Kolkata Court April 1966 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.
Krishna Chandra Banerjee Vs. Sm. Chanchala Datto
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Cal625
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This rule was obtained by the defendant petitioner Krishna Chandra Banerjee tinder Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was directed against an order of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court dismissing the defendant's application for stay of the suit under Section 6(2) of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925. The important point of law raised on this Rule is the interpretation and scope of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act.2. The controversy arose out of an ejectment suit filed in 1961 by the plaintiff-oppositeparty against the defendant-petitioner for his ejectment from premises No. 109 Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta. These were the only two parties to the suit, namely, the plaintiff-opposite party and the defendant-petitioner before us. The rent payable was only Rs. 65 per month. A notice of ejectment was given on the 19th June 1961. The grounds of ejectment were requirement of the plaintiff...
Arbn Hindusthan Steel Vs. Appejay Pr. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal291
ORDERS. Datta, J. 1. This is an application for re-moval of the arbitrators, revoking the authority of the arbitrators and for declaration that the arbitration agreement dated April 8, 1960 has ceased to have any effect with respect to the differences referred to the said arbitrators, and for other reliefs. 2. This application, in my opinion, can be disposed on one point of law on the basis of a few undisputed facts without going into the elaborate arguments advanced before me. 3. The respondent and Union of India entered into an agreement on the 8th day of April, 1960 for the sale and purchase of steel ingots for export. This agreement included an arbitration clause, the material words of which are as follows :-- 'Should any dispute or disagreement arise in relation to the matter of payment, allowance or loss, or the interpretation of any one or more of the clauses of this contract (except as to any matter the decision of which is specially provided for by these conditions) which disp...
Badridas Kothari Vs. Meghraj Kothari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal25
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order passed by the Full Bench of two learned Judges of the Presidency Court of Small Cause Courts, Calcutta under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. The Bench dismissed the application under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge of that Court dismissing the plaintiffs suit.2. The facts giving rise to the points of law may be set out briefly. The plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 844.76 paise alleged to be due by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's pleading was that on the 5th January, 1956 he lent and advanced a sum of Rs. 775 for business purpose and the defendant acknowledged the sum in writing agreeing to pay interest at -/4/- annas per cent per month. The plaintiff based his claim on a promissory note or handnote dated 5th January, 1956. The defence was that th...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sailendra Nath Chakraborty Thakur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Cal603
ORDERP. Chatterjee, J.1. This is a petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order of the Munsif, 1st Court, Howrah. The Union of India, the General Manager, Eastern Railway and the Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are the petitioners in this Court.2. The plaintiff is a Telegraph Signaller of the Eastern Railway on the Howrah Division. On the 30th December, 1964, the plaintiff was posted at Belur and was transferred and posted at Sahibgunj. The plaintiff did not attend to his duties at Belur. He reported sick and submitted a medical certificate dated 1-1-65. The plaintiff was then asked to resume his duties at Sahibgunj. He was examined by the Divisional Medical Officer and he was not certified unfit for duty and was found fit. The plaintiff however did not resume his duties at Sahibjung; but on the 18th January, 1965 he caused a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be served and thereafter filed the afor...
Rahman Sheikh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal516,1967CriLJ1292
ORDERA.K. Das, J. 1. This application in revision is directed against an order convicting the petitioners for an offence under Section 6(a) of the Indian Passport Rules. 2. What happened is as follows: The petitioners crossed into the Indian territory on January 12, 1964, from East Pakistan and they were arrested 'by the police asthey had no valid passport. Upon this allegation they were placed for trial before a learned Magistrate. They were eventual found guilty and convicted under Section 3(3) of the Indian Passport Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each. 3. There was an appeal from the order of the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Murshidabad up-held the conviction but under Rule 6(a) of the Indian Passport Rules, he reduced the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine to three months only. 4. The petitioners when examined under Section 242 Cr. P.C pleaded not guilt...
Daulatram Rawatmull Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal547,[1967]64ITR593(Cal)
A.C. Sen, J. 1. This is a Reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Four questions have been referred to us; we are, however, required to answer only the first and the fourth question as the other two questions have not been pressed at the hearing. The fourth question need not be answered in full, because the assessibility of the cash credits has not been questioned before us We, therefore, propose to answer the first question and a part of the fourth question in so far as the fourth question relates to the accessibility of the fixed deposits. The first question rung thus: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was justified in proceeding to reopen the assessment under Section 84(1)(a) after Section 34(lA) had been introduced in the Indian Income-tax Act.' 2. The fourth question is to the following effect: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the cash credits and fixed deposits in question were a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›