Kolkata Court October 1961 Judgments
Rennell Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-30-1961
Reported in: [1963]49ITR73(Cal)
LORD EVERSHED M. R. We have had an opportunity of considering this case since the conclusion of the arguments and having reached a clear conclusion upon it, we have thought that there would be no point in reserving our judgment.The question raised by the summons is whether certain property, which, according to the evidence at the material date amounted in value to some pounds 450,000, is liable to estate duty as deemed to pass on the death of the settlor, the late Augustine Courtauld, that death having occurred on March 3, 1959. The property in question is subject to a settlement dated nearly three years before namely, March 20, 1956, made by the settlor on the occasion (and I now deliberately use a neutral word) of the marriage of his daughter Perina to Christopher Fordham, the parties to the instrument being first, the settlor, second, the daughter Perina Courtauld, third, Christopher Fordham, the intending bridegroom, and fourth, the trustees who are the plaintiffs in the present pr...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Roy Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal135,66CWN697
S.K. Sen, J.1. This Full Bench Reference arises from a revisional application by the petitioner Arun Kumar Roy against an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kurseong, dated 12th September, 1960, calling for charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code. On 16th April, 1960, about 8-30 P. M. the petitioner when driving a car is alleged to have knocked down a woman named Rani Tamangni who died on the spot. Sub-Inspector S.K. Roy registered a case, but after investigation he submitted a final report on 6th September, 1960, put up on 8th September 1960, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, taking the view that it was an accident, the death of the woman being due to her sudden rush across the road, so that the petitioner was not to blame. The Magistrate called for the case diary, and after perusing the same he took the view that prima facie the petitioner was guilty of rashness and negligence, and so he called for a charge-sheet under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Prova Debi Vs. Mrs. Fernandes
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal203,66CWN577
S.K. Sen, J.1. Criminal revision Case No. 525 of 1960 referred to this Full Bench arises from a case pending in the Court of Sri R.N. Banerjee, Magistrate, 1st Class, Aansol, against the petitioner Prova Debi and two others. In that case on the complaint of the opposite party Mrs. Fernandez, three accused including the petitioner Prova Debi were summoned, Prova Debi being summoned under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. On her prayer she was permitted to Be represented by a pleader under Section 205 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case was thereafter transferred to Sri R.N. Banerjee, Magistrate, 1st Class for disposal. When the stage arrived for examination of the accused under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner Prova Debi to appear in person, observing that in view of the ruling of the Calcutta High Court, he could not permit the petitioner to be examined through her pleader and that she must appear personally in Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Titaghur Paper Mills Co., Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-1961
Reported in: (1962)ILLJ192Cal
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. Under the petitioner company respondent 3, Sudhir Kumar Sen Gupta, was a junior supervisor, outside department, in mill 1 of the company.2. At a time when an industrial dispute between the petitioner company and its workmen over payment of profit-sharing bonus for 1954-55 was pending before an industrial tribunal, respondent 3 was charged with misconduct, namely:(i) for having allowed a suspended worker to continue to work in the mill and to draw his wages, being all the time aware of the suspension of the said worker;(ii) for having falsely identified another person as Suraj Maharaj in order to enable him by false personation to withdraw provident fund money belonging to the said Suraj Maharaj; and(iii) for having helped a person to impersonate as Lakhman, a worker in the petitioner's mill, and to work as such.3. At the departmental enquiry held against respondent 3, he was found guilty of all the charges and thereafter there was a letter of dismissal, dated 10 Jan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›