Kolkata Court September 1962 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.
District Licensed Deed-Writers' Association, Murshidabad Vs. State of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal124,67CWN290
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by the District Licensed Deed Writers' Association challenging Rule 11(1) and (2) made by the Inspector-General of Registration, West Bengal, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 80S of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 as amended by the Bengal louts Act, 1942 with the approval of the State Government as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 80-G of the said Act. This Rule is by way of amendment' by addition to Rule 10.2. It will be convenient to set out both the Rules 10 and 11 which are the subject of challenge in this petition. Rule 10 reads as follows:'Any unlicensed deed-writer who is found to be within the precincts of the Registration office or who is found at or nearabout the precincts of the Sub-Registry office to pursuada the public to have their documents written by him or any unlicensed deed-writer, or who is found to be doing any act which is likely to defeat the provision of an...
Madanlal Jajodia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, CalcuttA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1962
Reported in: [1964]54ITR752(Cal)
SINHA J. - This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee is Sri Madanlal Jajodia, and the year of assessment is 1948-49. The assessee was a partner in a number of firms. It was held by the Income-tax Officer that the assessee was a partner in a firm named National Trust Co. having an 8 annas share therein. The assessment of the firm of National Trust Co. was completed by the Income-tax Officer. In that assessment, Madanlal Jajodia contended that he was not a partner in his individual capacity, but that he represented the firm of Madanlal Sohanlal, and, therefore, the income was that of Madanlal Sohanlal. This contention was rejected. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee succeeded. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the income should be allocated to Madanlal Sohanlal. The Appellate Tribunal, however, did not agree with this finding and held it was the income of the assessee.The question, however, that has been referred...
Sudhanshu Bhusan Pal and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal61,1963CriLJ49,67CWN159
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. Two petitioners, Sudhanshu Bhusan Pal and Bhagat Singh make this application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order charging them in the criminal case and prosecution under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act dated the 5th January, 1958.2. The petitioners obtained this Rule on the 10th December, 1958 and even a stay of the pending criminal proceedings. There was no order for expeditious hearing of this application. The result is that the criminal proceedings have remained stayed for these long four years. Such a prolonged stay of a pending criminal case through the process of Article 226 of the Constitution is in many cases calamitous for the ultimate prosecution because by the time when the application ultimately fails, the long stay has practically wiped out in many cases important, relevant and irreplaceable evidence on which the prosecution was launched and on which prosecution depended. The sections of the Criminal Procedure C...
Chakravarty (R.C.) Vs. Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1962
Reported in: (1963)IILLJ177Cal
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. At all material times, the petitioner was employed as the divisional personnel inspector under the Eastern Railway. He was also general secretary of the Eastern Railway-men's Union. On the eve of a general strike, the petitioner was taken in custody under the Preventive Detention Act and was detained in the Dum Dum Central Jail from 11 July to 22 July 1960. He was released under the order of the Government of West Bengal on 22 July 1960.2. While in preventive custody, the petitioner and also 41 other persons were placed under suspension for having participated in an Illegal strike. The order of suspension bears the date 14 July 1960, and the material portion from the order is set out below:The following staff who are on illegal strike with effect; from 12 July 1980 are hereby placed undersuspension with immediate effect. The staff will be paid the usual subsistence allowance as on half average pay and usual allowances thereon.3. Under the Railway Fundamental Rules (...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›