Kolkata Court November 1968 Judgments
Calcutta Licensed Measurers Bengal Chamber of Commerce Vs. Md. Hossain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal378,73CWN491
Ray, J. 1. This appeal is from the judgment and the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation dated 24 September, 1966 in Claim Case No. 2545 of 1964. The company is the appellant and the workman is the respondent. The workman received personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on 27th April, 1964. The workman alleged that he sustained injuries to the left leg and the hip. The workman claimed compensation. The Company admitted that there was an accident and further admitted that there was injury to the hip but denied that there was injury to the leg. 2. The Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation framed two issues. One of the issues was whether the applicant sustained any permanent partial disability on account of the accident in question. The Commr. came to the conclusion that there was an accident and that the accident arose out of and in course of the employment. The further conclusion was that there was injury to ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalipada Trivedi Vs. Madhusudan Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1968
Reported in: 1970CriLJ89
ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J.1. This Rule is against an order dated 14th July, 1967, passed by Shri Amitabha Dutta, Additional Sessions Judge, 24-Parganas, in Criminal Motion No. 88 of 1967 refusing to make a reference to this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order dated 4th May. 1867, passed by Sri D.K. Roy, Magistrate, 1st Class, Barrackpore, in Case No. C 2119 of 1964/T. 518/65 permitting the accused-opposite party to examine two prosecution witnesses as defence witnesses in connection with the case pending under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The fasts leading on to the present Rule are short and simple. The complainant-petitioner's daughter Kumari Monika Trivedi aged about 7 years was run over by the accused opposite party's motor car No. WBA 1600 on the 26th October, 1963 at Panihati. It was the Nabami Puja day. The prosecution alleges that the car was being driven rashly and negligently and while attempting to overtake a lorry in front of th...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs on Behalf of State of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal451,1969CriLJ1120,73CWN547
ORDERBijayesh Mukherji, J.1. This is a rule obtained by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, on behalf of the State of West Bengal, calling upon Sardar Bahadur Singh and three others, the accused men put up on trial under Sections 3 and 5 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 104 of 1956, and now the opposite party before me. to show cause why their discharge under Section 251-A, Sub-section (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered by a learned Presidency Magistrate on April 4, 1968, should not be set aside.2. The offences under Section 3 ('keeping a brothel or allowing premisesto be used as a brothel') and Section 5 ('procuring, inducing or taking woman or girl for the sake of prostitution') are said to have been committed in a boarding-house under the name and style of Wedgewood Hotel at 5-A Sudder Street within the jurisdiction of Taltola police-station in the presidency town of Calcutta. So, under Section 13, Sub-section (1) of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmala Bala Sarkar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1968
Reported in: [1969]74ITR268(Cal)
Chatterjee, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The reference is at the instance of the assessee. The assessment relates to the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53, 1954-55 and 1955-56 respectively. The assessee is an association of persons being the trustees of a trust known as ' general trust '. A deed of trust was executed by Hirendra Lal Sarkar wherein the assessee was appointed the trustees. The settlor created certain other trusts on July 17, 1941, in favour if his four daughters. The trust deed in question is at page 20 of the paper-book.2. It is not necessary to reiterate all the terms of the said deed. It is sufficient if we refer to the following facts :The settlor transferred about eight bighas of land to the trustees by the said deed of trust dated December 9, 1944. The trustees were directed to sell the aforesaid land, either in one plot or in different plots. The trust fund was directed to constitute of all the rents and profi...
Tag this Judgment!Anadi Bhusan Mukherjee Vs. Ramgati Ahir and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal420
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioner, who was the referring claimant in this Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The objection was really to the apportionment of the compensation, awarded by the Collector. The disputed award of the Collector appears to have been made under serial No. 134 in favour of 8 persons the petitioner being excluded. 3. The petitioner's case is that he did not receive any notice of this acquisition proceeding and, accordingly, could not lodge his claim before the Collector, although he was interested in 1/8th share of the acquired plot, or in other words, in l/8th share of the compensation money awarded. 4. In his petition for Reference, the petitioner appears to have made specific reference to the award under serial No. 134 as the disputed award but omitted to name one of the awardees in whose favour the said joint award of the Collector was made. When the matter came up before the learned Land Acquisition Judge,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rai Bahadur M.S. Oberoi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1968
Reported in: [1973]88ITR59(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. In this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the assessment years involved are 1953-54 and 1954-55. The corresponding previous years were the financial years ending on the 31st March, 1953, and the 31st March, 1954, respectively. The assessee is the managing director of Messrs. Hotels (1938) Ltd. and other associated companies controlling a number of hotels in India. The assessee showed the income of Rs. 66,694 and Rs. 87,570 for the said two financial years respectively as gross dividends derived from certain shares he had held. The particulars of these shares are as follows :1. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. ... 1,09,606 shares2. Northern India Caterers Ltd. ... 20 shares3. Oberoi Hotels (I) Ltd. ... 10 shares2. The Income-tax Officer found that besides these shares, the assessec'swife and two sons held certain shares of the Associated Hotels of India Ltdand the Northern India Caterers Ltd. and he included the gross dividendsthe...
Tag this Judgment!Asiatic Shipping Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. P.N. Djakarta Lloyd and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal374
Sinha, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by Sen, J. refusing to stay a suit under the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The suit concerned is suit No. 2306 of 1966 (P. N. Djakarta Lloyd v. Asiatic Shipping Co. Private Ltd.). In that suit, which was filed in this Court on or about 21st November, 1966, the brief allegations in the plaint are as follows: It is stated that the plaintiff was the owner of a vessel, namely, S.S. Capella and that by a charter party dated October 28, 1963 made between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1, the Asiatic Shipping Co. Private Ltd., the appellant before us, it was agreed, inter alia, that the said vessel then in the Bay of Bengal would proceed to the port of Calcutta and the defendant No. 1 as the charterer would load goods and cargo therein and would proceed to Djakarta and Surabaya in Indonesia and deliver the cargo, on being paid 16,000 as freight. It is furthe...
Tag this Judgment!Unity Company Private Ltd. Vs. Diamond Sugar Mills and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1971Cal18
A.N. Sen, J.1. Unity Company Private Ltd., the plaintiff herein (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff or the plaintiff company) was the owner and registered holder of 25,000 shares of Diamond Sugar Mills Ltd., the defendant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the defendant company). The said shares are fully paid up and, the shares are of the face value of Rs. 10/- per share. The defendant company claimed a lien over the said shares owned by the plaintiff company in respect of a debt of the plaintiff company to the defendant company and in exercise of the said lien the defendant company had sold the shares to other parties who happen to be and/or are represented by the other defendants in this suit. In this suit the plaintiff company challenges the validity of the sale of the plaintiff's said shares by the defendant company. The plaintiff had originally instituted this suit against the defendant company. By subsequent amendment of the plaint the other defendants who are the purchaser...
Tag this Judgment!inder Singh Bejwa Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal418
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This rule raises an important question under Section. 17 of the new Limitation Act. The rule arises under the following circumstances 2. The petitioner was the defendant in the connected ejectment suit, brought by the opposite party. The suit was, eventually, fixed for hearing on 30th August, 1965. The petitioner had entered appearance in the suit, filed his written statement and was contesting the suit-But on this date of hearing, he was absent and the suit was decreed ex parte. There* after, the instant application was filed for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on 14th December, 1965, upon the allegation. Enter alia, that the date, noted in his lawyer's diary, was 27th November, 1965, for settling the date of hearing, and, on that date, the mistake was discovered and the instant application was eventually filed on the 14th of December, 1965.3. This application under Order 9, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Proc...
Tag this Judgment!J. G. Ingram and Son Ltd. Vs. Callaghan (inspector of Taxes).
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1968
Reported in: [1969]74ITR282(Cal)
GOFF J. - This is a case in which the taxpayer company J. G. Ingram & Son Ltd., carried on for a good many years a successful business in the manufacture and sale of surgical and pharmaceutical products having glass and rubber parts. Owing to the facts that plastics and comparable products became not only a possible substitute for the rubber, but something which was both cheaper and more durable, and therefore clearly better, the taxpayers fell into difficulties and suffered serious losses, so much so, that a receiver was appointed and he sold the taxpayers factory, completion taking place in September, 1960. In the meantime, the taxpayers shares had been acquired in May, 1960, by Redland Holdings Ltd., a public company with many subsidiaries and diverse interests. The Commissioner found that Redland intended to extend its interests into the field of plastics and had for that reason recently acquired a company, Tuck & Co. Ltd. There was a space in Tucks factory premises a Hainault, and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »