Kolkata Court July 1966 Judgments
Great Indian Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1966
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas135(Cal),71CWN157
T.P. Mukerji, J.1. The eighteen cases out of which the eighteen revision cases arise were tried together by the learned Magistrate as the same questions of fact and law are involved in all of them. The eighteen revision cases were also taken up and heard together for the same reasons and as they all arise out of the same judgment passed by the learned Magistrate.2. Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 305 to 310 of 1965 arise out of six cases wherein the petitioner, The Great Indian Steam Navigation Company Limited, was prosecuted under Section 220(3) of the Indian Companies Act for violation of the requirements of Section 220(1) of the Act in the matter of filing the balance-sheet and profit and loss account of the company with the Registrar during the years 1956-1961.3. Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 311 to 316 of 1965 arise out of six cases filed against the three directors of the above company for an offence under Section 220(3) of the Indian Companies Act committed by them during the years ...
Tag this Judgment!Osman Gani Vs. Tahurannessa Begum
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1966
Reported in: 1970CriLJ634
ORDERT.P. Mukherji, J.1. The husband in a proceeding under Section 488 Cr. P. C. obtained this Rule against the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting his prayer made under the proviso to Section 488(6) of the Code for setting aside an ex parte order for payment of a maintenance allowance of Rs. 50/- per month to his wife.2. The materials on record show that the petitioner was served with notice of his wife's application under Section 488 Cr. P. C. and that he also appeared in court and filed his written statement, but thereafter did not appear. The proceeding ended in an ex parte order directing payment of maintenance allowance as stated above. Six months thereafter the petitioner appeared in court and applied under the proviso to Sec, 488(6) for setting aside the ex parte order. The learned Magistrate refused to entertain the prayer on the ground of limitation.3. The learned Advocate appearing in support of the petitioner contends that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply t...
Tag this Judgment!Malay Banerjee Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal352
ORDERT.P. Mukherji, J. 1. The petitioner who was one ofthe five accused in a case started against them under Section 7(1)/10 of the Essential Commodities Act, has obtained the present Rule against the order of the trying Magistrate directing trial in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 251A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate relied upon two decisions of this Court, Nanakraj Pandit v. The State, 1961 (1) Cri LJ 644 (Cal) and an unreported decision in the case Ramprosad Gupta v. State of West Bengal, decided by S.K. Sen and Amaresh Roy, JJ. on May 31 1962 (Cal) as authorities for his decision on the point. 2. The five accused in the case were arrested by the police in course of the investigation of the offence concerned and on 21-12-1985 a prosecution report was submitted against them. On February 14, 1968, copies of documents as contemplated in Section 178 (4) of the Code were furnished. Thereafter the question arose as to whether the procedure under S...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Cal35,(1969)ILLJ45Cal
ORDERB.C. Mitra, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, in which the petitioners claim a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 12 to forbear from Riving effect to or withdraw or cancel certain orders which are annexures C and H to the petition Annexure C is a letter from K C Roy. Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Judicial Department, to the Chief Judge. City Civil and Sessions Courts, Calcutta dated January 6, 1965 In that letter it was stated that he-fore the introduction of the revised pay scales from April 1. 1961. the scale of pay of lower division clerks in the district courts was Rs- 55-130 and the scale of pay of the same clerks in the Citv Civil and Sessions Courts was Rs 75-150 It was further stated that lower division clerks of the district court! who were appointed as lower division clerks in the City Civil and Sessions Courts in higher scales, were deemed as appointed on promotion to the higher sca...
Tag this Judgment!Mica Export Promotion Council and ors. Vs. G.C.L. Joneja and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1966
Reported in: [1968]38CompCas371(Cal),72CWN117
A.N. Sen, J.1. Mica Export Promotion Council is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Disputes have arisen with regard to the election of the committee members of the said company. The petitioners in the present application are the company itself and some of the members of the said company. There are 16 respondents who are also members of the said company and the said respondents have been sued in their personal capacity and also in their representative capacity, as representing the other members of the said company who are supporting the validity of an election proposed to be held pursuant to the decision alleged to have been taken at the 9th annual general meeting of the company held on the 25th March, 1966. In this application the petitioners ask for an injunction restraining the respondents, their agents and servants from holding any election pursuant to the alleged resolution and/or decision and/or agreement and also from counting or allowing to be counted the ball...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioners for Port of Calcutta Vs. Prayag Ram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal7,[1967(14)FLR271],(1967)IILLJ302Cal
Sinha, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, West Bengal dated 21st August, 1963 whereby he has ordered a sum of Rs. 840 to be paid to the workman concerned by way of compensation. The facts are shortly as follows: The workman Prayag Ram was employed by a contractor working under the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, us a porter No. 2, Calcutta jetty belonging to the said Commissioners. On the 27th day of November, 1962 in course of his employment, a bundle of paper fell on the left foot of the workman, causing injuries. The workman made an application for compensation on 8th of April, 1963. The employer took a number of objections, namely, that the application is barred by limitation, that the accident did not arise in course of employment etc. We are not however concerned in this case with any such objections because there is only one objection that has been placed before us which will be presently mentioned. At the hearing befor...
Tag this Judgment!indrajit Singh Kohli Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal460,1967CriLJ1136
Das, J. 1. This application is directedagainst an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burdwan, rejecting the application against an order of a learned Magistrate issuing summons for trial of the petitioner under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts leading to this application are as follows: The petitioner lodged a complaint on August 13, 1965 at the police station of Asansol alleging that truck no. B. R. F. 3335 purchased by him had been stolen away by me opposite party Niranjan Singh. A case was recorded and the truck was seized from the possession of Niranjan Singh and later, made over to the custody of the petitioner on his executing a bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) on condition of producing it on call The complaint was found on investigation to be false. The petitioner was then prosecuted under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to produce the truck in Court. He did not comply with the direction and several attempts t...
Tag this Judgment!Ruttonjee and Company Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal450
ORDERD. Basu, J. 1. The petitioner is a registered firm (hereinafter referred to as the 'firm'), carrying on business under the name and style of Ruttonjee and Co. Its partners are Hirjoo Ruttonjee Bhesania. Feroze Mancherchaw Bhesania. The opposite party No. 4 is a limited company (hereinafter referred to as the 'company'), of which the partners of the firm are also directors amongst others. The company is carrying on its business under the name Ruttonjee and Co. Ltd. The firm whose original business was sale of liquors, alleges that in 1957, it applied to the proper authority for permission to start a brewery in West Bengal, and obtained such permission from the State of West Bengal (O/P. No. 1), and also obtained the permission of the Government of India for the establishment of a new industrial undertaking for the manufacture of beer. In 1959 however, before the brewery was established, the partners of the firm decided to promote a limited company to assist the firm in the financin...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Gopal Dey and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Cal79,[1969]39CompCas119(Cal),1968CriLJ142,72CWN312
T.P. Mukherji, J.1. The seven complaints out of which these seven Revision Cases arise were registered as seven cases in the court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, but were tried together and were governed by the same judgment. Here in this court also the seven cases were heard together as the same questions of law are involved in all of them. Madan Gopal Dey and his wife Sm. Anjali Dey are the two petitioners in Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 637 to 640 while T. Dey and Co. (P) Ltd. is the petitioner in Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 641, 642 and 643 of 1964.2. The petitioners in both sets of cases obtained the present Rules against their conviction under Sections 162(1), 168, 220(3) and 210(5) of the Indian Companies Act 1956 and the sentence of a fine of Rs. 50 on each count passed on each of them thereunder, Madan Gopal Dey and Sm. Anjali Dey were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 14 days each in default of payment of fine and half of the fine imposed in all th...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Jyotirmoyee Sharma
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal461,(1969)ILLJ290Cal
Masud, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2nd August, 1961 whereby the plaintiff-respondent was granted a declaration that the order terminating her service was bad in law and was also awarded a decree for Rs. 30,000/- with a condition that if payment was made by the Union of India and the latter would not prefer an appeal, the plaintiff would be willing to accept Rs. 20,000 in full satisfaction of her claim. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows:2. The plaintiff, Srimati Jyotirmoyee Sharma by a letter in writing dated 7th June 1949, was appointed to a permanent post of Anthropologist in the Department of Anthropology on an initial salary of Rs. 440 p. m. Prior to such appointment she was already working as a temporary Anthropologist in the said department. She was selected for the new post in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Federal Public Service Commission for recruitment of one Anthropologist in the Anthropological Survey of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »