly as follows: 2. On 26th December 1958 one Sheikh Khoda Newaj lodged a first information report at Nanoor P. S. against 17 persons including the six petitioners, alleging that in the early morning of that day, a bullock belonging to one Sonaullah had damaged gram plants belonging to one Mokshed Sk., that the bullock had been seized by Haijan Sk. and Ajad for impounding; that Sonaullah asked for the release of the bullock and there was a quarrel, whereupon fifteen or sixteen persons including the six petitioners assaulted Haijan Sk. and Ajad and rescued the bullock. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against eight accused persons under Section 147, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. On the 1st of May 1959, when the Magistrate was to...
Sk. HakimuddIn Vs. the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal299,66CWN126
ORDERSinha, J. 1. The petitioner was born in East Punjab, which was then a part of India, and still is since 1931, he had been residing in Calcutta. In 1950, he went to Dacca in East Pakistan. There, he took out a Pakistani passport declaring himself to be a Pakistan citizen. He has then come back to India with a temporary visa and upon the expiry thereof he was asked to leave; but he prayed for time and finally made an application under Section 5(1)(a) of the Indian Citizenship Act, to be registered as a citizen of India. Section 5(1)(a) enables a person of Indian origin, who is ordinarily resident in India and was so resident for 6 months prior to the making of the application, but who is not a citizen of India, to apply for being registered as a citizen of India. The petitioner states that he is such a person and as he wishes to become an Indian citizen he had made that application. The applications for registration are made, and dealt with, according to the prescribed rules. Rules ...
Kanai Lall Shaw Vs. Bhattu Shaw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal474,65CWN249
Lahiri, C.J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff against an order of Ray, J., dated March 30, 1960, by which his Lordship has dismissed the plaintiff's application for restoration of a suit Which was dismissed tor default on November 18, 1959. The facts which are relevant for the purposes of the present appeal are these. The plaintiff's suit appeared in the Peremptory List of G. K. Mitter, J. ior some time. But after the reopen-ing of this Court after the Long Vacation of 1959 the suit appeared in the Permptory List of Bay, J. On November 18, 1959, it appeared in the Peremptory List of Ray, J., but the names of the attorneys of the plaintiff and the defendant were wrongly printed in the Peremptory List. The actual name of the plaintiff's attorney is Mr. S. M. Chatterjee whereas in the Peremptory List it was printed as Mr. S. M. Chowdhury. The correct name of the defendant's attorney is Mr. Atul K. Chatterjee, but in the Peremptory List of November 18, 1959 it was wrongly printed as B. Ch...
Sugandha Pada Bhattacharjee Vs. Nalini Mohan Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal377,[1961]31CompCas283(Cal),65CWN110
ORDERA.N. Ray, J.1. This application raises a question as to the procedure to be followed in the issue of subpoena on the Registrar of Companies requiring him to produce documents. The summons has been taken out on behalf of the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal for an order that the subpoena dated July 20, 1960 issued be recalled, rescinded and/or set aside, and for a further order that the applicant be exempted from producing any document pursuant to the said subpoena. In the affidavit affirmed by the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal as a ground in support of the application it is stated first, that the Master had or has no jurisdiction or power to issue any subpoena except with the leave of the Court for production of documents under the Companies Act; secondly, it is stated in the affidavit that if subpoenas are issued by the Master inthe usual course and without leave of the Judge the work and records of the office will be upset, and it will also affect the right of the publi...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Govt. of West Bengal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Cal189
Sen, J.1. This revisional application was filed by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal, against the order of Shri S. N. Chanda, 7th Presidency Magistrate, filing a case under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, after he had framed charges against the accused in that case. 2. The facts are briefly as follows : 3. On a certain information, the Assistant Commissioner (II) Central, Calcutta Police and some other Police Officers raided the flat in the first floor of the premises at No. 1 Free School Street, Calcutta at about 3-45 p.m. on 20-12-58. Opposite Party No. 1 Khitish Chandra Roy and Opposite Party No. 2 Malati Roy said to be husband and wife are the tenants in respect of the flat. The police officers found opposite party No. 3 Sushila Bala Dasi in a compromising position with another man who was not ultimately sent up by the police. As a result of investigation, the police came to the conclusion that the flat in question was used...
Manick Chand Bagri Vs. Chartered Bank and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal653
Bachawat, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by therespondent Chartered Bank claiming Rs. 28904/2/-as the holder of a hundi against the respondentDawoodayal Kothari as the drawer and the appellant Manick Chand Bagri as the alleged acceptorof the hundi. The defendants filed separate written statements denying their liability. Dawoodayal Kothari did not contest the suit at the hearing.Manik Chand Bagri contested the suit but thelearned trial Judge decreed the suit against boththe defendants. Manik Chand Bagri has preferredthis appeal from the decree Passed against him.On the 3rd February, 1950, Sadasukh Gambhirchand of Bombay drew a darshani hundi on ABill of Exchange payable at sight for the sum ofRs. 25,000/- on Manick Chand Bagri at Calcutta .in favour of the respondent Chartered Bank. Onthe top of the hundi the drawer wrote the following words: 'Please accept the hundi according tothe terms written'. On the back of the hundithe following words appear in print: 'Pay in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »