Kolkata Court April 1965 Judgments
Seikh Md. Omer Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal237
ORDERR.N. Banerjee, J. 1. This is all over a horse. But I do not wonder horses have a record of being friends and helpers of men running back to century of centuries. Men rode before they wrote; they were horsemen before they were historians. Horses pranced and charged in Egyptian art. The Assyrians pained and carved equine portraits even before the Egyptians did and the acquaintance of the former with horses appears to have been derived from Aryan-Persians, a nation of horsemen2. The dog, the cattle and the sheep were tamed and treasured by men of ancient times. But horses, when tamed, lifted men to a new plane of life. They gave men many times their own speed, many more times their own strength for work and added enormously to the distances they dared to venture. The animal has been a partner to man in his battles and daily toils for existence and won for him laurels in wars and sports. Man began to value the animal as dear to his heart and worthy of his love and affection. An Arab p...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prosad Sarawagi and ors. Vs. Registrar of Firms and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal573,69CWN929
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of Banerjee, J. dismissing the appellant's application under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Registrar of Firms and one Manickchand Sarawagi.2. The dispute relates to a firm of partnership by the name Ramballabh Rameswar. On receiving a notice from respondent Manickchand Sarawagi dated 30th August, 1961 under Section 63(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, the Registrar of Firms ex parte without giving any notice to the appellants and who are She other contending partners, dissolved the firm by entering the word dissolved' in the Register. The alleged notice of dissolution signed by the respondent Manickchand on which this extraordinary step was taken by the Registrar of Firms is in these following terms;'To The Registrar of Firms. West Bengal. Calcutta. Notice is hereby given pursuant to Sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932, that the firm Ramballabh Rameswar, 19, Nurmal Lohia Lane, Calcutta was d...
Tag this Judgment!Jhagru Shaw and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1965
Reported in: [1966]17STC130(Cal)
B.N. Banerjee, J.1.The petitioner is a business man and carried on business under the name and style of 'Jhagru Shaw and Dukhraj Shaw'. He is a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. For the four quarters of the year 1366 B.S. the petitioner filed a return but failed to produce his books and papers in support of the return when called upon to do so. I am not concerned with the excuse put forward by the petitioner for his failure to produce his books of account. That excuse may be true or untrue. I do not decide. In these circumstances, the respondent-Commercial Tax Officer made a summary assessment upon the petitioner and estimated the gross turnover at Rs. 1,80,000 and the taxable turnover at Rs. 1,20,000 and assessed upon the petitioner sales tax amounting to Rs. 6,000. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 100 on the petitioner.2. Aggrieved by the assessment order the petitioner moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certio...
Tag this Judgment!Ramgopal Khemka and Others Vs. Union of India (Represented by Commissi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR659(Cal)
CHATTERJEE J. - This is a petition under article 227 of the Constitution Ram Gopal Khemka and others against the Union of India represented by the Commissioner of Income-tax.It is stated in the petition that Messrs. Industrial Financing Corporation was a partnership firm which carried on business during the years 1941-1953 at 37 Royd Street. It is further stated that during the assessment year 1949-1950, 15 persons were the partners of the firm and their names are in paragraph 2 of the petition to this court. The partnership is sated to have been constituted under a deed of partnership dated the 25th January, 1947. The firm was an unregistered firm in the sense that it was not registered in a accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The assessment of the firm for then assessment year 1949-50 was made on the 22nd August, 1953, and on the basis of that assessment, a demand notice under section 29 was issued against the said firm. But it is stated that no demand notice was ev...
Tag this Judgment!Bijan Behari Goswami Vs. University of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Cal50
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J.1. The University of Calcutta annually holds an examination for the degree of Master of Articles The petitioner completed the course of studies in Sanskrit, deposited the prescribed fees for the Master of Arts examination and there was an Admit Card issued in his favour by the respondent University, enabling him to sit for the examination in the Year 1963. 2. One of the rules for the conduct of the examination is : 'Candidates are forbidden to carry into the Examination Hall, or have in their possession while under examination, any books, notes papers, writings, scribblings or other materials except their admit card, university registration receipts and any other writing requisities or drawing implements. Any article carriedinto the Examination Hall or found in the possession of a candidate in contravention of this rule shall be liable to be seized by the Officer-in-charge and the candidate shall be expelled.' 3. The examination began on November 27, 1963. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!East India Commercial Co. Private Ltd. Vs. Raymon Engineering Works Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal232
Sinha, J. 1. This is an application in an appeal against an order made by S.P. Mitra. J., dated 2nd February, 1965. The facts are briefly as follows: Raymon Engineering Works Ltd., the respondent company (hereinafter referred to as the 'company') is a private limited company incorporated in 1954 under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 with an authorised capital of Rupees 1,00,00,000/- divided into 8,00,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 10/- each and 20,000 redeemable preference shares of Rs. 100/- each. The appellant is a share-holder of the respondent company in respect of 125 equity shares By a resolution adopted at the company's annual general meeting held on 23rd September 1968 the capital was increased to Rs. 3,00,00,000/-. One of the reasons for this increase, as stated in the Explanatory Statement was that the company had undertaken a new project for the manufacture of spiral welded pipes in collaboration with an American/German group for which a manufacturing licence had been obtained an...
