Kolkata Court December 1964 Judgments
Parry's (Calcutta) Employee's Union Vs. Parry and Co. Ltd. and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Cal31,(1966)ILLJ535Cal
Bose, C.J.1. This is an appeal torn an Order of B'anerjee, J. dated the 13th November 1963 quashing an award of an Industrial Tribunal and remanding the matter for rehearing by the Tribunal in accordance with the directions given in the Order. 2. The respondent Parry and Co. Ltd. carries OH business all over India as Merchants, Importers, Selling Agents and manufacturers having its Head Office in Madras. In Calcutta the principal business of the respondent Company consisted ol: various agencies for sale of products of diverse well-known companies. The respondent Company also carried on manufacturing activities on a small scale at a small Engineering Workshop at Kidderpore. In 1954 the respondent Company is alleged to have suffered losses due to decline in business and, effected retrenchment of some staff with the permission of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. 3. The case of the respondent Company is that the business was affected as a result of import restrictions and other factors. In 1...
Tag this Judgment!Kinkar Ray Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal635,1965CriLJ741
D.N. Das Gupta, J. 1. This Revisional petition is directed against the order of a learned Magistrate of the First Class, Vishnupur, convicting the petitioner under Section 120(b) of the Indian Railways Act. 2. The case for the prosecution is that on the 12th July, 1961, at about 7 O'clock in the morning Birendra Nath Singh, Assistant Station Master of Sonamukhi Railway Station, went to the quarters of Amal Kumar Roy, Sub-Inspector of Way and Works, that the accused petitioner Kinkor Roy and another person Pativam Jadav who are railway servants abused Birendra Nath Singh uttering the abusive word 'Sala', and that the accused threatened to assault Birendra. Birendra gave information to the police. A prosecution report was submitted by the police against the accused persons under Section 120(b) of the Indian Railways Act. The learned Magistrate acquitted Patiram Jadav but convicted the present petitioner under Section 120(b) and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25 in default to suffer s...
Tag this Judgment!Rupchand Mahato Vs. Charubala Mahatani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Cal83,1966CriLJ143,70CWN53
ORDERD.N. Das Gupta, J.1. This revisional petition is directed against the order of a learned Magistrate granting a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 50 to the opposite party, Charubala Mahatani, under Section 488 Cr. P.C.2. It is not disputed that the parties are married and they lived together for some years. Thereafter the husband married a second wife and sometime thereafter a third wife. The opposite party then refused to live with the petitioner and went to live separately elsewhere. In the instant case she made allegations of torture against the petitioner which were not believed by the learned Magistrate. He seems to infer neglect from the fact of the petitioner marrying a third wife. The learned Magistrate observed:'This third marriage is an overt act which can be said to have changed the whole context materially. 1st party's surroundings in the O. P. sghar is no longer the same before. Even if there Is no direct evidence of her torture and persecution at the hands of her h...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Khaleque Vs. Medaswar Hossain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Cal56
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. The main and significant question of law raised by this second appeal is whether the intermediary's right to compensation under the West Bengal Instates Acquisition Act can be sold under a Mortgage decree at the instance of the mortgagee with whom the intermediary mortgaged the three items of properties in suit. The sale proclamation in this case under the mortgage decree relates to three items--Hems Nos. 1. 2 and 3 valued respectively at Rs. 450. Rs. 325 and Rs. 225 amounting altogether to a sum of Rs 1000.2. The facts giving rise to this question of law may be briefly stated al the outset. The mortgage in this case is dated 17th August 1934. The mortgagor failed to pay the debt and a suit was brought by the mortgagee upon that mortgage. A preliminary mortgage decree was passed on the 20th March 1950. It was followed by the final decree for sale on the 13th March 1952. The execution of the mortgage decree started on the 31st July, 1953, and the dues to the morgage...
Tag this Judgment!Best and Co. Vs. Additional Collector of Customs and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal478,1965CriLJ465
B.C. Mitra, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of Banerjee, J., dated September 2, 1963, discharging a rule under Article 226 of the Constitution, obtained by the appellant for the issue of appropriate writs and orders, to rescind, recall and/or withdraw the order dated March 17, 1962, made by the respondent No. 1, imposing on the appellant a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/- and directing confiscation of certain machinery and also imposing a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- in lieu of such confiscation.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of various trunk and suit case fittings. With a view to manufacture bifurcated rivets the appellant arranged for import of certain machinery from West Germany through Messrs. Stahlunion Co. Ltd., the Calcutta branch of a company carrying on business in London. This company is the agent of the manufacturers of the machinery in West Germany. For the purposes of importing the said machinery, the appellant applied for, and obtained a licence dated...
Tag this Judgment!Bijoy Ballav Kundu and anr. Vs. Tapeti Ranjan Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal628,69CWN309
Sinha, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of Datta J. dated the 13th December 1963. The facts arc shortly as follows: One Dhanonjoy Kundu was the absolute owner of premises No. 59, Simla Street, Calcutta. He installed a deity in the said premises called Sri Sri Sitalamata. On the 9th July, 1950 he executed a deed of settlement whereby he conveyed and assigned the said premises and a sum of Rs. 500 to trustees, upon certain terms. At the relevant time, the two appellants and the respondent had been acting as trustees. In the deed of settlement, there were various clauses, including Clause 12 which runs as follows: '12. After the death of the first Trustee Dhanonjoy Kundu, if any dispute or difference arise between the subsequent Trustees who would act under these present concerning the management or administration of the trust hereby created according to the tenor of these present or relating to or affecting the sheba of the Deity in the manner hereby directed then in such case su...
Tag this Judgment!Rungta Sons (Private) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1964
Reported in: [1966]62ITR468(Cal)
MUSUD, J. - In this reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act 1922, the following two questions of law have been referred to us :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, office allowance receivable by the company from the managed companies was income of the company for the year 1954-55 even though it was surrendered by a resolution passed before the end of the accounting perio ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, managing agency commission and office allowance received by the assessee-company from M. G. R. Iron & Steel Works Ltd. was income of the assessee-company for the assessment year 1954-55 even though it was surrendered by the assessee-company, just because the resolution surrendering the commission and the allowance was passed after the end of the accounting perio ?'These questions have arisen under the following circumstances :The assessee is a private limited company managing other companies as managing agents and als...
Tag this Judgment!Shellac Industries Ltd. Vs. their Workmen (represented by Shellac Indu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Cal371
Datta, J. 1. This is a Rule directed against the award of the 7th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal arising out of a dispute between the workers of the petitioner company represented by its Union, the Shellac Industries Workers' Union and the said company M/s Shellac Industries Ltd. 2. There was a dispute between the workers and the company which was settled through the intervention of the Labour Department. Government of West Bengal. The terms of settlement are recorded in a memorandum dated the 14th October 1958. The terms of settlement did not work out satisfactorily. On the 21st March, 1939 the company closed dowry its factory by declaring a lock-out. 3. On the 16th April, 1959, the Government of West Bengal, by its Labour Department Order No. 1479/1R-1R/11L-405/58 dated the 16th April, 1959, referred the following issue as a dispute for adjudication to the First Labour Court. Government of West Bengal: 'What relief, if any, the workmen are entitled to for the lock-out period from 2...
Tag this Judgment!Shellac Industries, Ltd. Vs. their workmen (by Shellac Industries Work ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1964
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ492Cal
S. Datta, J.1. This is a rule directed against the award of the seventh industrial tribunal, West Bengal, arising out of a dispute between the workers of the petitioner-company represented by its union, the Shellac Industries Workers' Union and the said company, Shellac Industries Ltd.2. There was a dispute between the workers and the company which was settled through the Intervention of the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal. The terms of settlement are recorded in a memorandum dated 14 October 1958. The terms of settlement did not work oat satisfactorily. On 21 March 1959, the company closed down its factory by declaring a lookout.3. On 16 April 1959, the Government of West Bengal, by its Labour Department Order No. 1479/IR/IR/II-405/58, dated 16 April 1959, referred the following issue as a dispute for adjudication to the first labour court, Government of West Bengal:What relief, if any, the workman are entitled to for the lockout period from 21 March 1959 4. Thereafter, t...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Railway Employees' Congress Vs. General Manager, Eastern Railw ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal389,(1966)IILLJ849Cal
1. The Petitioner before me, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is a Trade Union of Railway employees, registered as the Eastern Railway Employees Congress, which claims a membership of over 34,000 consisting of Class III and IV (i.e., non-gazetted) staff of the Eastern Railway. On the representation of the Petitioner, the Government of India offered their recognition to this Trade Union, by their letter of February 2, 1962, subject to certain terms and conditions (Ann. A to the petition), and, on the acceptance by the Petitioner of those terms and conditions, such recognition was conferred by the Government letter of February 7, 1982 (Ann. D). One of these terms and conditions was that the Petitioner would revise its constitution to bring it in conformity with the terms of Part C of App. XIII (hereafter referred to as 'the Appendix') of the Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') which lays down the 'conditions precedent to the recognition of a U...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »