Kolkata Court June 1962 Judgments

Dwijendra Lal Sen Gupta Vs. Harekrishna Konar

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1963Cal218,66CWN917

P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution. It raises a short but interesting question of election law and procedure. The short point is whether under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the Returning Officer is either a necessary or a proper party to an election petition.2. The order against which this Rule was directed was an order of the Election Tribunal dismissing the application of the present petitioner, Sri Dwijendra Lal Sen Gupta, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 90 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for adding the Returning Officer Sri Ajita Kanjan Mukherjee as a respondent and for issuing a notice on him as such.3. The Election Tribunal relied on (i) the Surat Municipality Case, 2 Doabia's Election Cases, 340 and (2) Abdul Quadir Siddiqui v. Abul Hasan Natique, 1 Doabia's Election Cases 324 and dismissed the application for adding the Returning Officer as a party to the election pe...

C. H. W. (Huddersfield) Ltd. Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioner. Spencer ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1965]58ITR444(Cal)

LORD DENNING M.R. I will ask Donovan L.J. to give the first judgment.DONOVAN L.J. I need not repeat the complicated facts of this case. They are set out in the case stated itself and summarised in the judgment of Plowman J. The crucial question is whether, on the assumption that the appellant company is a company within the scope of section 245 of the Act of 1952, could more than half the income of the period April 1, 1956, to January 31, 1957, be apportioned to the appellants Mr. Garside and Mr. Spence If so, this will in the first place justify the direction, for the company will then not be a 'subsidiary company.' This question of apportionment depends chiefly on the effect of the decision of the House of Lords in Fendoch Investment Trust Co. Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue.It is conceded for the appellants, and I think necessarily so, that the individual shareholders, Mr. Garside and Mr. Spencer must, by virtue of the decision in the Fendoch case, be regarded as members of ...

Rabindra Chandra Chanda and anr. Vs. the State

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1963Cal252,1963CriLJ578,66CWN1021

Sen, J.1. This revisional application is directed against an order of the Additional District Magistrate, 24--Parganas forfeiting the bail bonds of the petitioners who stood sureties for accused Muktar Singh who had been committed to the Sessions Court under Section 302/34 I. P. C. and imposing a penalty of Rs. 200/- on each of the petitioners, remitting Rs. 800/- out of each bond, the petitioners having each stood surety to the extent of Rs. 1000/-. A bail order in the case, after commitment, was made by the learned Sessions Judge, Alipore -- his order being to release the accused Muktar Singh on bail io the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, 24--Parganas. The bail bond was executed before the Additional District Magistrate's 24-Parganas who is in charge of the District Magistrate's functions under the Criminal Procedure Code in 24-Parganas district. On the date fixed for the trial of the case, namely, 13-3-61, Muktar Singh failed to appear before the Additional Sessions Judge, ...

Mitra Mukherjee and Co. and anr. Vs. Ajit Kumar Sarkar

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1963Cal11,66CWN1061

G.K. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from an order directing the defendants in the suit to furnish security to the extent of Rs. 6500/- for the satisfaction of the-plaintiff's claim by depositing the said sum withthe defendants' attorney to be held by him free from any lien and subject to further orders of this court, in default whereof the plaintiff was to be entitled to a decree for the amount claimed in the suit.2. The suit is for price of goods sold and delivered, the plaintiff being one Ajit Kumar Sarkar who describes himself in the plaint as the Managing Agent of a Colliery known as 'Beldanga Khas Colliery' of which the proprietors were some persons by the name of Tewaries. According to the plaint the supplies were made and the coals were delivered to the defendant No. 1 at rates controlled by the Central Government, inter aliaon the terms that the bills would be payable, within 60 days from the date of presentation and the plaintiff would be entitled to charge interest at 12 per ...

Osman Ali Vs. Dy. Secretary Home (Passport) Dept. Govt. of West Bengal ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1963CriLJ210

Debabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is from an order of Banerjee J. dismissing in limine an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a composite writ of mandamus and certlo-rari.2. The facts which require to be stated for the limited purpose of this appeal are these:3. The appellant claims to be an Indian citizen who was born at Noakhali before India was partitioned, about 25 years ago he came to this country and later accepted employment as a Boiler Fireman at Samala Colliery in the district of Burdwan. His case is that he has ever since been living at the place where he acquired lands upon which he built a house, married a wife and had by her children. He had been Involved about 1950 in litigation and produced evidence of having paid rents for the lands he held. His case further is that on receipt of an urgent message that his sister had been lying seriously ill at Noakhali, he attempted to obtain a passport from the country but having failed to do so, he ado...

B.N. Elias and Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. Third Industrial Tribunal and or ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1962)IILLJ436Cal

Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is the owner of a bone mill at Bansberia, in the district of Hooghly, known as the Empire Bone Mill.2. As between the petitioner-company and its workmen there was an award of an industrial tribunal, presided over by Sri M.C. Banerjee, made as far back as 29 January 1949, under which there was a scheme framed for payment of compensation to workmen either on retirement or on death, or on resignation due to illness or old age, or on termination of service as a result of reduction of the establishment or otherwise to the following effect:(a) On retirement after not less than 25 years' continuous service. Half a month's basic pay for each completed year of service subject to a maximum of 15 months' basic Pay.(b) On death of an employee while in service.--Half a month's pay for each completed year of service, irrespective of the length of service but subject to the maximum of 15 months' basic pay to be...

Biswa Ranjan Sarvadhikary Vs. Income-tax Officer, F-ward, District Ii( ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1963]47ITR927(Cal)

The facts in this case are shortly as follows : Sir Deva Prasad Sarvadhikary was a well known solicitor of this court. He died on 10th of August, 1935, leaving his entire assets to his wife, Lady Sarvadhikary, absolutely. On or about the 15th June, 1938, Lady Sarvadhikary by a deed of gift disposed of certain immoveable properties in favour of her eldest son, Normal Chandra Sarvadhikary. The said Nirmal Chandra Sarvadhikary, who was governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law, died intestate on the 29th January, 1940, leaving him surviving the petitioner, Biswa Ranjan Sarvadhikary, as his only son, and his widow, Sm. Satadal Bashini Sarvadhikary. They are his only heirs and legal representatives and became jointly seized and possessed of the said property. It is stated that ever since 1940 they had verbally effected a partition of the said immoveable properties, although there was no separation by metes and bounds. Since 1940 both the petitioner and his mother were separately assesse...

Kaviraj Sudhindranath Sen Vs. Jibandas Agarwalla

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1963Cal467

S. Datta, J. 1. On the 6th December 1939 Kaviraj Sudhindranath Sen filed this mortgage suit against the mortgagor Narsinghdas Agarwalla who is now represented by his nephew, sole heir and legal representative, Jibandas Agarwalla and against Nawab Habibulla for himself and his co-sharers of the Dacca Nawab Estate represented by the then Chief Manager, Court of Wards. 2. In or about 1939 the plaintiff obtained leave under O. L.R. 8 of the Civil Procedure Code from the Hon'ble Mr. Justice McNair. Thereupon notices were published under 0. 1 R. 8 of the Code in the Statesman and Mohammadi. 3. In January 1948 the then Manager of the Court of Wards of the Dacca Nawab Estate Mr. AM Azam filed a warrant of attorney in favour of M. K. Roy Chowdhury and Co. solicitors. Thereafter an application was made by 54 co-sharers of Nawab Habibulla for being added as parties to the suit and for extension of time to file written statements. In June 1948 this application was granted by the Hon'ble Mr. Justic...

Ultadanga Oil Mill and anr. Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta

Court: Kolkata

D.N. Das Gupta, J.1. This is an appeal by Messrs. Ultadanga Oil Mills and Saroj Ranjan Bhattacharjee who have been convicted by a learned Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta under Section 16(i)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each. In default of payment of fine the second accused was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The learned Magistrate further directed under Section 11(5)(b) of the said Act that the oil seized should be destroyed by the Food Inspector at the cost of the accused in presence of the Court. There is a Revisional petition against the order of destruction which has been heard along with this appeal.2. The case for the prosecution is that on the 14th December, 1959, Dr. S. S. Kundu, Food Inspector of: the Corporation of Calcutta, visited the Oil Mill and took a sample of til oil for the purpose of analysis and that on analysis the oil was found adulterated. The accused were ...

Modern Engineering Co. Vs. Mohan Charan Mallick

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1963Cal12,67CWN54

A.N. Ray, J. 1. The plaintiff instituted this suit for a declaration that premises No. 34-C Nalin Sarkar Street and 23 Fordyce Lane are charged in favour of the plaintiff by two security bonds dated April 28, 1952 and April 6, 1955 executed by the defendant and for a decree for Rs. 31,076 5 np. and also a decree under Order 34 of the Code in the appropriate form of Appendix D. The plaintiff filed suit No. 538 of 1952 on February 11, 1952 for a declaration that the oil engine was tbe property of the joint venture between the plaintiff and T. N. Chakravarty and Sons andfor delivery of the said engine and for other reliefs. On February 15, 1952 the Official Receiver was appointed Receiver of the said oil engine. On March 5, 1952 the order for appointment of the Official Receiver was discharged. On April 1, 1952 an order was made in appeal from the order of March 5, 1952 in Appeal No. 32 of 1952 that upon furnishing security for Rs. 15,000/- by the defendant he was given liberty to take po...