Kolkata Court August 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.
Jyotirmoyee Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal349
P.C. Mallick, J.1. This is a suit by a Government employee for a declaration that the order terminating her service is wrongful, illegal and void and that she is still entitled to the office. There is an alternative case made for damages for wrongful dismissal.2. The plaintiff is an M.A. and Ph. D. of the Chicago University in Sociology. Her case is that she; was offered a permanent post of Anthropologist by the Government in the Department of Anthropology in the Indian Museum on June 7, 1949 which offer she accepted. Prior to this appointment she was working in the same department as a temporary Anthropologist which office she relinquished before accepting the new appointment. In the new post she was to be on probation for 2 years.3. The plaintiff's service was terminated by a letter dated June 2, 1952 addressed to her by the Director Of Anthropology Sri. B. S. Guha. Prior to this she was charge-sheeted. She denied the charges and demanded a judicial enquiry.4. The order terminating h...
Narendra Narayan Bhattacharjee Vs. Secretary to the Government of West ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1961
Reported in: (1962)ILLJ317Cal
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner was employed as a sub-inspector of excise. He, along with several others, was prosecuted on a charge under Section 46 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia, for having unlawfully imported ganja. He was, however, discharged of the charge, under Section 243(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by an order passed by D.P. Chatterjee, a presidency magistrate, dated 9 May 1956, with the following observations:Hence on a consideration of the entire evidence on record, I am clearly of opinion that the prosecution case against the accused persons is thoroughly rotten and utterly unacceptable. The entire prosecution story against the accused persons has been built upon the confession of Ramen Biswas and K. Tombi Singh. On their own admission they were involved in trafficking in ganja, in complicity with other persons, They seemed to have shielded their real associates and have incriminated these accused per...
Sudhir Kumar Sen Vs. District School Board of 24-parganas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1961
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ45Cal
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. This rule is disposed of on a short ground.2. It is admitted that the petitioner, a teacher in Nakphul Free Primary School, was transferred to Gopalkata Free Primary Sahool, but in making the order of transfer the pro-visions of Rule 7 of the rules framed under 88 66(1) and 66(2) of toe Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930, were not followed.3. Rule 7 requires:No appointment or transfer of teachers shall be made by the board except after considering a report of the district inspector of schools.4. In the instant case, it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition, no report of the district inspector of schools was even made, far less that it was considered by the board. Then again, the order of transfer was not made by the board but was made by the president of the district school board. The order by a president of a school board is not order by the board itself. This is clear from Section 18 of the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, which is to the following...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta Vs. Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR39(Cal)
P.B. MUKHARJI J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The question of law on which the decision of this court is sought is as follows :'Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 3,50,000 received by the assessee to relinquish the managing agency was revenue receipt assessable under the Indian Income-tax Act ?'It raises the proverbial controversy between a capital receipt and a revenue receipt. The sum taxed represents the sale price of a managing agency sold by the assessee whose usual business under the memorandum of association is carrying on managing agencies of different companies. The cases are far from unanimous on the point. Before discussing the numerous cases cited at the Bar and the principles laid down there, it will be appropriate to have first a short account of the main facts on which this question arises.The assessee is Messrs. Kettlewell...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›