Tag this Judgment!Sunderdas Thakersey and Bros. Vs. P.K. Mukherji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal468,[1965(11)FLR167]
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This matter comes up before us under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants held the respondent P.K. Mukherji, a member of the Institute, guilty of misconduct under Clauses 7 and 10 of Part I of the Second Schedule of the Act. Clauses 7 and 10, Part I of the Second Schedule of the Act read as follows:--'Professional misconduct in relation to Chartered Accountants in practice requiring action by a High Court. A Chartered Accountant in practice shall be deemed to be guilty of professional misconduct, if he- 7. is grossly negligent in the conduct of his professional duties; 10. fails to keep moneys of his client in a separate banking account or to use such moneys for purposes for which they are intended.' 2. According to the procedure the Disciplinary Committee investigated the complaint in this case. The complainants did not chose to appear before the Disciplinary Committee and sent a letter dated 2...
Tag this Judgment!Girija Singh Vs. Director-general, Calcutta State Transport Corporatio ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ542Cal
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. While transportation was a West Bengal Government concern, the petitioner was appointed as a driver, by the Director of Administration, in the Directorate of Transportation, in November 1952 on a monthly salary of Rs. 90 plus usual dearness and house-rent allowances. The appointment was subject to the following conditions:(a) He shall be on probation for six months and unless he is appointed substantively on the expiry of his probationary period, his service will terminate without any further notice.(b) The post is purely temporary and is terminable at any time without any notice.In March 1953, the said Director of Administration promoted the petitioner to the position of a driver-mechanic with effect from March 1953, by office order No. 1918 (3), dated 26 March 1953, and attached him to the Lake Depot of the directorate. While working as such, the petitioner was suspended from office on 3 May 1958, by respondent 2, officer-in-charge, Lake Depot, and was put on a su...
Tag this Judgment!Setabi Dei Vs. Ramdhani Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal60
ORDERP.C. Mallick, J. 1. A very interesting point of law has been canvassed in this case. The point is whether the Court has the power to add a party against whom the suit was dismissed by a previous order under Order IX Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The point is not covered by any authority and is a point of first impression. Able arguments have been advanced from the Bar and I am grateful to the learned counsel who participated in the debate. 2. The facts leading to this application may now be stated. This is a suit for partition of a Mitakshara coparcenary. All the members have been impleaded as parties. The suit was Instituted on February 9, 1955, and though a decade is past, the suit has not made progress. One Chotelal, who was a minor at the date of the institution of the suit, on attainment of majority made an application on September 8, 1959, inter alia, for an order that the suit bedismissed under Order IX Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On November 25, 1959 A....
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prosad RamnaraIn Vs. Bejoy Kumar Sadhukhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal488,69CWN921
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This Rule, which was obtained inter alia under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, raises some questions of importance. The points, are more or less pf first impression and require careful consideration, depending, inter alia, as they do, on the construction of the relevant statutes.2. The Rule was obtained under the following circumstances: The petitioner was the defendant in Commercial Suit No. 304 of 1961 of the ThirdBench of the local City Civil Court, broughtby the plaintiff opposite party for recovery ofRs. 2,678-03 np. as price of goods sold andinterest. That suit was decreed by the learnedtrial Judge on December 23, 1963. The decree;however, was actually signed on January 17,1964. An application for copies of the judgmentand the decree appears to have been made oilJanuary 21, 1964, and the copies were madeready and taken delivery of on February 22,1964. On the next day, which was a Sunday,the petitioner saw the learned Advocate,Sri Asoke Kumar Sengupta, with ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »