Kolkata Court April 1963 Judgments
Sm. Aloka Ghosh Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal43,1964CriLJ32
ORDERAmaresh Roy, J. 1. This Rule issued at the instance of a party against whom a proceeding by way of prosecution of non-compliance with the requisition of a notice under Rule 5(1) of Schedule XVII of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, is pending before the learned Municipal Magistrate raises an issue of limitation based on Section 582 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. This issue of limitation was heard as a preliminary issue before the learned Magistrate who has decided it against the accused, that is, the present petitioner. 2. The facts relevant for deciding that issue arc that a notice under Rule 5(1) of Schedule XVII of the Act was issued directing the petitioner to comply with the requisition within thirty days or file objection within seven days thereof. This notice was served on the petitioner on December 7, 1960. Thereafter, an objection within the time mentioned was preferred and it was placed before the Standing Committee in compliance with Sub-section (2) of Section 561 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadish Chandra Basack Vs. Gopal Chandra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1963
Reported in: 1963CriLJ712
S.K. Niyogi, J.1. This Rule is directed against the order of the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate Calcutta, dismissing a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that the petition of complaint was filed in the Court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate by the present petitioner on the allegation that he was a transferee of a lease in respect of the rear-most block of premises No. 13 Dudhu Ostagar Lane Calcutta, and that vacant possession was given to him by Rukmini Kanta Chandra on 2nd January, 1962. After such possession, the petitioner put padlock on the doors of the rooms and also engaged some labourers to repair the building, On 8th January, 1962, after the masons had left the opposite parties unlawfully trespassed into the first floor of the premises, broke open the padlocks put on the rooms, threw away the building materials and stole the implements of the masons. The petitioner lodged a diary in the Amherst Street Police St...
Tag this Judgment!District Controller of Stores Eastern Railway, Lillooah, Howrah and an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal68,68CWN720
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of Mr. Justice J.P. Mitter on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution setting aside the order of removal of the petitioner and directing that the petitioner be given a personal hearing before the form of punishment is finally decided upon.2. The petitioner of this case was Ram Gobinda known as Gopal Labourer, Ticket No. 264 of Belur Scrap Yard, a permanent employee of the Eastern Railway. The allegation against the petitioner was that he was detected on the 15th January, 1955 in illegal and planned removal of materials from lot No. 140 of South Yard, Belur Scrap Yard. He was placed under suspension with effect from the 15th January, 1955 afternoon. There was the formal charge-sheet which stated:'On 15-1-55 you were seen keeping parts of scrap lead cells from lot No. 140 in the South yard on lorry No. WBL 9374 which was taking delivery of timber offcuts from lot No. 239 /Syd. 2. The stack of timber pieces loaded ...
Tag this Judgment!Asian Tool and Plastic Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, CalcuttA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1963
Reported in: [1965]55ITR392(Cal)
SANKAR PRASAD MITRA J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The applicant is a registered firm manufacturing plastic goods. There were two partners of the firm in the relevant accounting year, namely, the year ending December 31, 1952, corresponding to the assessment year 1953-54. The two partners were Sagarmal Bengani and Hanumanmal Bengani, each having eight annas share in the firm. In the manufacturing account, the applicant showed a loss of Rs. 1,08,075 as against a gross profit of 64 % shown in the preceding accounting year. The Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had purchased 71,488 lbs. of styron out of which 3,280 lbs. were purchased from I. C. I. at Rs. 2-11-0 per lb., and the remaining 68,208 lbs. were shown as having been purchased from Messrs. Hindusthan Plastic Co. at a cost of Rs. 3,07,653, which worked out to Rs. 4-7-9 per lb. The Income-tax Officer also found that the Hindusthan Plastic Co.s constitution was the same as t...
Tag this Judgment!India Electric Works Ltd. Vs. James Mantosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal39
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. The appellant before us was the defendant in a suit for recovery of damages with interest and costs. The suit has been decreed in part by the learned trial Judge. Hence this appeal by the defendant. The material facts lie within a short compass and they may be stated as follows:2. The defendant was a tenant under the predecessor of the plaintiffs in respect of the shed and structures, described in Schedule A of the plaint. In or about the year 1939, the plaintiffs' said predecessor filed Title Suit No. 8 of 1939 in the Sixth Court of the Subordinate Judge, Alipore, for ejectment and damages. The suit was eventually compromised between the parties, but the defendant company did not vacate the disputed property in terms of the said compromise but remained in wrongful occupation of the same. While they were in such wrongful occupation, the property was requisitioned under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules and the Government took possession of the same on Februa...
Tag this Judgment!Thacker's Press and Directories Ltd. Vs. Metropolitan Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Cal515
Mitter, J.1. This is an application for a certificate under Article 133 or the Constitution. There is no doubt that the value of the subject matter of the dispute is much above Rs. 20,000/- and the prayer is that the Court should certify that the appeal involves a substantial question of law or alternatively that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.2. The facts are as follows: The respondent bank mace advances of money to the appellant and the second respondent Murari Mohan Chatterjee on certain securities. By consent of parties a decree was passed on March 14, 1958 declaring a charge on the properties of the appellant mentioned in the schedule annexed to the terms of settlement and directing the decretal amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to be paid in certain instalments spread over 20 years and providing further that in default of payment of the amount of six monthly instalments due within a calendar year the decree-holder would be at liberty to proceed to realise the same ...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsidas Paul Vs. Second Labour Court of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Cal624,67CWN923,[1963(7)FLR1],(1964)ILLJ516Cal
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner firm carry on business as manufacturers of umbrellas, at No. 252-C, Chittaranjan Avenue, in the town of Calcutta. The demand for umbrellas being of seasonal nature the work of umbrella manufacture is carried on in the factory of the petitioner firm for about seven months in the year, namely from the month of January or February to August. It is stated in the petition, that at the beginning of each manufacturing season workmen are engaged in the factory on the basis of estimated seasonal requirement, on piece rate basis. Excepting a skeleton staff, the factory of, the petitioner firm does not, it is stated, employ any workmen during off-season.2. This version is not, however, admitted in the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 6 to 13 (namely, the All India Chhata Karkhana Mazdur Union, workmen of the petitioner said to be represented by All India Chhata Karkhana Mazdur Union and certain dismissed workmen, herei...
Tag this Judgment!East India Commercial Co. Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1963
Reported in: [1964]54ITR81(Cal)
P. B. MUKHARJI J - This is an income-tax reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The two question asked in this reference are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 4,680-13-0 and Rs. 6,017 could be claimed as a revenue expenditure in the year of account ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 10,430 paid by the assessee company, as its contribution to the employees provident fund, in allowable as a deduction in the assessment year 1951-52 ?'Mr. S. Mitra, learned counsel for the assessee, has not pressed the second question as he says that he has got relief in the subsequent year for the sum of money mentioned in the second question. Mr. Mitra also has not pressed for deduction of the sum of Rs. 6,017 mentioned in the first question. Therefore, this court is not called upon to answer the second question and the second part of the first question. The result is that the only question...
Tag this Judgment!Bhabesh Kumar Paul Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Cal347,1965CriLJ77
ORDERR.N. Dutt, J.1. This revisional application in directed against an appellate order confirming an order ofconviction and sentence passed by a Magistrate at Krishnagar.2. The petitioner was a police constable in the district of Nadia. He was placed under suspension on September 21, 1959. Under Rule 881 of the Police Regulations, police officers under suspension are required to reside in the police lines and to attend all parades and roll calls. The petitioner failed to attend the usual roll calls from 4 P. M. on January 7, 1960. He was tried under Section 29 of the Police Act, 1861 for contravening the provisions of Rule 881 and convicted and sentenced to a penalty of two months pay viz. Rs. 96/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one month. He filed an appeal and the appellate court has upheld the order of conviction and sentence.3. It was at first argued that a constable under suspension cannot be considered to be a 'police officer' within the meaning of Section 29 of the Poli...
Tag this Judgment!Gokulananda Roy Vs. President, District School Board, Burdwan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal568
ORDERD. Basu, J.1. This application under Article 226 is against an order of transfer of the Petitioner who is a Teacher of a Primary School. The Petitioner alleges that he is serving at the Sankari Primary School for the last 8 years; that about October, 1956, Respondent 1, the President, District School Board, made an order transferring him from that School, whereupon the Petitioner brought an application under Article 226, which was allowed on consent and the order of transfer was cancelled; that in view of the fact that the Petitioner, who is himself a member of the District School Board, took a part against the election. of Respondent 1 at the election held in 1950, Respondent 1 has maliciously made another order on 7-2-61 (Ann. B) transferring the Petitioner to Gerai Primary School without complying with the provisions of the Bengal Primary Education Act, 1930. Petitioner's case is that the impugned order is mala fide, without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natur...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »