Kolkata Court April 1967 Judgments
Ram Gopal Neotia Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Cal316,1969CriLJ723
ORDERT.P. Mukherji, J. 1. The petitioner in criminal revision case No. 893 of 1965 obtained the present rule against the order of the learned Magistrate virtually scrapping the proceedings gone through by him in an inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directing a de novo inquiry. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No. 925 of 1965 obtained the rule against the order of the same Magistrate summoning him on a supplementary charge-sheet filed by the investigating officer for an alleged offence under Sections 120B/420 of the Indian Penal Code for an inquiry into the offence jointly with the other accused persons named in the original charge-sheet. 2. On a complaint filed by one Bindu Bhusan Bhattacharjee, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner in case No. 893 of 1965 and one Sudhir Kumar Chatterjee. In the charge-sheet, the petitioner in the other case and one Sk. Alimuddin Ahmed were mentioned as witnesses along with others. These two ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Brijlal Lohia and Another.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1967
Reported in: [1967]66ITR97(Cal)
BANERJEE J. - Under an order of this court, a statement of case of on the following question of law was made by the Appellate Tribunal :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings of the Tribunal that the gifts alleged to have been made by the assessee to his brother, Brijlal Lohia, and his nephew, Nandkishore Lohia, were validly made and that the business of Brijlal Nandkishore did not belong to the assessee were perverse in the sense that no reasonable man would come to the findings on the material on record ?'Facts, in so far as necessary for answering the question, are hereinafter stated brief.The assessee, Kanailal Lohia (alias Kanhaiyalal Lohia), now deceased, used to be assessed as an individual. His estate is represent before us by Khemka. On July 12, 1943, the assessee, Kanailal Lohia, gave Rs. 5,11,101 to his brother Brijlal Lohia, by way of gift. Out of the above sum, an amount Rs. 5,00,000 was paid by cheque and the balance was paid in cash. Si...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Indo Burma Wood Products (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal198
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. A very important question arises on this application for direction by the Official Liquidator in the company matter Re Indo Burma Wood Products (P) Ltd.2. Before setting out the point for determination, it will be appropriate to give the context of facts. By an order dated February 3, 1965, this company was directed to be wound up and the Official Liquidator of this Court was appointed the Liquidator. This company is a tenant in respect of premises Nos. 20-A and 20-B, Jora Bagan Street and No. 42, Haralal Das Lane, Calcutta. The registered office of the company was situated at 42 Haralal Das Lane. By a conveyance dated June 16, 1965 the owners of premises No. 42 Haralal Das Lane sold and conveyed the said premises to Sm. Chandra Devi Daga, Sm. Mohini Devi Daga and Sm. Radhadevi Kothari of No. 2A Netai Halder Street, Calcutta. Out of these three premises the Official Liquidator, after several attempts, obtained possession of one room only in premises No. 42, Haralal ...
Tag this Judgment!Jugal Kishore More Vs. Chief Presidency Magistrate Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal220,1968CriLJ604,71CWN508
Bijayesh Mukherjee, J. 1. This is a case laid before me under Section 439, Sub-section (1), read with Section 429, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 5 of 1898, with the divided opinions of Brothers Amaresh Roy and Alak Gupta, on the legality of steps taken to secure the extradition of one Jugal Kishore More from Hong Kong to India, and in particular to the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate. Calcutta.2. To begin from the very beginning of the matter now at issue, during the pendency, at the investigation stage, of Taltola police-station case No. 237 dated May 4, 1962, under Sections 120B/420/467/471 of the Penal Code against Suprokash Mukherjeeand others, before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, a Sub-Inspector of Police of the detective department, one Benoy Kr. Mukherjee, drew up a petition on May 11, 1965, to the address of the same Magistrate, stating inter alia: Jugal Kishore More and others 'were parties to a criminal conspiracy in Calcutta between May 1961 and De...
Tag this Judgment!Murray (inspector of Taxes) Vs. Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1967
Reported in: [1969]71ITR661(Cal)
Appeal from Cross J.Imperial Chemical Industries (hereinafter call 'I.C.I.') appealed to the Commissioners for the Special Purposes of the Income Tax Acts against the following assessments to income tax made under Case I of Schedule D in respect of its trade in fibres :1958-59, pounds 2,186,000 less pounds 1,815,000 capital allowances;1960-61, pounds 4,712,000 less pounds 2,118,000 capital allowances;and applied under section 341 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, for an adjustment of its liability for the year 1955-56 by reference to a loss claimed to have been sustained therein in that year.The question for the commissioners determination on the appeal was whether certain sums received under provisions contained in agreements or heads of agreement entered into by I.C.I. with nine overseas concerns were sums falling to be included as trading receipts in computing the amount of the assessments or the loss.The relevant facts found by the commissioners were summarised in the judgment of Cross ...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Literature Co. Private Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal1,71CWN719
Sinha, C.J. 1. This matter and number of other matters, namely -- C.R. 472 (W) of 1962. C.R 807(W) to 819(W) of 1963, C.R. 939 (W) of 1963, C.R. 189(W) to 194(W) of 1964, C. R. 207(W) and 208(W) of 1964, C. R. 331(W) of 1964. C. R. 610(W) of 1964, C. R. liai(W) of 1964. C. R. 1213(W) of 1964. and C. R 994(W) of 1964, have been referred to this Special Bench for disposal, as all of them involve a matter of great public importance, pamely the vires of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 1958 (Central Act 32 of 1968) (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). There has been a common argument in all these cases and the point of law being tht same, they will all be governed by the decision herein Distinctive features of each case will be considered separately. The facts in this case are briefly as follows : The petitioner No. 1. Standard Literature Company Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'company') is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Roy and Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. Taslim and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal114,71CWN531,(1967)IILLJ307Cal
Sinha, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, West Bengal D/-30th May 1959. The facts are briefly as follows: The applicant for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923) (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') was Taslim, son of Bhagloo. He worked as a khamali and belonged to the Reserve Pool of the Calcutta Dock Labour Board. On the 4th of February 1957 he was booked by the said Board to work under the Sardar Ekbal for the appellant A. C. Roy and Co. (Private) Ltd.. stevedores, in berth No. 27 Kidderpore Docks, in the vessel S. S. 'Khaybar' in the afternoon shift. The booking was between 2-30 p.m. to 3-00 p.m For booking he had to go to the Call Stand of the Dock Labour Board and was booked to work for the appellant as aforesaid The booking was for working in the ship, in the shift, commencing from 3.50 p.m. As I have stated above, he was booked between 2-30 and 3-00 p. m. and he went on foot, via...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Gopal Chatterjee Vs. T. Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal365,71CWN662
ORDERBijayesh Mukherji, J.1. This fiscal matter has been referred to me, for final decision, under Sec-tion 5 of the Court-Fees Act 7 of 1876.2. The facts which have led up to this reference need not be referred to further than as fellows:The Special Land Acquisition Judge, 24-Parganas, seized of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894, rejects the claim of the appellant to the entire sum of Rs. 23, 912. 37 paise, the compensation, awarded by the Land Acq-uisition Collector, for compulsory acquisition, for public purpose, of a certain land in mouza Basudevpore, within the jurisdiction of Baranagar police-station. The claim, so rejected, was on the foot of a purchase from one Harinandan Ram, said to be in possession of the acquisitioned land, as an under raiyat. Hence the appeal, valued at Rs. 23, 912. 37 paise, but stamped with a court-fee of Rs. 5 only. The Stamp Reporter, an officer whose duty it is to see that proper fee is paid, insists on ad valorem cour...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Rationing and ors. Vs. Basudeo Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Cal620,71CWN576
Sinha, C.J. 1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: In exercise of powers conferred under Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with the order of the Government of India No. GSR 888 dated 28th June 1961, the Government of West Bengal promulgated the West Bengal Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'licensing order') which came into force on and from the 15th January 1963. Under the said licensing order, a 'retailer' means a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of sugar in quantities exceeding 60 quintals at any one time, but does not include an industrial undertaking which is engaged in the manufacture and production of sugar and which is registered or licensed under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (Act 65 of 1951). The 'licensing authority' means an officer appointed by the State Government to exercise powers and perform the duties of a licensing authority in respect of such ...
Tag this Judgment!Sourendra Mohan Banerjee Vs. Manick Lal Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Cal617,71CWN673
ORDERBijayesh Mukherji, J.1. Here is another fiscal matter referred to me, for final decision, under Section 5 of the Court-Fees Act 7 of 1870.2. For certain land, situate in Mouza Sultanpur, within the jurisdiction of Dum-Dum police-station, requisitioned in the first instance on March 25, 1942, under sub-rule (1), Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules 1939, and acquired ultimately on March 27, 1947, under Section 5 of the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act 17 of 1947, read with Section 3 ibid.,--an acquisition which not going under Section 24, proviso (b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of immoveable Property Act 30 of 1952 ('Act 30' hereafter, for short),--the Governor appoints Shri B. C. Das Gupta, Additional District and Sessions Judge, 24 Parganahs, an arbitrator, under Section 8, Sub-section (1) clause (b), of 'Act 30' and all other enabling provisions, for determination of the compensation payable for such acquisition, no less for determination of the person ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »