Kolkata Court January 1964 Judgments
The State Vs. Raghu Ram and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Cal445,1964CriLJ407
ORDERAmaresh Roy, J. 1. These two References under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code are by the learned Sessions Judge of Burdwan, both made by him on the same date in respect of two orders of conviction and sentence passed by the same Magistrate of Assansol in two trials said to have been held in what has been described as 'Mobile Court' over which that learned Magistrate presided. The two cases have been heard together as they raise same questions of law.2. It appears from the letters of reference and also from the uncontroverted facts stated in the petitions made by the convicted persons before the learned Sessions Judge that on 7th February, 1963, a Magistrate Sri M. Chanda who was said to be the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Asansol was holding a Mobile Court on the road side. There in nothing however either in the orders or whole of the records to show that the said learned Magistrate was the sub-divisional Magistrate on either of the two dates of the two trials.3. In Reference ...
Tag this Judgment!Sk. Md. Omar Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ443
Amaresh Roy, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of one of the several accused persons in a case which is pending in a Special Court at Alipore constituted under Act XXI of 1949, and prayer in the Rule is for quashing the charge for an alleged offence under Section 120-B/409, I. P. C. that has been framed against this petitioner Sk. Md. Omar by the learned Judge presiding in that Special Court by his order dated the 14th October, 1963. That charge of conspiracy under Section 120.B, I. P. C. is the common charge against all the accused in the case and charges for specific offences including offences under Sections 409, 409/ 109, 466/109, 474 and 477A, I. P. C. have been framed against some of the other accused persons by the same order, but petitioner Sk. Md. Omar has been charged only for the alleged conspiracy and no other offence.2. Of the several persons who had been produced before the Special Court for trial, one accused, Claude Carl Baker, during the pendency of the proceed...
Tag this Judgment!Balarani Kali Vs. Jagannath Kali and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Cal203,1967CriLJ462
ORDERAmaresh Roy, J. 1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the complainant and is directed against the order passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate discharging the accused under section 253(2), Cr. P. C. on a view of law regarding maintainability of the petition of complaint after cognizance had been taken and before any evidence was taken in the case. Short facts are that on 4th of July, 1963 the present petitioner filed a petition of complaint alleging an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite party to whom she had been married in 1942. Cognizance was taken by the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate after a report was obtained by a judicial enquiry by his order dated 19th of July, 1963. Accused appeared in court and was enlarged on bail and then the case was transferred to the court of the learned Presidency Magistrate Shri A. K. Roy. Before that learned Magistrate a preliminary point was taken on behalf of the accused by pleading...
Tag this Judgment!Textiles and Yarn (P) Ltd. Vs. Indian National Steamship Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Cal362
B.C. Mitra, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 2040/- as damages for loss of goods in course of transit from Madras to Calcutta. The plaintiff's case is that out of a lot of 25 bales which were shipped two bales were short-landed. According to the plaintiff, the goods were duly booked, bearing proper markings of the consignor and the consignee, but due to negligence of the defendant or its servants and agents the full quantity of 25 bales were not lauded. The plaintiff obtained delivery of 23 bales only. The plaintiff, therefore, claims the sum of Rs. 2040/- as damages.2. The case as made out in the plaint is that on or about February 20, 1957 Messrs. Keshavlal Talakchand of Madras shipped 25 bales of yarn by the defendant's steamship S. S. 'Shivaratna'. A bill of lading was issued by the defendant in respect of the shipment, and under the terms there-of the defendant was to carry the goods from the Port of Madras to the Port of Calcutta. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of th...
Tag this Judgment!Chaturbhuj Sohanlal Vs. Clive Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal145
Bachawat, J. 1. This is an appeal from an order refusing to set aside an award of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Upon the application of the respondents for arbitration oftheir disputes with the appellants, the Registrar of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry constituted an arbitral Court on or about the 9th April, 1947. 2. Rules V(2), VII and XIV of the Tribunalof Arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry are as follows: 'Rule' V(2): On receipt of such application, the Registrar shall constitute a Court for the adjudication of the dispute. Rule VII: If the Court have allowed the time or extended time to expire without making any award, and without having signified to the Registrar that they cannot agree, the Registrar shall constitute in manner aforesaid another Court which shall proceed with the Arbitration and shall be at liberty to act upon the record of the proceedings as then existing and on the evidence, if any, then taken in the arbitrati...
Tag this Judgment!Rungta Sons Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Cal495,68CWN847,[1964]54ITR447(Cal)
K.C. Sen, J.1. In this reference under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act 1922, the following question of law has arisen for opinion of this Court:-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the sum of Rs. 29000/- was rightly held to be the income of the assesses? 2. The Rungta Sons Limited [hereinafter described as the assessee) was the Managing Agent of several companies. The assessment year was 1952-53 and the corresponding accounting year ended on the 5th July 1951. The managed companies, viz., Oriental Industrial Engineering Company Limited, Orient Batteries Limited, Rungta Engineering and Construction Company Limited, Variety Engineering Works Limited, Bengal General Trading Company Limited and M. G. R. Iron and Steel Company Limited were liable to pay Managing Agency remuneration and commission to the assessee company during the accounting yearas aforesaid amounting to Rs. 29,000/- only. The accounting year of all the managed companies closed on the 5th July 1951...
Tag this Judgment!Vidyasagar Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Mt. Nazmunnessa Begum
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Cal335
Bose, C.J.1. This is an application for a certificate under Article 133(1) of the Constitution in respect of a decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated the 18th July, 1963 dismissing an appeal preferred against an order of the learned Company Judge directing rectification of the Share Register of the appellant company dated the 8th September, 1961.2. The petitioner Vidyasagar Cotton Mills Ltd. was incorporated in or about the year 1932 under the Indian Companies Act and it has its registered office at Sodepur in the District of 24 Parganas in West Bengal. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. 25,00,000/- divided into five thousand -- seven per cent Cumulative Preference Shares of Rs. 100/- each and two lakhs Ordinary Shares of Rs. 10/- each. The Subscribed capital of the Company is Rs. 8,18,570/-At all material times the Company has been managed by its Managing Agents -- United Commercial Agency Private Ltd. One Mohammad Bashir was the holder of 11,825 fully paid-up Ordi...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhat Mills Stores Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, CalcuttA ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1964
Reported in: [1966]59ITR197(Cal)
MITRA J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee is a firm of three partners under a deed of partnership dated August 20, 1947. Registration had been granted to the firm from 1948-49 till the assessment year 1955-56. For the assessment year 1956-57 the assessee filed an application for renewal of registration in time. There was no compliance, it appears from the statement of the case, with the notices issued under section 22(2) and section 22(4) of the Act. The assessment was made under the provisions of section 23(4). The Income-tax Officer said :'Assessed under section 23(4) on a total income as indicated above. For reasons recorded by the separate order under section 26A registration is refused to the firm. The firm is to be treated as unregistered firm and should pay tax directly.'Below that in a separate paragraph the Income-tax Officer has stated :'Order under section 26A -Application for renewal of registration has been filed in...
Tag this Judgment!Snow White Food Product Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sohanlal Bagla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Cal209
Bijayesh Mukherji, J. 1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,031.87 nP. only in the following circumstances: On April 20, 1960, or thereabouts, the plaintiff Snow White Food Product Company Limited (shortened hereafter, as far as possible, into 'Snow White') entrusted, in Cal-cutta, the third defendant Shree Hanuman Transport Company, a firm doing the business of 'a common carrier of goods for reward', with two consignments -- one containing 25 tins of S/c refined groundnut oil and the other containing 400 tins of S/c Balloon Brand Vegetable Pro-duct -- for carriage by road to self (Snow White) at Raiganj and Islampur respectively in the district of West Dinajpur. The Transport Company -- that is how I call the third defendant hereafter, as far as possible --'received and accepted' the two consignments 'for reward' with a view to reaching them to their destination and to Snow White too, as desired. The contracts of carriage are evidensed by two consignment notes: one bearing the numb...
Tag this Judgment!Gurdayal Berlia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, CalcuttA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1964
Reported in: [1966]62ITR494(Cal)
SEN, J. - In this reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the following question of law has been raised for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment of the assessee under section 34(1) (a) of the Indian Income-tax Act was in accordance with la ?'The assessee is Gurdayal Berlia, Calcutta. The assessment year is 1948-49 and the corresponding accounting year is 2004 Diwali. The assessee had been carrying on business in Calcutta from before 1943-44. For the assessment year 1948-49 an assessment was made on the 30th November, 1950, on an income of Rs. 30,000 (rupees thirty thousand), the turnover being estimated at Rs. 4,00,000 (rupees four lakhs). This was done after the assessee had appeared in response to a notice under section 23(2) and stated before the Income-tax Officer that he had been doing business on a moderate scale and kept no accounts for his business at all. On such a statement being made, the case was ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »