Kolkata Court June 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.
Bengal Ingot Company (Private), Ltd. Vs. Fifth Industrial Tribunal and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1960
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ508Cal
Sinha, J.1. The petitioner in this is a company Incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, and carries on the business of engineering and/or manufacturing1 and sale of engineering products. The petitioner maintains its accounts in what is known as the ' mercantile system' of accounting ; that is to say, an expense is debited as soon as the petitioner has become liable to such expenditure Whether the amount thereof has actually been paid or not, and similarly the price of goods sold or any other amount due to the petitioner la credited as soon as the sale is effected or the amount becomes due, whether the price or amount has actually been realized or not. In respect of the financial year ending 31 December 1956 the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'company') made a payment of bonus to its workmen equivalent to one month's wages and dearness allowance amounting to Rs. 45,000. According to the petitioner, it had no available surplus, but this payment was made out of goodwill t...
Pannalal Paul and ors. Vs. Sm. Padmabati Paul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal693,64CWN816
Bachawat, J. 1. This is an appeal from an order refusing to set aside an award. The appellants and the respondents carried on business in co-partnership in Homoeopathic medicines under the name and style of Paul & Co., at No. 82, Clive Street, and another business in paper under the name and style of Hari Narayan Paul and Co., at No. 103. Old China Bazar street. The appellants Pannalal Paul, Chunilal Paul and Lakshman Chandra Paul are the sons of one Hari Narayan Paul, deceased, and each of them had one-fourth share in the profits and losses of the two partnership businesses. The respondent Padmabati is the widow and the respondents Satya Charan Paul and Amar Nath Paul are the minor sons of another son of Hari Narayan Paul and they jointly had one-fourth share in the profits and losses of the two businesses. The respondents instituted a suit in this Court for dissolution and accounts of the two partnerships and for the realisation and distribution of the partnership assets and properti...
Nrishingha Murari Chakravarty Vs. District Magistrate and Collector, H ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal225,65CWN129,[1961(2)FLR246],(1961)ILLJ181Cal
ORDERSinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner was a confidential assistant of the District Magistrate and Collector, Hooghly. According to the petitioner, his appointing authority was the District Magistrate and his services are governed by the Bengal Services Civil Subordinate (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1936 (sic). It appears that on or about the 17th January, 1958 a First Information Report was submitted against the petitioner under Section 419/420/114/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 11 of the West Bengal Security Act etc. On the 20th January, 1958 the petitioner was suspended by an order of the District Magistrate. A copy of the order of suspension is annexure 'A' to the petition and it is clear there-from that it is based on the F. I. R. mentioned above. Thereafter, he was placed before the Special Court. On or about the 1st December, 1959 the petitioner was discharged, following the decision of the High Court in Criminal Appeal ...
Basanta Kumar Sen and anr. Vs. Collector of Land Customs, Calcutta and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal86,1961CriLJ237
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. Civil Revision Case No. 3414 of 1958: This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus upon the Collector and Superintendent of Land Customs and the Union of India to withdraw the summons upon the petitioner under Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act as applied to Land Customs.2. The determination of this application depends on the actual terms of the summons which therefore will have to be set out in extenso. The summons reads as follows :'Whereas there are grounds for investigation being made in connection with an enquiry under Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act 1878, and Whereas I consider your attendance before me necessary for (i) giving evidence.(ii) Producing documents of the following description duly explaining them with reference to the recorded transactions and etc. relating to your financial affairs as also of the firm M/S. Prasanna Poddar and Co. of 1/11, Garanhatta Street, of which you are a partner;(a) the doc...
Sri Gurupada Haldar Vs. Sri Haripada Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Cal263
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This appeal is by the defendant No. 1 and it arises out of a suit which was originally instituted for ejectment, mesne profits (damages or compensation for use and occupation) and compensation or damages for loss or injury, caused to the disputed premises.2. The claim was laid in the plaint at Rs. 14997-8-0 and comprised the following items, namely, ejectment, valued at Rs. 1410/- on the basis of the monthly rental of Rs. 117-8-0, mesne profits or damages for use and occupation at Rs. 587/-and the remaining item of compensation or damages for loss or injury, caused to the disputed premises at Rs. 13,000/-. The suit was filed on September 19, 1951, and it was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge on June 26 1953. There were three defendants in the suit, namely, defendant No. 1 who was the immediate tenant under the plaintiff landlord, defendant No. 2, who was a sub-tenant under defendant No. 1 in respect of the entire disputed premises and defendant No. 3, who w...
Mahadeo Prosad Shaw Vs. Calcutta Dyeing and Cleaning Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal70
P. Chatterjee, J.1. This Second Miscellaneous Appeal is on behalf of the landlord, who instituted the suit for possession after a notice to quit and who subsequently got a decree for possession but which has thereafter been set aside under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code. The defendant thereafter applied under Section 144 of the Code for restitution. The application of the defendant has been allowed by both the Courts below and hence the present appeal by the landlord plaintiff -- the objector to the petition under Section 144 of the Code.2. The plaintiff instituted his ejectment suit on 5-1-1956. On 19th April 1956, an ex parte decree was passed. On 11th March, 1957, possession was delivered to the decree-holder, but defendant immediately started proceedings under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the ex parte decree and the ex parte decree was set aside; against that order, certain proceedings were pending in this High Court and in the meantime, on the 8th June, 1958, under...
Amulya Ratan Nayek Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal164,64CWN857,(1960)IILLJ502Cal,(1960)IILLJ502Cal
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by the petitioner, Amulya Ratan Nayek under Article 226 of the Constitution against the State of West Bengal and its officers in the Development Block of Birbhum and the Development as well as the Divisional Commissioners.2. He claims a writ of mandamus for expunging the remark in his service book made by one Kedar Nath Thakur on the 3rd July, 1958, to the effect, 'An overseer of doubtful integrity', and secondly, for an order to grant him leave which he says he had earned from the 20th May, 1958, to the 7th June, 1938, and for one day on the 8th June, 1958. These are the only two reliefs which he sees.3. The petitioner was an overseer of the Dubrajpur National Extension Service Block and got that appointment on the 29th March, 1957. Due to differences of opinion over his work and transfer, he tendered his resignation on the 18th July, 1958. His services were thereafter retained for a few days for finalisation of certain accounts and fina...
Director of Supplies and Disposals Vs. Member, Board of Revenue, Gover ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1960
Reported in: [1960]11STC589(Cal)
Lahiri, C.J.1. The points involved in this Rule are of some importance. A decision of the points will turn on an interpretation of the expression 'passing of an order' as used in Section 21 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The assessee is the petitioner in this Rule and he filed the petition upon which this Rule has been issued under Section 21(2)(b) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. The facts which are not in dispute may be briefly stated as follows. The assessee filed an application for revision before the Board of Revenue against an order made by the Commercial Tax Officer affirmed on appeal by the prescribed authority and on revision by the Commissioner. The application before the Board of Revenue was under Section 20(3) of the Act. On 26th September, 1958, the Board of Revenue dismissed the assessee's application and the order of, the Board of Revenue was communicated to the assessee on 14th October, 1958. The terms of the letter by which the order of the Board of...
Sarju and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ71
Debabrata Mookerjee, J.1. On the jury's unanimous verdict Sarju alias Jagneswar Kumar, Sadhu alias Deodhari Goala, Tilakdhari Dosad alias Pasman alias Palwan. and Yasin Khan have been convicted of dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. By reason of a previous conviction Tilakdhari has been sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and the rest to five years' rigorous imprisonment each. Of these four convicted men Sarju and Sadhu have been represent ed by counsel; Tilokdhari has preferred an appeal from jail; Yasin Khan has submitted to the sentence.2. The case for the prosecution is that on the 9th of January, 1959, at about 7 p.m. these appellants with several others raided the house of one Shewnath Pandey within police station, Asansol. As soon as the miscreants appeared Shewnath's servant Ram Janam Cope P. W. 5 gave an alarm; Shewnath himself bolted the front door leading to the house and went up with his servant on the roof of a ground-floor room, but Shewnath's ...
East Asiatic Co. (India) Private Ltd. Vs. Fourth Industrial Tribunal, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal160,[1961(2)FLR334],(1961)ILLJ720Cal
Lahiri, C.J. 1. This appeal relates to a claim for bonus made by seventy retrenched employees and one dismissed employee of the appellant company, which is the employer. Sometime in the year 1955, the appel-lant company found it necessary to retrench 79 employees on account of bad financial condition; but at that time an industrial dispute between the appellant company and its workmen was pending before the First Industrial Tribunal of West Bengal and therefore it was necessary for the appellant company to take the permission of the Industrial Tribunal before it could direct retrenchment. An application was accordingly filed before the First Industrial Tribunal by the appellant for permission to retrench. 79 employees. The permission was granted by the First Industrial Tribunal to the appellant company to retrench 71 instead of 79 employees by an order dated 4-4-1956. These 71 employees included one K. K. Bhowmick, who was the Secretary of the Employees' Union of the appellant company....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »