Kolkata Court June 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.
Bengal Bus Syndicate Vs. M.K. Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal126,[1967(14)FLR64],(1967)IILLJ314Cal
Bijayesh Mukherji, J.1. By this rule obtained under Article 227 of the Constitution, Messrs. Bengal Bus Syndicate seeks reversal of the decision dated September 30, 1964, of a labour Court here, computing under S, 33-C, Sub-section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 14 of 1947, the monetary benefits payable by the Syndicate to its quondam employee, (a starter), Chandra Kant Misra, opposite party No. 2, as under:1.Back wages for 18 months from February 1, 1961 to mid-August 1962 at Rs. 100 a monthRs. 1,850.002.Bonus for 1961Rs. 100.003.Compensation for 10 years with bonus of Rs. 100 a yearRs. 13,000.00 Total :Rs. 14,950.002. The preliminary facts leading to such computation are not in the realm of dispute. On April 30, 1962, an industrial tribunal here recorded an award directing the Syndicate (i) to reinstate Chandra Kant to his former job, with continuity of service, and (ii) to pay him all back dues for the period of his forced unemployment within one month from the publication of the...
Kashi Nath Pal Vs. Umapada Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Cal83,71CWN321
A.C. Sen, J.1. The present dispute relates to the pre-emption of Plot No. 1292 of khatian No. 87 of mouza Pashi Narayanpur, District Hooghly appertaining to an occupancy holding originally belonging to Dukhiram Pal, Ananda Pal and Jatindra Pal in equal shares. Dukhiram died leaving behind him his son Panchanan (opposite party No. 4), as his only heir; Ananda died leaving behind him his son Gopal (O. P. No. 5) as his only heir. Jatindra died leaving behind him a son Nimai and the widow Thakadamoyee. Nemai alone according to the petitioner, inherited 1/3rd share in the disputed Plot which is agricultural land. On 5-9-59 the pre-emptors (O. P. Nos. 1, 2, 3) purchased 1/3rd share of the disputed plot from Thakedamoyee by a registered kobala on the footing that on the death of Jatindra his widow Thakoda inherited 1/3rd share of the disputed plot. The remaining 2/3rd share of the disputed plot was purchased by the petitioner on 16-11-59 from opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 by a registered koba...
Shalimar Paints Ltd. Vs. Omprokash Singhania
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal372
ORDERA.N. Sen, J.1. This is an application for stay of the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had entered into a transaction with the respondent on the basis of an indent bearing No. W/2419 dated 29th June, 1982 for purchase of 12 Metric Tonnes Marg-O-Dark 'HC' as per sample at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per Metric Tonne on terms and conditions contained in the said indent. The said Indent contains an arbitration clause to the following effect :--'Any dispute arising out of this indent shall be subject to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry's arbitration.' According to the petitioner by a letter dated 5-9-62 the quantity mentioned in the said indent was amended and raised to 24 Metric Tonnes out of which delivery of 12 Metric Tonnes was to be immediate and of the balance 12 Metric Tonnes, as and when the same would be required. It is the petitioner's further case that certain materials supplied by the respondent purs...
In Re: Patrakola Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal406,70CWN971
ORDERSankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. The petitioner is a shareholder of the Patrakola Tea Company Limited. On or about the 2nd March, 1966, the petitioner received a letter dated the 21st February, 1968, from the firm of G. M. Pyne, who are brokers in the Calcutta Stock Exchange. The material portions of the letter are as follows :--'Under an agreement dated the 15th of August 1964 made between Duncan Bros, and Co. Ltd. and Munnalal Bhalotia and Company, the said Munnalal Bhalotia and Co. agreed that they would within a period of not less than six months and not more than 12 month after the 31st of July, 1905, make an offer to purchase shares in the Patrakola Tea Company in the hands of the public at a price which works out at a little less than Rs. 132/- per share and on the basis that the offer should remain open for acceptance for a period of thirty days from the date of despatch thereof. All acceptances to be completed within fifteen days of the receipt thereof. Your name appears on the ...
Chandi Charan Laha Vs. Certificate Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC526(Cal)
D. Basu, J.1. A very interesting question of law has been raised and ably argued in this case, namely, whether the Certificate Officer who has issued the certificate of which a copy is annexed to the petition (annexure 'A') has jurisdiction to issue the certificate in question to recover the arrears of sales tax and penalty due from the petitioner for the four quarters ending Chaitra 1365 B.S., in view of the fact that the business in respect of which the sales tax was assessed is being carried on within the limits of the Presidency town of Calcutta and the assets of the certificate-debtor are also situated within that town, the certificate office being a certificate office of the District 24-Parganas, which, for administrative purposes, does not include the Presidency town of Calcutta. The manner in which dues under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act of 1941 have come to be realised by the certificate procedure is as follows : Section 11(4) of the Sales Tax Act provides-''Any amount o...
Amal Kumar Ghatak Vs. Income-tax Officer, J-ward and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1966
Reported in: [1971]79ITR452(Cal)
B.C. Mitra, J. 1. The short question involved in this application is the validity of the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, being a notice dated 1st May, 1964. By this notice the petitioner was called upon to attend personally at the office of the Income-tax Officer with all books of accounts for the years 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958.2. The petitioner contends that his assessments up to the assessment year 1961-62 have been duly completed and the tax due and payable in pursuance of the various assessment orders passed against him, had been paid by him and no amount of tax is due from him. The petitioner, however, has filed his return for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64.3. The point raised by Mr. D. Pai, appearing for the petitioner, is thatsection 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'theAct'), deals with the powers of the Income-tax Officer to direct an assesseeto produce books of accounts and also to fu...
Gungaram Tea Company Ltd. Vs. Second Labour Court and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ325Cal
B.C. Mitra, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks appropriate writs and orders directing the respondents to set aside, revoke, cancel or rescind an order made on 19 May 1965 and also to forbear from enforcing or giving effect to the same.2. By an order dated 24 July 1961 an Industrial dispute between the petitioner and some of its workmen at the tea garden was referred to the fifth Industrial tribunal, West Bengal. During the pendency of this adjudication some of the workmen of the petitioners in the said tea estate are alleged to have committed various acts of mis-conduct warranting their dismissal. Such misconduct, It is alleged, was not connected with the pending dispute which was awaiting adjudication.3. On or about 21 August 1964 charge sheets were issued to the workmen involved Including respondents 2 to 5 in this petition. Some of the workmen refused to accept the chargesheets and thereupon the same were served upon them by registere...
Narayan Chandra Ghose and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal314,1967CriLJ735
ORDERA.K. Das, J. 1. Criminal Revision No. 1219 of 1964 against an order of the Additional District Magistrate Midnapore, Criminal Reference No. 78 of 1965 by the Sessions fudge of West Dinajpore, Maldah and Reference No. 8 of 1986 from the Sessions Judge of Nadia are taken up together. 2. In the Reference matters, the applicants are practising muktears in the criminal courts who stood surety for accused persons either during trial or at the appellate stage. Eventually the convictions of the accused persons were upheld but the sureties failed to produce them for undergoing the sentence of imprisonment. Proceedings under Section 514 were drawn up and ultimately bail bonds were forfeited and penalty imposed. Appeal against the forfeiture or the bond and imposition of penalty was heard by the learned Additional District Magistrate purporting to act under Section 515 Cr. P. C. 3. In Criminal Revision No. 1219 of 1964 the accused appealed against an order of conviction to the High Court and...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›