Kolkata Court March 1961 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.
Hardayan Garodia and ors. Vs. Gangadhar Periwal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Cal500
P.C. Mallick, J. 1. The plaintiffs seek to challenge in this suit the validity of an attachment and sale of a share in three tea gardens and the export quota rights therein.2. The plaintiffs are five members of the Garodia family hereinafter for convenience referred to as Sarodias. They along with the defendant Gangadhar Perival and Nath-mull Pertwal constituted a partnership known as Messrs. Garodia Periwal Tea Co. [hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'Tea Company'.) The defendant Gangadhar Periwal and Nathmull Periwal father of defendant Mahendra Kumar Periwal had another business of their own carried on in co-partnership under the name and style of Messrs. Gangadhar Nathmull. The firm of Gangadhar Nathmull became very involved and many of the creditors instituted suits and obtained decrees against the said firm of Messrs. Gangadhar Nathmull. Three such creditors are: 1. Hanuman Box Gothia, 2. Gouri Shankar Mal, and 3. Udaichand Hazarimal defendants Nos. 4, 5, and 6 in this su...
Bijon Krishna Mukherjee and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Cal521
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is an application seeking Certificate both, under Articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution ofIndia.2. Although the certificate sought relates to adecision of this Special Bench, the application was first moved under the Rules of this Court before a Division Bench, presided over by the learned Chief Justice. Under the practice which has grown up in this Court, that Division Bench disposed of only that part of this application which was under Article 133of the Constitution, and referred the rest of the application under Article 132 of the Constitution to bedisposed of by this Special Bench. This Rule and practice have been severely criticised and challenged before us as illegal and ultra vires the Constitution.3. Before discussing that Rule and practice it will be appropriate to state some relevant facts leading to this application. This Special Bench was constituted by the learned Chief Justice to determine and dispose of the application under Article 229 of th...
Gopendra Nath Basu Malik Vs. Sm. Prativa Rani Basu Mallik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal455,66CWN388
ORDERP.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This Rule arises out of a proceeding under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Before the District Judge, 24 Parganas, the present petitioner, who is the husband, applied for restitution! of conjugal rights as against the opposite party, who is, admittedly, his married wife. The application was made on August 6, 1959, under Section 9 of the above Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and, under the prevailing practice, it was registered as Title Suit No. 254 of 1959. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to the Fifth Court of the Additional District Judge at Alipore, where it was eventually registered as Title Suit No 82 of 1959 of that Court.2. While this suit was proceeding, the present opposite party, who was also the opposite party or the defendant or respondent in the above suit, applied, on September 5, 1959, for maintenance pendente lite and also for expenses of litigation, under Section 24 of the above Hindu Marriage Act. This application was opposed by the...
Chandra Bhusan Chatterjee and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ22
Debabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal from convictions under paragraph 55(2) of the Indian Dock Labourers Regulations 1948, read with Section 5 of the Indian, Dock Labourers Act, 1934.2. The appellants were convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate and each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.3. Appellants Chandra Bhusan Chatterjee and Byomsankar Chatterjee are partners of a firm of Stevedores, Messrs, P. Chatterjee of 7, Garstin. Place, Calcutta. Appellant Mati Lal Chatterjee is an employee of the firm entrusted with the work of supervision in connection with the firm's business.4. A ship carrying cargo of salt was berthed at the Prinsep Ghat moorings and salt was being off-loaded by the said firm on the 23rd of October 1958 when an incident occurred which caused the death of a worker and injuries to four others who had been employed by the appellants in unloading the cargo. On receipt of information the Inspector, Dock...
Madanlal Sohanlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, CalcuttA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR1(Cal)
P. B. MUKHARJI J. - This income-tax reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act raises the following question of law for the decision :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 31,500 paid by the applicant as interest on the loan taken for an investment and which investment did not yield any income during the relevant previous year was allowable as a deduction in computing the assessable profits ?'Before proceeding to decide the question, it will be appropriate to give a brief account of the relevant facts. The applicant is a registered firm with four partners and the assessment year in question is 1948-49, the relevant previous year being 2004 R. N. The bone of contention relates to the payment of interest on an overdraft. The applicant firm took a loan on overdraft from the Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., during the year 2003 R. N., in the name of Madanlal Sohanlal H. A. A/c., meaning thereby Hall & Anderson Ltd. account. The overdraft was u...
Harbans Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Cal659,65CWN913
ORDERP.C. Mallick, J. 1. This is an application to supersede an arbitration agreement, to revoke the authority of the arbitrator and to vacate an order for stay of the suit instituted by the plaintiff in this court. The plaintiff is a contractor who did certain construction works at Sindri. In terms of the contract the petitioner furnished security deposit for the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. A suit was instituted by the contractor against the Union of India in the court to recover the security deposit. By an order dated September 8, 1954 the suit was stayed under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act. Thereafter, the Government referred the disputes to the arbitration of Sri O. P. Mittal under the arbitration clause in the contract and the petitioner was informed of this reference sometime at the end of May 1955. It appears that the petitioner took considerable time and only filed his State-of-Facts on February 10, 1959. The Government filed its Counter-State-of-Facts on May 5, 1959. The da...
Nanik Lal Karmarkar Vs. Shankar Lal Shah and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal103
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal, at the instance of the defendant, is directed against an appellate decree affirming a decree for specific performance of a contract of reconveyance, passed by a learned Munsif.2. The plaintiff sold the disputed property to the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 3000/-, on January 29, 1952. On the very next day there was an agreement (Ex. 1) between the parties, by which the defendant agreed to reconvey the aforementioned property to the plaintiffs, it the latter' repaid to the defendant the sum pi Rs. 3000/- within January 1953. Time was made the essence of the contract under the said agreement.3. On the property conveyed by the plaintiff to the defendant, there were certain tenants and it was expressly stipulated in the agreement (Ex. 1) that rents would be realised by the defendant and the plaintiffs would have no concern therewith. Also a portion of the property admittedly remained in occupation of the plaintiffs.4. On July 29, 1952, Sankarlal Saha, one...
Md. Bashir Vs. Income-tax Officer, Calcutta, and Others.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR827(Cal)
The facts in this case are shortly as follows : One Hazi Poonoomiah, since deceased, was a wealthy Muslim inhabitant of Gazipur in U.P. He had a son, Hazi Saffiullah. Saffiullah had seven sons, Md. Shamsul Haque, Md. Ibrahim, Md. Jalil, Md. Sagir (since deceased), Md. Vakil, Md. Khalil and Md. Bashir, the petitioner in this case. The other applications are by some of the persons above mentioned. The Matter No. 210 of 1960 is by Md. Vakil. The Matter No. 213 of 1960 is by Md. Khalil and the Matter No. 214 of 1960 is by Md. Jalil. The facts and the law involved in these applications are similar and they have been heard together. The brothers carried on and still carry on business in partnership under the name and style of Messrs. Shamsul Haque & Bros. For the assessment year 1946-47 the firm of M/s. Shamsul Haque & Bros., Bander bazar, Sylhet, described as an unregistered firm, was assessed by the Income-tax Officer, Sylhet, in Pakistan, on or about 29th February, 1948. There was a simil...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›