Kolkata Court August 1965 Judgments
Bholanath Ghosh Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Cal440
D.N. Das Gupta, J.1. This Revisional petition is directed against the order of a learned Additional District Magistrate of Hooghly dated 19th February, 1965, reversing the order of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate dated 2nd January, 1965, by which the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate accepted the cause shown by the surety in a matter under Section 514, Cr. P. Code. The Additional District Magistrate heard the appeal from the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate and directed that the full amount of the penalty, namely. Rs. 2,000 was to be realised from the surety.2. The matter was heard by Niyogi, J. sitting singly but he placed the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for making areference to a larger Bench on the ground that the decision on the point of a Judge of this Court sitting singly was in conflict with the decision of a Division Bench of the Madhya Bharat High Court reported in Vallabhadas v. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1955 NUC (MB) 2096. The matter has now com...
Tag this Judgment!Haripada Samanta Pramathanath Samanta, a Firm Vs. Bansidhar Premsukh D ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Cal255
R.N. Dutt, J. 1. The plaintiff and the defendant arc both firms. The defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of a godown at 45-A, Adya Sradh Ghat Road, Calcutta at Rs. 132-8-0 per month in accordance with the English calendar. The plaintiff required the disputed godown for its own use and occupation and accordingly the plaintiff determined the defendant's tenancy by service of notice to quit requiring the defendant to vacate the godown with the expiry of the last day of August, 1954. The defendant failed to vacate and hence the plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment. The defendant contested the suit. Its defence was that the notice was not legal or valid and that the plaintiff did not reasonably require the godown for its own use and occupation. Both the courts have concurrently found that the notice to quit was legal and valid and that the plaintiff reasonably required the godown for its own use and occupation. The suit was, therefore, decreed. Mr. Janah submits ...
Tag this Judgment!Howrah Trading Company (Private) Ltd. Vs. Fourth Industrial Tribunal a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ282Cal
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. Respondent 3, Doodhnath Pandey, used to serve as a durwan under the petitioner-company. On 3 May 1960, the petitioner-company charged respondent 3 with misconduct in the following language:On 27 April 1960 at 9-45 a.m. when you went to give your attendance to Sri Motilal Misra, you shouted at the top of your voice and wanted Sri Miara to take your attendance disregarding other members of the sub-staff, who were there to give attendance. On Sri Misra asking you to wait a little, you. became very rude and insolent, shouted at the top of your voice and used filthy language against Sri Misra.Your behaviour and motion in creating a scene is tantamount to activities subversive of discipline. You are therefore required to show cause within three days from date hereof why disciplinary action should not be taken against you.2. On 9 May 1960, respondent 3 showed cause denying the charge.3. In the meantime, respondent 3 is said to have committed further misconduct on 5 May 196...
Tag this Judgment!Jugometal Trg Republike Vs. Rungta and Sons (Private) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal382,70CWN375
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from an order for stay of a suit made on March 31st on the defendant's application. The order was subject to a condition that the defendant should pay into Court a sum of Rs. 3,20,000 being approximately half the amount claimed by the plaintiff within a month from the date of the order during which period the stay was to operate unconditionally. The order however was to expire after eight months from the date of its making and was to stand vacated if the above mentioned sum was not deposited in Court within the time limited.2. The appellant claims that in the circumstances of the case there should have been an unconditional order for stay. The facts of the case leading to the making of the application may be summarised as follows: The plaintiff No. 1 (herein referred to as the plaintiff) agreed to sell to the defendant 10,000 long tons of iron ore (magnatite) ten per cent more or less depend ing on charter party conditions at buyer's option The price was ...
Tag this Judgment!Netai Chandra and Surendra Nath Dey Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Cal65,1967CriLJ172
D.N. Das Gupta, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of a learned Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta convicting the petitioners under Section 7(1)/16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Petitioner No. 1 Messrs. Netai Chandra and Surendra Nath Dey alias Netai Charan Dey Surendra Nath Dev was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 Petitioners 2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. Two other persons, namely Netai Chandra Dey and Shyam Sundar Dey were also tried along with the petitioners but they were acquitted.2. The case for the prosecution is that on 22nd June 1981 Dr. A. B. Mazumdar, Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta, went to the petitioners' firm and expressed his intention to take samples of mustard oil. He took two samples after complying with all formalities and sent samples to the Public Analyst for analysis and report. On receipt of his report that the samples were adulterated the accused persons...
Tag this Judgment!Kalipada Sinha Vs. Mahalaxmi Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal585
Sinha, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure combined with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts are shortly as follows: There was a Bank in Calcutta called the Mahalaxmi Bank Ltd, which had its head office at 135 Canning Street, Calcutta. Sometime before November, 1948 the said Bank suspended its business and went into moratorium under the provisions of Section 277N of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, read with Section 153 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. On the 10th March, 1949 the Banking Companies Act, 1949, (Act X of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') came into force. Originally, the said Act did not contain any provisions as to the settlement of the list of debtors as is done in winding up proceedings. On or about the 30th December, 1953 the Banking Companies Amendment Act 1953 (Act LII of 1953) came into force and provisions as to settlement of the list of debtors were introduced in the said Act. Presently, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalpur Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal51,1966CriLJ135,70CWN1005
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a criminal appeal from the order of conviction passed by a Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta convicting the appellant as the Secretary of a company called Gopalpur Tea Co. Ltd. The learned Magistrate found Gopal pur Tea Co. Ltd. and S. Sarvadhyaksha, representative of the said company guilty under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and convicted the company and sentenced the company to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 which was the maximum under that Act before its amendment in 1964.2. The facts of this case may be stated briefly at the outset. The prosecution case is that on the 15th March 1960 Dr. H.S. Mandal, a Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta went to the godown of M/s. Jalpaiguri Air Travels at 4B, Mechuabazar Street, Calcutta and there he drew samples from two bags of tea sent by Gopalpur Tea Co. Ltd. and sent one of the samples of each to the Public Analyst for analysis. One of the samples was fo...
Tag this Judgment!Benoy Krishna Bose Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1965
Reported in: [1966]17STC35(Cal)
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. The point involved in this Rule is a short but interesting point. The petitioner carries on business as a small scale manufacturer of soap, under the trade name Messrs Hindusthan Chemical Corporation. In the said business, the petitioner says, he manufactures the following kinds of soap: (1) toilet soap, (2) washing soap, (3) tablet soap, (4) shaving soap, (5) medicated soap, (6) liquid soap, (7) soft soap, (8) soap chips or flakes and (9) powdered soap.2. Originally the petitioner was registered as a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. Before the passing of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, he was liable to pay sales tax on soaps manufactured by him under the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. After the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, came into operation, the State Government published the following notification:-No. 2346 F.T.-1st December, 1954.-Whereas the Governor is of opinion that it would be in the public interest t...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Bose, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. the State of West Beng ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1965
Reported in: [1966]18STC429(Cal)
D.N. Das Gupta, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, dated the 14th August, 1964, rejecting an application of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, for stay of production of documents specified in a summons under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dated 23rd July, 1963, before a Police Officer, in view of the provisions of Section 25(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.2. The material facts are as follows: On the 18th July, 1963, Bamdeb Das, Inspector of Police, Enforcement Branch, Calcutta, made an application before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate in the following terms : ToThe Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta.Re: Summons under Section 94 Cr. P.C. on the Commissioner ofSales Tax, 14, Beliaghata Road.Sir,Most respectfully I beg to submit that the files of the dealers mentioned in the annexure lying with the learned Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Rabindranath Mazumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Cal326,70CWN1141,(1968)IILLJ610Cal
Bose, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Banerjee dated the 23rd April, 1965, making the Rule absolute and quashing certain orders of termination of service of the respondent.2. In June, 1957, the respondent applied for the post of a Constable in the Department of Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. By a memorandum dated 28th August, 1957, issued by the Deputy Director, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, the respondent was asked to join in the temporary post of a Constable on a salary of Rs. 40 in the scale of Rs. 40-2-60 plus dear-ness allowance and other allowances and he was asked to report for duty at the Office of said Department at 9/1, Gariahat Road, Bally-gunge, Calcutta. On 7th September, 1957, the respondent received another memorandum issued by tbe said Deputy Director asking him to report for duty on or before 15th September, 1957, otherwise the memorandum dated 28th August, 1957, would be treated as cancelle...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »