Kolkata Court December 1963 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.
The State Vs. Chittaranjan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1963
Reported in: 1965CriLJ274
ORDERAmaresh Roy, J.1. This is a Reference made under section 438 of the (Code of Criminal Procedure by a learned Additional Sessions Judge of Alipore recommending that a proceeding by way of a committal proceeding as a preliminary to a criminal trial now pending in the court of a Magistrate in that district should toe quashed because of the legal bar under Section 403 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts that gave rise to the criminal proceedings and the Reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are that on 6th June, 1959 an information was lodged in the Khardah Police Station that a girl aged about 15 years named Sandhya Kant Das Gupta was missing from the house of her mother in the Ghola Government Colony for refugees. Upon that information being sent to the Enforcement Branch of Calcutta Police, by a search the police recovered the girl from the house of Ganesh Dey in Tollygunge within 24-Par-ganas and her statement was recorded and was treated as an F. I....
G.T.R. Co. Private Ltd. Vs. the Certificate Officer, 24 Parganas and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal285,68CWN485,(1965)ILLJ380Cal
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner in these cases is G. I. R. Company Private Ltd. which, it is stated, came into existence in 1934. A certificate case under the Public Demands Recovery Act, being Case No. 65 of 1959-60 was started against the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 3069.75 n.P., representing the employers' special contribution payable under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act 1948 thereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The petitioner filed objection and it is stated that ultimately this certificate was set aside and cancelled. Thereafter, the amount was split up and three different certificate proceedings were started, being Nos. 64, 65 and 66 of 1959-60. It appears that the petitioner filed objections to these three certificates, but failed to appear at the hearing and the Certificate Officer disposed of the cases ex parte. Against that, there was an application for review which failed. No appeals seem to have been preferred, but these applications have...
Golam MohiuddIn Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal503,68CWN215,(1964)ILLJ462Cal
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J.1. At all times material for the purposes of this Rule, the petitioner was employed as the Curator of the Indian Botanical Gardens at Sibpore, District Howrah. On July 21, 1958, thepetitioner was suspended from service, because there was an enquiry for alleged misconduct started against him by the Anti-Corruption Department of Police. Apparently acting on the report submitted by the Police, C. K. Ray (respondent. No. 3), the then Secretary, Forest Department, by a notice, dated October 17, 1958, charged the petitioner with several misconducts as hereinbelow stated :'Charge I: Illegally and dishonestly accepted- (a) A sum of Rs. 400/- in 1948 from one Monomohan Roy, son of Mohini Mohan Roy of 23A, Peari Mohan Roy Road, Chetla, on the pretest of helping him to get a telephone installed in his house by influencing the Contract Officer Telephones; (b) A sum of Rs. 1,000/- from one Anadi Bhusan Singh, son of Surendra Nath Singh of Prince Anwar Shah Road, Tollygunge, on...
Kissenlal Munhra Vs. Multanmal Buchha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal328
ORDERMallick, J. 1. This suit is for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,888.03 nP. on a commission agency agreement. The plaintiff claims to carry on business at 35 Jamunalal Bajaj Street in the town of Calcutta. The defendants impleaded are three. The third defendant is a firm with which the plaintiff entered into a commission agency contract. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are alleged to be interested in the firm either as members of Mitakshars Coparcanary or as partners. 2. The allegations in the plaint are that on or about the 24th August, 1960 the plaintiff was appointed a commission agent of the defendant on certain terms Shortly the terms an that the plaintiff according to the instructions of the defendant firm would purchase textile goods and despatch the same. The price paid by the plaintiff for the purchase of such goods are to be recovered from the defendants with all charges and expenses plus commission, brokerage, Dharmada and certain other charges. The plaintiff would also be entit...
Bama Charan De Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal332,68CWN525
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J. 1. The facts in this case are briefly as follows: The petitioner Bama Charan De, andone Hrisikesh De carried on busniess, in partnership, as follows:- 1. Under the trade name of Co-operative 'Book Depot at 54 College Street, Calcutta, as 'Booksellers and Publishers. 2. Under the trade name of Abhoy Charan De and Brother at 20 Maharsht Debendra Road, Calcutta, in hardware materials. On or about the last day of September, 1955, the partnerships were dissolved and Hrisikesh became the sole owner of the Co-operative Book Depot and Bama Charan De became sote owner of Abhoy Charan De and Brother. This dissolution was effected by a registered Deed of Dissolution dated the Ist September, 1955. Inthis case, we are concerned with the Co-operative Book Depot only. 2. After the dissolution, Hrisikesh continued to cany on the said business, but no public notice of dissolution was given as contemplated by Section 45 of the Partnership Act. Hrisikesh died on the 10th February, 195...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›