Kolkata Court November 1965 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.
Nepal Chandra Guchait Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal485,[1966(12)FLR88],(1966)IILLJ71Cal
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J.1. By an order made by the respondent Block Development Officer and communicated to the petitioner of February 1, 1955, the petitioner was appointed a Driver in Burwan National Extension Service Block. The appointment was temporary and terminable without notice. On January 6, 1957, the petitioner, it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition, was transferred to Kandi Block. Thereafter, the petitioner was ordered to be transferred to Bharatpur Block I, with effect from June 1, 1961, by an order, made by the Sub-divisional Officer of Kandi. The petitioner did not comply with the order. He applied for leave and also made a representation against the order of transfer, emphasising upon his personal difficulties. Before leave was granted, it is alleged, the petitioner went away. Because of the limited nature of the arguments made in this Rule, on behalf of the petitioner. I need not concern myself with the narration of the events following thereafter until the stage whe...
Brojo Gopal Kar Bhowmick Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ532Cal
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. It appears from the service roll of the petitioner (copy annexed to. the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by Dhirendra Nath Mullick on 27 January 1965) that he was first appointed, on 3 October 1934, as a .temporary constable, by the Superintendent of Police, at Tipperah. Later on, he was confirmed in the rank of assistant sub-inspector, on 7 September 1941, by the then Superintendent of Police, Tipperah-Comille. After the partition of Bengal in 1947, the petitioner was absorbed in the Calcutta Police and, with effect from 1 August 1945, was promoted to officiate as a sub-inspector of police. This appears from annexure A to the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner passed a departmental examination and his name was included in list II of officiating sub-inspectors. In his career in the Calcutta Police, prior to 1956, the petitioner had his ups and downs; be earned certain rewards and commendations and also suffered certain humiliations for neglect of duty.2. In the y...
Burdwan Bus Service Vs. Regional Transport Authority Burdwan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal568
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J.1. This Rule was obtained againstgrant of a temporary stage carriage permit in Favour of respondent No. 2, valid upto August 31, 1965. With the passage of time, validity of the permit has expired and this Rule has become infructuous. Still then I need make certain observation so that the law on the point, agitated before me, may be clarified.2. The petitioner firm and three others have permanent stage carriage permits to ply buses in the route Burdwan to Monteswar via Memari. The respondent No. 2, Choudhury Samanta Transport Company, has permit to ply a bus on Burdwan-Memari-Satgachia and Madhyamgram route, part of the latter route coinciding with the route on which the petitioner firm and others run their buses. According to the petitioner, the need for communication between Burdwan and Memari and Memari and Madhyamgram is well provided for partly by bus & partly by electric train service. Even, then the petitioner complains, the respondent No. 2 was permitted to...
Hind Associated Corporation Private Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal197,[1966]17STC414(Cal)
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J. 1. The petitioner company moved this application against an order of assessmentof sales tax as also against a notice calling upon it to show cause why there should not be a penalty imposed upon it under Section 11 (4B) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. 2. The Rule was issued on three limited grounds, namely, grounds Nos. I, II and VII. The petitioner has, pending this Rule, got some relief against the order of assessment of tax from the departmental authorities. Mr. Arun Kumar Dutta, learned Advocate for the petitioner, did not, therefore, press grounds Nos. I and VII. He, however, urged ground No. II, which is couched in the following language: 'For that the delegation provided for under Rule 71 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Rules cannot include and cover the power founded on Section 11(4B) of the Act inserted by the West Bengal Act XIV of 1961 inasmuch as the existing delegation referred to a notification made on 4th February, 1946 when Section 1...
Lily Biscuit Company (Private), Ltd. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1965
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ644Cal
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. Under an award made by an industrial tribunal, as ultimately affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal, certain workmen of the petitioner-company became entitled to certain monetary reliefs. To cut the narrative short, on 30 October 1959, the State Government took steps, under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for recovery of money due to the workmen and issued certificate to the Collector asking for recovery of the money, under Public Demands Recovery Act in the same manner as if the money due was arrear of land revenue. In the certificate the name of the certificate-holder was written as the State of West Bengal and a sum of Rs. 17,444 was shown as the amount of the demand payable by the certificate-debtor. The petitioner-company objected to the certificate on various grounds, with which I am not concerned in this rule. The certificate officer rejected the objection by his order dated 17 February 1961. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›