Kolkata Court August 1961 Judgments
Rupeswari Debi Vs. Lokenath Hosiery Mills
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal608
C.N. Laik, J. 1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffand it arises out of a suit for ejectment under the Rent Control Act, 1950. The plaintiff's case in short was that the defendants were a firm and were monthly tenants in respect of the entire premises No, 28-B, Nalin Sarkar Street, Calcutta at a rate of rent of Rs. 97-3-6 per month. Only ground for ejectment was that the defendants defaulted in paying rents for two months each, on more than three occasions in course of 13 months. I may state tore that no other particulars of default have been given in the plaint but it transpires from evidence that the defendants defaulted in payment of rent for two units from the month of May to September, 1951 for short payment of only 6 pies each month and the third unit is for November and December, 1951. 2. In spite of alleged default in 1951 the notice for ejectment was not sent before 4th February, 1954 and thereafter the present suit was instituted on the 24th May, 1954. The defence was ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Agarwalla Vs. Gita Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ528
ORDERD.N. Das Gupta, J.1. This Rule was issued upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, to show cause why the proceedings Under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pending in the court of a Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, should not be quashed.2. The facts so far as is necessary for the disposal of this matter are as follows: On the 7th January, 1961, an application was made by the opposite party Gita Roy Under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, praying for maintenance from her husband, the present petitioner, on the ground that having sufficient means he neglected and refused to maintain her. During the pendency of that case a child was born to her and she filed another application for maintenance of that child.3. On the 2nd May, 1961, and on some dates subsequent thereto a preliminary point was argued before the learned Presidency Magistrate, namely, that the application was not maintai...
Tag this Judgment!Everett Orient Line, Incorporated, a Company Vs. Jasjit Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal308
ORDER1. This is an application under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution for a Certificate that the petitioner Company's proposed appeal to the Supreme Court involves substantial questions of law and is therefore fit for further consideration by that Court.2. The petitioner Company Everett Orient Line Incorporated, owns several cargo vessels of which Noreverett is one. Those vessels usually ply between various ports in the Far East and Burma. The ship Noreverett in the course of one of her usual voyages reached Calcutta on August 31, 1957. On the following day a rummage party of the Calcutta Customs carried Out a search of the vessel in the course of which they discovered 'a circular hole about 4 inches in diameter in the floor of the fireman's cabin, aft, port side. The hole was kept closed by a circular plug of cement, the top of the plug having been smoothed off and painted so as to prevent detection of the opening which led to a recess below the cabin and into the insulation of t...
Tag this Judgment!Proshad Kumar Roy and ors. Vs. Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal498
ORDERSinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioners are the owners of several taxies, the numbers whereof have been given in paragraph 1 of the petition. According to Section 38 of the Motor Vehicles ACT (hereinafter referred to as the ('said Act'), it is necessary to have certificates of fitness with regard to such contract carriages. The petitioners applied in January 1961 to the effect that the mechanical tests of the said carriages had beencompleted in November, 1960 but no report had been given of the fitness and renewals of the certificates had not been made. To this representation, the authorities did not reply. But in the meanwhile, on or about the 27th January, 1961 notices were issued to the effect that the vehicles were plying on the roads without valid certificates of fitness as required under Section 38 of the said Act, and therefore, the petitioners were called upon to show cause in writing as to why the registration of the said vehicles should...
Tag this Judgment!Hareram Samanta Vs. Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ529
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner was appointed a constable, in the Bengal Police Service, in the year 1934. He passed Certain departmental examinations, worked his way up and intimately, on July 20, 1956, took over charge of the Mai-Khana and cash as the Senior Court Sub-Inspector of Serampur Court.2. While serving as such, he was suspended on certain allegations of misconduct. There was a preliminary enquiry into the allegations and a report of enquiry was submitted. On the basis of the report, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet to the following effect:1. On U-l-56 two receipts of route permit and tax; token receipt wsra forwarded to Serampore Court in contexion with Serampore P. S. Won F.I.R. Case No. 19/56 Under Section 468 I.P.C. against accused Sher Taj Singh, Shib Latisn-man and Shardar Sher Singh and these documents were entered in Serampore Court malkhana register under item) Wo. 50/56- Although the said case is pending trial in1 court and the next date of hea...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsidas Mundhra and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ533
S.K. Sen, J.1. This application Under Section 498, Cr.PC for bail by the petitioner Tulsidas Mundhra has been heard along-with the Reference by Shri M. Roy, Presidency Magistrats, Calcutta Under Section 432 (2) of the Cr.PC on a question of law, viz., whether the City Sessions Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application Under Section 528 (lc) of the Code in connection with a commitment proceeding pending before a Presidency Magistrate. The case against the petitioner Tulsidas Mundhra and another was started on a chargsheet submitted by the police Under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. After examination of some witnesses, the learned Presidency Magistrate framed charges Under Sections 120B, 409, 471/458 and 477A/109 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. At that Stage, an foliation for transfer of the case from the file of the Presidency Magistrate was filed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate. The learned Chief Presidency Magis- trate dismissed the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Brooke Bond India Private Ltd. Vs. Sudhir Ranjan Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1961
Reported in: (1962)ILLJ64Cal
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner company has a factory at Hide Road, Kidderpore, Calcutta. Until Ms dismissal, respondent 3, Sheikh Sahid, was a workman under the petitioner, at the said factory.2. The respondent 2, Brooke Bond Mazdoor Union, is a registered trade union and respondent 3 belongs to that union.3. The condition of service of respondent 3, under the petitioner company, was governed by the standing orders of the company, duly framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. For the purposes of this rule, I need refer to the following clauses of the said standing order, namely:1 (f) 'Absent' means absence without leave.18. Absence from work.--When a worker is absent he will not receive pay for the period he is absent. He will be liable, moreover, to disciplinary action at the discretion of the factory manager. Absence without notice exceeding fourteen consecutive days will incur automatic dismissal.23. Any worker desiring an extension of leave must first...
Tag this Judgment!Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Fourth Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1961
Reported in: (1962)ILLJ333Cal
D.N. Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Calcutta. Its business consists of the manufacture and sale of aluminium utensils, for the manufacture of which it has a factory at Belur in Howrah and at other places. The said factory is commonly known as the 'Crown Aluminium Works.' At all material times prior to about the middle of 1951, the petitioner's issued and subscribed capital was Rs. 36,00,000 divided Into Rs. 3,60,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each, fully paid up. At or about that time, the total assets of the company had a book value of about Rs. 72.00,000. All the shares were held by or on behalf of Aluminium, Limited, a company incorporated in Canada. In the year 1951, the Canadian company sold out all its shares to Indian shareholders, who had to pay the book value of the assets, namely, Rs. 72,00,000. In other words, these shares of the face value of R...
Tag this Judgment!Jainul Khan and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal368,66CWN676
S.K. Sen. J. 1. This is an application under Section 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code By the petitioners, Jainul Khan alias Jainu and two others, for grant of bail which was refused at one stage by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate. Along with this application under Section 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been heard Reference 1 of 1961 made under Section 432 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate. The petitioners had approached the City Sessions Court for bail under Section 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the learned Chief Judge of the City Sessions, Court, purporting to exercise the powers of a Sessions Court under Section 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code, directed that the petitioners be released on bail of Rs. 5000/- each with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Thereupon the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate has made this reference, as in his view the City Ses...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC138(Cal)
H.K. Bose, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Sinha, J., discharging a rule issued in a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The appellant is a public limited company and is a registered dealer under Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. In respect of accounting year ending 31st December, 1954, the appellant submitted a return to the Commercial Tax Officer on 21st October, 1955, and in respect of the accounting year ending 31st December, 1955, the appellant submitted its return to the Commercial Tax Officer on 27th February, 1956. In the return filed on 21st October, 1955, in respect of the year ending 31st December, 1954, the gross turnover was shown to be Rs. 70,99,928-10-0 and an exemption was claimed under two headings : (i) Rs. 1,33,730-7-6 under Section 5(2)(a)(i) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act and (2) Rs. 69,65,979-9-6 under Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act and the taxable turnover was shown as Rs. 218-9-0 only for which a tax of Rs. 9-12-6 was p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »