Kolkata Court May 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.
Mohima Ranjan Roy and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal42,1967CriLJ45
Sen, J.1. This Rule is directed against the order of Sri M.S. Banerjee, Magistrate, First Class, Burdwan dated 19-1-66 whereby he directed that the trial which was being proceeded against the accused petitioners should be switched on to an enquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The facts are that the opposite party complainant filed a petition before Sri S. Sarkar, First Class Magistrate, Burdwan against the accused petitioners alleging that they had committed offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 379, 504 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged inter alia that the accused persons along with a number of men formed into an unlawful assembly and entered the house of the complainant being armed with deadly weapons and one of them tied his hands and feet with a gamcha and the petitioners carried away some paddy from the house of the complainant. Tbis petition of complainant was sent by the learned Magistrate to the Officer-in-Charge of Bhatar Police Stati...
Jnanendra Nath Bose and ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar Sapui
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal317
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It raises an interesting question of Court Fee on the Court Fees (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1963 (West Bengal Act XVIII of 1963). 2. This Rule was obtained by the petitioner on the 13th December, 1965 against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge passed in the suit on determination of the preliminary issue being issue No. 3 on Court-fees Act. The petitioners who were the plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants on the ground of revocation of a license. The license relates to a tank fishery locally known as 'Nalbon Fishery', situated at Kantatolla Chandi Bose's Abad under police Station Bhangore, within the district of 24-Parganas including an area of about 191 acres. A licence was granted to the father of the defendants in the month of Magh 1356 B.S. for pisci-culture or other rights to grow and culture fish in the water of the said tank fishery. The licence to begin with was for...
In Re: Gaya Textiles Private Ltd. Etc. and Star Textile Engineering Wo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Cal388,70CWN852
ORDERB.C. Mitra, J.1. This is an application for winding up of Gaya Textile Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The petitioner's case is that sometime in April 1964 the Company entered into a contract in writing with the petitioner under which the Company agreed to buy and take delivery from the petitioner 2 ring frames. The Company agreed to pay 25 per cent of the price in cash with the order and balance of the price against delivery of Railway Receipt or any other documents through Bank. It is alleged that it was also agreed that one ring frame materials with short bottom apron arrangements and ona ring frame materials with long bottom apron arrangements would be supplied by the petitioner to the Company. Under tha terms of the agreement after satisfactory working of the said 2 ring frames, the Company was to confirm a provisional order for -38 other ring frames.2. Pursuant to the contract the Company paid the sum of Rs. 8,730 being 25 per cent of the price of t...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Mamchand Agarwalla and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal133
ORDERP. Chatterjee, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of appeal below in suits for money. The plaintiff is a dealer in mangoes. The plaintiff consigned certain baskets of mangoes from Eklakshi to Tinsukia and certain other baskels from Katihar to Tinsukia. The normal time for delivery of a parcel consignment is about three to four days; but the plaintiff urged that due to wilful negligence and gross misconduct of the defendant or of his servants the parcels were carried by goods train and reached Tinsukia four days later than the normal time of delivery. The plaintiff filed the suit after serving usual notices. The defendant however challenged the statement regarding delay. The defendant also challenged the statement that the mangoes in the baskets were green and the defendant's case was that there was no negligence or misconduct of his servants and the mangoes were damaged because thev were ten...
B.K. Lala Vs. R.C. Dutt and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal153
Sen, J.1. In this Rule Mr. Swayambhu Gopal Mazumdar, Barrister-at-Law and Mr. R.C. Dutt. Solicitor were called upon to show cause why they should not be dealt with for contempt of the Court of the Judge. Additional Special Court. Calcutta. The Rule was issued on the 30th November, 1965 by this Court on perusal of the report made by Sri B.K. Lala, Judge. Additional Special Court, Calcutta. hereinafter called the 'Judge' He sent a report to the Registrar. Appellate Side of this Court on 27th September 1965 to the effect that the aforesaid persons should stand trial for contempt of Court for the reasons stated in this report. It is said that on the 22nd September 1965, he was served with a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure at his chamber at about 1 p.m. from the Solicitor Sri R.C. Dutt of 7 Old Post Office Street. Calcutta threatening him on behalf of his client Mr. S.G. Mazumdar Barrister-at-Law with a suit against him for damages for a sum of Rs. 5,10,000/- only Mr....
Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs. Smt. Chinmoyee Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Cal615
Laik, J.1. This is a tenant defendant's appeal against the decree of the Court of appeal below affirming the decree of the Trial Court, passed against him, in a suit for ejectment from a house premises. The tenancy was according to the English Calendar month. The defendant was stated to be a habitual defaulter in payment of rent. The tenancy of the defendant was determined by a combined notice to quit and that of a suit, expiring with the end of March 1958. The suit was contested: firstly, on the ground of non-service of notice and secondly, there was no default in payment of rent. The learned Munsif decreed the suit which was affirmed in appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge, Alipore. The instant appeal is against the said decree.2. Mr. Nani Coomar Chakravarti, the learned Advocate in support of the appeal, raised various points. To get the real bone of contention viz., as to whether the tenant defendant is entitled to relief against forfeiture under the provisions of Section 114 of...
Manohardas Babaji and ors. Vs. Khandu Dutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Cal633,1966CriLJ1408
ORDERA.K. Das, J. 1. The short question that arises in this application under Section 439 O. P. C. is whether the learned Magistrate's order directing a second enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. is illegal and should be set aside. 2. The opposite party Khandu Dutta filed a complaint before a learned Magistrate at Purulia against the present petitioners alleging that the petitioners dragged the complainant's father Kishori from the road to their gate and attempted to take a photograph. On Kishori's protest, he was assaulted and a photograph was taken. Thereafter, his signature was also taken on point of gun on a khata and ultimately, he was rescued by some neighours. The learned Magistrate after examination of the complainant directed the officer-in-charge to enquire and report. On receipt of the report the learned Magistrate passed the following order: 21-5-64 Complt. present. Seen enquiry report submitted by O. C. The report is challenged. Let the complt. prove his case in a judicial...
B. Haldar Vs. P.M. Chakraborty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal6,1967CriLJ44
ORDERA.K. Das, J. 1. This application in revision is directed against an order imposing a fine of Rs. 25 by the Rent Controller, Calcutta under Section 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.2. The opposite party is a tenant residing in premises No. 93 Baithakhana Road, Calcutta under the petitioner who is the landlord. The tenant filed a complaint before the Rent Controller on three grounds, (1) the landlord obstructed installation of separate letter box in his name at the main entrance of the premises, (2) the landlord was wilfully interfering in the supply of water and (3) the landlord obstructed the passage to his flat. The Rent Controller rejected the first two grounds but held that the applicant had the right of passage through the passage room and that it was a right of easement annexed to the tenancy. This right of easement was wilfully obstructed by the landlord and the Rent Controller therefore fined him Rs. 25 under the provisions of Section 31 of the West Bengal P...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Calcutta Vs. Anwar Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Cal345,[1967]65ITR95(Cal)
Ray, J.1. The question in this reference is as follows:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax authorities were justified in imposing a penalty on the assessee under Section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act?'2. The assessee is a partner in the firm of Messrs. Haji Sk. Md. Hussain Md. Jan of Calcutta. The Income-tax Officer making the assessment of the assessee discovered an undisclosed bank account of the assessee with the Central Bank of India Ltd. at Bettiah in Bihar. The Income-tax Officer on scrutiny found that the assessee had made a cash deposit of Rs. 87,000 on 21 November 1946 in the said bank. The assessee on being asked to explain the source of the deposit stated that during the communal riots in Bihar in the year 1946 all his relations became panicky and they entrusted with him whatever cash they had for safe custody. The assessee said that he deposited the amounts received from his said relations in a fixed deposit account in the joint names ...
Shyamsunder Bubna Vs. Manindra Nath Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal256
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J. 1. The plaintiff firm allege that they are dealers in motor vehicles and that they also let out motor vehicles on hire. They say that by an agreement, dated December 10, 1063, amongst the plaintiff firm as the ''owner', the defendant No. 1 as the 'hirer' and the defendant No. 2 as the 'guarantor', they agreed to let and the defendant No. 1 agreed to take on hire, a Fiat 1100 motor car (being the car in suit), inter alia, on condition (i) the hirer defendant No. 1 would pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 3,565 as an initial payment by way of hire, which would become the absolute properly of the plaintiff and would further pay to the plaintiff 21 consecutive instalments of Rs. 589, on the 19th day of each succeeding month, the first instalment being payable on January 19, 1964; in default or punctual payment there was a stipulation for payment of interest on sums overdue at the rate of 1 per cent per mensem, (ii) the hirer defendant No. 1 would be at liberty at any ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »