Kolkata Court September 1964 Judgments
Shewlal Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal380
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J. 1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows : It relates to the affairs of the English Bazar Municipality situated within the District of Malda and particularly the last general election which took place on the 2nd February, 1964. Previously, there were 14 commissioners of the said municipality and the wards into which it was divided were not single-member wards. On or about 24th April, 1962 the West Bengal Government informed the municipalities situated in the State that there should be universal adult franchise, to effectuate which it was desirable to have one commissioner for one ward. In other words, there should be single-member constituencies elected by universal adult franchise. Under Section 6(1)(i) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') the State Government may by notification alter the number of commissioners of a municipality in consideration inter alia of the increase or decrease in the population, income, numb...
Tag this Judgment!Metro General Traders Vs. the Commissioner, the Corporation of Calcutt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal442,69CWN660
N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This is the plaintiffs appeal, directed against the dismissal of its suit by the Court below on a technical ground. The suit was brought for permanent injunction to restrain demolition of premises No. 212, Jamunalal Bazaz Street (Old Cross Street) under an order of demolition, alleged to have been passed on September 17, 1958, by Sri P. C. Majumdar, the then Commissioner of the Corporation of Calcutta, under Rule 5(4), Schedule XVII, of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. The plaintiff claims to be a tenant in occupation of a portion of the above premises No. 212, Jamunalal Bazaz Street (old Cross Street). 2. In the plaint, the allegation is made that the above order is ultra vires and without jurisdiction, it having been made in contravention of the relevant statute. The suit was filed on January 16, 1961 and, to the suit, were made parties the Commissioner or the Corporation of Calcutta as defendant No. 1, the Corporation of Calcutta as defendant No. 2, these being ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath Sinha Roy Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal539
ORDERD. Basu, J. 1. These are three petitions under Article 226 between the same parties, involving common points, which have been heard together. 2. The Petitioner's case is that he and his uncle Ganesh (Respondent No. 5) owned lands in East Pakistan, which were exchanged with the properties of one Jahiruddin, situated in Jalpaiguri in West Bengal, in May, 1950 and the parties took possession of the respective lands since then including the disputed lands which were acquired by the Petitioner by that exchange. The deed of exchange, however, was executed by Jahiruddin in favour of Ganesh alone and Jahiruddin also executed an ammuktarnama in favour of Ganesh, about the same time. In March, 1952, Ganesh executed a deed in favour of the Petitioner declaring that whatever interest Ganesh had acquired in the disputed lands would vest in the Petitioner. 3. The Petitioner states that by reason of the fact that the deed of exchange stood in the name of Ganesh alone, the Revenue Officer recorde...
Tag this Judgment!Purna Chandra Bandopadhaya and anr. Vs. Gouri Pada Mukhopadhaya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Cal512,69CWN339
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This appeal is by defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and it arises out of ft reversioner's suit for recovery of possession of properties, said to have been alienated by the limited owner2. The suit has been decreed by the learned Trial Judge and two of the defendants, Nos. 3 and 4. have now come up on appeal to this Court.3. In the suit, there were 28 defendants and 7 properties, comprised in 5 items of the schedule to the plaint, item No. 1 and item No. 5 having two sub-items each. In the course of the proceedings in the trial court, defendants Nos 5-7 and 18-26 were struck out front the suit and defendants Nos. 9-16 and 28 compromised their disputes with the plaintiff with the result that the suit was ultimately decreed on contest against the present appellants (defendants Nos. 3 and 4) and ex parte against defendants Nos 1, 2, 8 17 and 27 and on compromise against the aforesaid defendants Nos. 9-16 and 28, Defendants Nos. 3 and 4, the present appellants, were interested o...
Tag this Judgment!Aswini Kumar Rath and ors. Vs. Director of Public Instruction and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-28-1964
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ277Cal
D. Basu, J.1. This application under Article 226 arises out of an alleged discrimination between ordinary graduates, on the one hand, and honours graduates and post-graduates, on the other, The 45 petitioners are ordinary graduates.2. In June 1954, or thereabout, the Director of Public Instruction (respondent 1) invited applications for the posts of sub-inspectors of schools in the pay-scale of Rs. 100-5-215-10-225, from persons possessing a Bachelor's degree in the minimum, with a degree or diploma in teaching. The petitioners' case is that in pursuance with this advertisement (annaxure A to the petition), candidates having pass as well as honours B.A. and B.Sc. degress and M. As. and M. Scs. applied and were appointed to these posts in the same pay-scale as announced, without making any distinction between ordinary graduates and those possessing higher academic distinctions, and they were all placed in the same rank having the same duties, which are catalogued in Para 3 of the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!imperial Chemical Industries (India) Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-28-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR649(Cal)
MASUD J. - This reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, arises under the following circumstance :The assessee is a Private Ltd. Co. incorporated in India and is a 100% subsidiary of Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd., London, which holds the entire share capital of the assessee. The assessment years are 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 and the corresponding accounting years ended on 30th September, 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951 respectively. The assessee, among other things, acts as selling agents for a large variety of goods. Another complete subsidiary of Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd., London, aforesaid is the Imperial Chemical Industries (Exports) Ltd., Glasgow, which is hereinafter described as 'I. C. I. (Exports) Ltd.' This last company had four agents in India, (1) M/s. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., Calcutta, (2) Best & Co. Ltd., Madras, (3) Anglo-Thai Co. Ltd., Bombay, and (4) Shaw Wallace & Co. for their Products. As a result of confabulations in 1974, whic...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Pratap Ramachandra Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal203
ORDERD. Basu, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the assessment order at Ann, C to the Petition (page 17) by which the Commercial Tax Officer--Respondent No. I--has directed the Petitioner to pay a sales tax amounting to Rs. 19,171,65 nP., with a penalty of Rs. 500/-, in respect of the period from 29-3-58 to 16-4-59.2. The petitioner firm's contention, in the main, is that the sales in question were exempted under items (26) and (28) of Rule 3 of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 framed under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The other grounds urged in support of the petition will be stated in course of the judgment.3. I. The first head on which exemption is claimed relates to Rule 3(26), which is as follows:'In calculating his taxable turnover a registered dealer may deduct from his gross turnover his turnover an the following, namely--(26) Sales of handloom-woven cotton cloth.'4. It has been right...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal Vs. Bhutnath Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal620
Mukharji, J. 1. The two Rules issued at the instance of the State of West Bengal are directed against an order of the Judge at Asansol whereby in deciding the question as to which of the two notices issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 would govern the determination of market value of the acquired lands under S. 23(1) of the Act, he came to the finding that the date of the later notification would be the date with reference to which the market value should be assessed in the two cases concerned. 2. L. A. Reference Cases 121 of 1961 and 221 of 1961 were started on the prayer of the claimant--O.P. in the court of the Judge at Burdwan. The claimant moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and obtained an order directing the judge to investigate the question as to which of the two notifications under Section 4(1) of the said Act would prevail for the purpose of determination of the market price of the acquired lands in the cases concerned...
Tag this Judgment!Amullya Charan Adhikary Vs. Annada Charan Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal304,69CWN131
ORDERC.N. Laik, J. 1. The essential question which arose for consideration in this Reference by the Registrar of this Court in its Appellate Side, was that of his competency to cancel his own order recording a note of abatement The particular questions which arose were: (1) the true meaning, scope and effect of the abatement order in the connected Rule in the face of the order of substitution made in the main appeal, (2) whether, when the application for substitution in the appeal, on the death of the sole respondent, was pending before the Registrar (which was granted by him later), he was justified in passing the order abating the connected Rule on the ground that the petitioner had not taken steps for substitution in the Rule, in time, on the death of the sole opposite party (very same person), (3) whether the Registrar is competent as stated above, to cancel his own order recording abatement, and (4) whether the reference is maintainable.2. A part of the necessary history with the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bengal Luxmi Cotton Mills Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-22-1964
Reported in: [1965]35CompCas187(Cal),69CWN137
B.C. Mitra, J.1. This is an application for various ad interim reliefs in a company petition under Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956. The material facts relating to this application are set out hereunder.2. In 1906, a company known as Bengal Luxmi Cotton Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) was incorporated, with the object of purchasing a cotton spinning and weaving mill in Bengal or elsewhere and to buy cotton, silk, jute, etc., for carrying on the business of spinning yarn. In 1922, the applicant No. I came in contact with one Sachidananda Bhattacharjee. These two persons started various business and industrial concerns. In 1927, the company was in financial distress and became indebted to the Imperial Bank of India in the sum of Rs. 21,00,000. It was at that time that the applicant No. 1 is alleged to have come to the rescue of the company by taking over the managing agency. In 1930, the applicant No. 1 and Bhattacharjee by their combined effo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »