Kolkata Court February 1960 Judgments
B.R. Herman and Mohatta (India) Ltd. Vs. Pran Ballav Majumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal524,64CWN798
Bose, J. 1. This appeal is from a decision of Mr. Justice G.K. Mitter and involves determination of the true nature and scope of two contracts for the sale of certain goods. On 9-11-1948 the appellant-Company entered into two written contracts with the respondent for the sale of caustic soda to be imported from U. S. A, at the price of Rs. 32/8/- per cwt. Ex. Jetty Calcutta on inter alia the terms and conditions that shipment was to be November-December, 1948 and the respondent would have to pay 25 per cent of the price by way of advance deposit. In pursuance of the contracts, the respondent on 15-11-1948 paid Rs. 8,125/- being the 25 per cent of the price of the goods. The case of the respondent, as alleged in the plaint, is that the goods were not shioped during November and December, 1948 and the appellant failed to deliver any goods of November-December shipment or at all and they thus committed breach of the contracts. The respondent, therefore, claimed refund of Rs. 8,125/- and R...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Khair and anr. Vs. Nazir HossaIn and ors. and Other Cause
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal631
P.C. Mallick, J. 1. This proceeding relates to a very old wakf. It was created by one Md. Mukim Sarkar by three wakf deeds, the first is of 1843, the second of 1844 and the third of 1846. By these deeds several Calcutta properties and others were made wakf. It is not necessary to give in detail the contents of these wakf deeds. Suffice it to note that it is a public wakf for the benefit of a mosque erected by the wakif and for various objects recognised as religious and charitable by the Mahomedan Law. There has been litigations in the past relating to the wakf estate. One such litigation was started in 1929 being Suit No. 92 of 1929 to set aside a lease granted by the then Mutwalli which was ultimately decreed in 1940 whereby the lease was cancelled. Subsequently two other suits were instituted being Suit No. 1444 of 1942 and Suit No. 1448 of 1944 which were subsequently consolidated and a decree was passed on 31-8-1944, whereby this Court framed a scheme for the management of the wak...
Tag this Judgment!Jatindra Mohan Banerjee and ors. Vs. Kali Charan Alias Kalipada Sarkar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal623,64CWN780
P. Chatterjee, J.1. This second appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffs decree-holders. In this second appeal an important question of procedure has arisen. The question is regarding the executability of a decree for injunction in a representative suit. The defendants were sued in a representative capacity and a decree was passed against them. All the persons against whom execution has been applied for were not eo nomine parties to the suit. The question is whether the decree can be executed against such persons.2. The plaintiffs applied for execution of the decree against persons who were parties defendantsby name and also against persons who were not parties by name. The objection now under consideration is one by persons whose names did not appear on the decree. It is stated that the decree could not be executed against the objectors respondents. It is submitted that the relevant rule is Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That rule says:'Where the party against whom a de...
Tag this Judgment!Debendra Nath Chowdhury Vs. Southern Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal626,64CWN439
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. Courts in India have been laboriously cultivating 'land' in the field of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of the Chartered High Courts. Long and deep are the judicial furrows. Rich is the harvest. No judicial Ricardo has been able to discover any law of diminishing return in this area. The crop of judicial decisions is abundant and varied to suit every legal taste. In this appeal some examination of this harvest is inevitable before a decision can be reached.2. The simple question in this appeal is whether a suit for specific performance of a contract is a 'suit for land' when the subject-matter of the contract is 'land'. On the soil of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this High Court, this simple question, however, has many complicated traditions.3. This is an appeal from the judgment of G.K. Mitter, J., dismissing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of an agreement to grant a sub-lease of fire-clay lands in Santhal Pargannas outside the jurisdiction of ...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar Garodia Vs. Purushottamlal Jain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal175
Renupada Mukherjee, J. 1. The defendant of the trial court, Murlidhar Garodia, is appellant in this appeal. Respondent Purushottam Lal Jain instituted a suit against the-appellant for evicting him from an almirah shop on the ground floor of premises No. 194/198 Cross Street, Calcutta. A notice to quit is said to have been served upon the appellant requiring him to vacate the disputed shop after the expiry of 1st February, 1958. The suit was instituted: under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 on the ground that the tenant was a statutory defaulter and had forfeited his claim to protection by reason of defaults committed by him in payment of rent. 2. Various defences were taken by the tenant in his written-statement. We need not refer to all of them in this appeal. The trial court overruled the objections taken by the tenant defendant in his writ ten-statement and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. So the tenant has preferred this appeal. 3. The only point pressed on behalf of t...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta Tanneries (1944) Ltd., Calcutta Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal543,[1960]40ITR178(Cal)
Lahiri, C.J. 1. The point for consideration in this Reference is the validity of an order of penalty passed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 28 (1) (c) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The facts as they appear from the statement of the case and the order of the Appellate Tribunal are as follows: 2. In respect of the assessment year 1946-47, the Income-tax Officer found that the assesses had concealed an income of Rs. 17,000/- by giving wrong particulars about encashment of 17 High Denomination notes of Rs. 1,000/- each. Thereafter a penalty proceeding was started against the assessee and on 10-5-1950, the Income-tax Officer directed the assessee to furnish evidence to prove that the High Denomination notes were genuinely received by it. The case was next taken up on 26-5-1950, on which date the assessee's pleader stated that he was unable to, furnish the evidence, whereupon he was directed to state that fact in writing. On the following day, that is, the 27th May, 1950, the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpatrai Rawatmull Vs. Collector of Land Customs, Calcutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal572,[1961]42ITR107(Cal)
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J. 1. The short facts of this case are as follows: The petitioner carries on business at 10th Mile, Kalimpong in the State of West Bengal. On or about the 10th of November, 1956 the Collector of Land Customs. Calcutta, respondent No. 1, caused searches to be made at the petitioner's business premises at Kalimpong. This kind of search is permitted under Section 172 of the Sea Customs Act, whereby the Customs authorities can make an application before the District Magistrate having jurisdiction in the area to issue a search warrant for the search and seizure of articles, books and documents of the kind mentioned in the said section. This is what was done in the present case. It appears that various articles as well as books of account and documents were seized by the Land Customs authorities. The petitioner objected to the seizure and it further appears that the Collector, Land Customs issued a snow cause notice upon the petitioner on or about January 3, 1958. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Jagadish Chan ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal546,64CWN876
Bachawat, J.1. The reference relates to assessment of the agricultural income of Jagadish Chandra Sahoo for the assessment years 1951-52 and 1952-53 in respect of the income of the accounting years 1357 B. S. and 1358 B. S. The assessee and his brother, Jyotirmoy inherited 90.04 acres of land from their father, one Bikram Kishore Sahoo. On 3-11-1949, corresponding to Kartick 17, 1356 B. S. when the assessee and his brother were both minors, Anandamoyee, their mother and natural guardian made a gift of the property by conveying it to certain trustees upon trust for the benefit of a homeopathic charitable dispensary and two primary schools. The deed of trust recites that the charity was made in order to fulfil the cherished desire of Bikram Kishore Sahoo. The Tribunal has found that the gift was neither for legal necessity nor for the benefit of the minor's estate. During the relevant period Jyotirmoy continued to be a minor. The assessee came to age sometime in 1950. Since then he has a...
Tag this Judgment!Empire Watch Co. and ors. Vs. Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Ex ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal561
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1.The facts in this case are shortly as follows : The petitioners, Sunil Kumar Dey and Hrishikesh Dey together with their brother, Binode Behari Dey, carried on a business in co-partnership under the name and style of 'Empire Watch Co.' This business, which is situated at No. 5, Radha Bazar Street, Calcutta, was originally founded by their father in 1892. The three brothers were carrying on business in co-partnerships since February 1946. This business had a quota-right and a quota-license for the import of watches etc. On or about 24th July, 1955 the partnership firm was dissolved. A formal deed of dissolution was drawn up, dated 10th December, 1955. Binode Behari Dey retired from the firm, and the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 reconstituted the firm among themselves. The said Binode Behari Dey became entitled to carry on business under the name and style of 'Gama Dayton and Co.', a name hitherto associated with the Empire Watch Co. There are various other terms in the d...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpatrai Rawatmull Vs. Collector of Land Customs and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1960
Reported in: 1960CriLJ1199
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1. The short facts of this case are as follows: The petitioner carries on business at 10th Mile, Kalimpong in the State of West Bengal. On or about the 10th of November, 1956 the Collector of Land Customs, Calcutta, respondent No. 1, caused searches to be made at the petitioner's business premises at Kalimpong. Tin's kind of search is permitted Under Section 172 of the Sea Customs Act, whereby the Customs authorities can make an application before the District Magistrate having jurisdiction in the area to issue a search warrant for the search and seizure of articles, books and documents of the kind mentioned in the said Section. This is what was done in the present case. It appears that various articles as well as books of account and documents were seized by the Land Customs authorities. The petitioner objected to the seizure and it further appears that the Collector, Land Customs issued a show cause notice upon the petitioner on or about January 3, 1958. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »