Kolkata Court December 1968 Judgments

Shefali Banerjee Vs. the State and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1969Cal544,1969CriLJ1367

ORDERA.K. Das, J.1. This Revisional application is directed against an order dated January 25, 1968 passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, under Section 20 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956. The learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to remove herself from premises No. 59. Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Calcutta and also from the area covered by Park Street police station, Calcutta.2. One Narsing Narayan Singh, landlord of premises No. 59, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Calcutta, filed a petition against the present petitioner under Section 20 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act 1956 on the allegation that the petitioner was living a reckless life in one of the suites of that premises and that she used to earn her livelihood by selling her chastity and in the interest of the general public, she should be required to remove herself from the said premises and also for direct-ins her not to re-enter therein. The learned Magistr...

Jatindra Nath Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1969Cal461,[1969(18)FLR87]

D. Basu, J. 1. The petitioner was a Revenue Officer at Malda at the material date. It is alleged that he made a complaint for undue interference against another officer Sri. Brahmachari, and out of grudge for that the latter instituted a criminal case against the Petitioner, complaining of breach of trust, cheating etc. on 5-4-1960. On the same date, the Petitioner was suspended by the order of the Collector, Malda, which is at Ann. A to the Petition (p. 19). It was followed by another order of the Secretary, Board of Eevenue to the same effect, dated 6-5-1960 (p. 20). During the pendency of the said criminal case, departmental proceedings were also instituted against the Petitioner by the charge-sheet, which is at p. 21 of the Petition, charging the Petitioner with misappropriation. On 6-11-1962. the Board gave sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the same charge. 2. The Petitioner alleges that as a result of the representation of th...

Monoranjan Das Vs. Commissioner, Presidency Division and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1970Cal179,73CWN670

ORDERA.K. Sinha, J.1. In this Rule the petitioner prays for quashing an order of his dismissal from service. Briefly, the facts set out are as follows:2. The petitioner was a process server In the office of the Income Tax Certificate at No. 169, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta. While so working there he was criminally prosecuted for accepting illegal gratification from one Hiralal Ghosh, Accountant of a Firm E. R. Joseph and Co., at No. 9, Waterloo Street. On or about 21st April, 1961 the Investigating Officer made an application for discharge of the petitioner on the ground that no sanction of the petitioner's appointing authority could be obtained on the ground of insufficient evidence. The petitioner was accordingly discharged by the Chief Presidency Magistrate. Calcutta.3. In the meantime a disciplinary proceeding was started. Charge-sheet was issued by the Collector, 24 Parganas charging the petitioner with 'taking illegal gratification of Rs. 150/- from said Hiralal Ghosh of the sa...

Orissa Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1979(4)ELT457(Cal)

A.K. Sinha, J.1. In these the petitioners pray for quashing certain orders levying excise duty on certain goods, viz., China and porcelainwares' and 'glass and glass-wares' under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The petitioner, Shree Durga Glass Works, carry on business manufacture of glass and glasswares and the petitioner, Orissa Industries Ltd. manufacturers china and porcelainware. These manufactured goods were free from all excise duties by the Finance Act, 1961, for the first time these goods were incorporated under the First Schedule of the Act for levying and collection of excise duties. The excise duties were imposed from the date when the Finance Act came into force, that is, from April 20, 1961. According to the direction given by cretin Excise Officers the petitioner made a declaration of the existing goods as it stood on the mid-night of February 28, 1961 and 1st March, 1.961 in the prescribed form. The petitioners were informe...

The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Iswar Chandra ...

Court: Kolkata

Amaresh Roy, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the State and is directed against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Midnapore (South) on 23-12.1961 in a case in which the respondent Is war Chandra Jana was prosecuted for an alleged offence Under Section 7 (1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on a complain t filed by the Food Inspector, Sabang, P. H'. Centre in Midnapore. The allegation in substance was that accused Iswar Chandra Jana had sold, exposed and stored for sale Cocoanut oil at Khagrageriahat on 15.5.1961. A sample of the Cocoanut oil was taken and the Public Analyst found it to be adulterated and also to contain mineral oil.2. The case was being tried before the Sub. Divisional Magistrate by folio wing a Summons Procedure under Cbap. XX of the Criminal P.C. after cognisance was taken on 28.ll. 19Gl. On the very next date fixed in the case tlufc is on 23.127196l the learned Magistrate examined the accused Under Sect...

Commissioner of Income-tax, W.B. Vs. Mahabir Finance Ltd., Calcutta

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1970Cal445,[1970]75ITR83(Cal)

Sankar Pkasad Mitra, J.1. The assessee is a shareholder of the Bharat Nidhi Limited and also an investment Company. The paid-up capital of the Bharat Nidhi Limited including (included?) a certain number of ordinary shares of Rs. 10.00 each. Some of these shares were fully paid up and some paid up to Rs. 2-8-0 per share. During the financial year ending on the 28th February 1959 (assessment year 1959-60), the assessee received 11,750 shares of the New Central Jute Mills Company Limited from the Bharat Nidhi Limited, by way of dividend in specie.2. The Income-tax Officer Found that the face value of the shares of the New Central Jute Mills Company Limited was Rs. 10.00 only; but the market value was Rs. 14.56 per share. According to the Income-tax Officer, the value of 11,750 shares was, in the premises, Rs. 1,71,080.00. Now, at the general meeting of the New Central Jute Mills Company Limited held on the 31st October, 1958, the amount of dividend declared was Rs. 1,17,500.00 and the Inc...

Dr. Nanigopal Ghose Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1970Cal1

Ray, J.1. This appeal is from the Judgment and order of Mitter. J. dated 27 July and 24 August 1965 discharging the Rule obtained by the appellant.2. The appellant obtained the Rules requiring the respondent to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus should not go to recall, rescind and withdraw the order dated 9 October, 1963 and why a writ of Certiorari should not be issued quashing the order dated 9 October, 1963.3. The appellant's case in short is that the appellant was appointed an insurance medical practitioner under the State of West Bengal by virtue of provisions contained in Employees' State Insurance Act. 1948. The appellant further contended that it was a permanent post under the State Government. On 9 October 1963 a letter was written by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal addressed to the appellant that 'in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-clause (1) of Clause 11 of Schedule I to the West Bengal Employees' State Insurance (Medical Benefit) Rules, 1...

M.M. Ispahani Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1969Cal464,[1970]75ITR479(Cal)

Sinha, C.J. 1. The facts in this case are briefly as follows: The petitioner before us is Messrs. M. M. Ispahani Ltd. It was a company incorporated in India in 193-1, but in 1947 it transfrred its registered office to Chitagong, Eastern Pakistan, For the accounting years 1939 to 1946 (assessment years 19-10 41 to 1947-48), the petitioner filed returns under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and was assessed to tax. In the year 1950, proceedings were commenccd against the petitioner under the Taxation of Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 inter alia for the accounting years 1939 to 1946. After the Supreme Court declared Section 5 (4) of the Taxation of Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 as ultra vires, the proceedings started against the petitioner were dropped, After the Supreme Court Judgment of Surajmull Mohta and Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri : [1954]26ITR1(SC) the Ineome-tax Act, 1922 was amended inter alia by the inclusion of Sub-sections (1-A) and (1-B) to Sectio...

Sitaram Company Vs. Ratilal Ramlal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1969Cal472,74CWN346

P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This Rule raises an important question. It involves the construction of Item 4, Clauses (iv) and (v), of the First Schedule, referred to in Section 5 (4) of the City Civil Court Act. 2. The suit in question was a suit, brought by the opposite party, for recovery of certain amounts, claimed by his as commission agent of the petitioner after accounting. The claim was laid at Rs. 7,000 and odd. In the written statement, an objection was taken that, on the above averments of the plaintiff, the suit was not entertainable by the City CivilCourt and reliance was placed, apparently, in the written statement, upon Clauses (iv) and (v) of Item 4 of the First Schedule of the said Act, referred to hereinbefore. 3. The matter appears to have been argued before the learned trial Judge, more emphatically under Clause (v) and reference to Clause (iv) is not to be found in the judgment of the learned trial Judge. Under Clause (v) the suit, in order to come within the said Clause o...

Hari Pada Banerjee Vs. Hem Kanta Sen

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1969Cal421,1969CriLJ1117

ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J. 1. This rule must be made absolute. The rule is against an order datedthe 22nd August, 1968 passed by Shri S.R. Bhowmick, Presidency Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta in Case No. 1728 of 1967 rejecting the petition of the accused-petitioner praying that the order dated the 12th August, 1968 passed by the Court previously allowing the complainant opposite party to examine Sm. Bani Ghosal or her husband as a remaining witness under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may be set aside. 2. A petition of complaint was filed Under Sections 417, 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code by the complainant-opposite party who is a practising pleader in the City Civil Court at Calcutta against the accused-petitioner in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate at Calcutta and a process was issued under Section 420, I. P. C. against the accused and the case was transferred to the Court of Shri S.R. Bhowmick, Presidency Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta. In the petition...