Kolkata Court February 1968 Judgments
Kamakshya Mukherjee Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Cal596,1968CriLJ1541,73CWN42
ORDER No. 16 P. D. A. Dated 9-8-67 Whereas I am satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Kamakshya Mukherjee alias Haru son of Shri Jiten-dra Nath Mukherjee of Ukilpara, P. S. Kotwali, District Jalpaiguri, that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it is necessary so to do. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(2)(a) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950), I make this order directing that the said Shri Kamakshya Mukherjee alias Haru be detained. Given under my hand and seal of office Sd. S. P. MallickDistrict Magistrate. Jalpaiguri' Stamp of the Dist. Magistrate.Jalpaiguri.4. The grounds of detention, which are in Bengali, have been annexed in annex-ure 'A2' to the petition and the same will be considered in the proper context.5. Mr. Manindra Mohan Sinha, Advocate (with Mr. Rabindra Narayan Chakra-borty, Advocate) appearing on behalf of the detenu has challenged the orde...
Tag this Judgment!indo Impex Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1968
Reported in: [1968]22STC66(Cal)
D. Basu, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 25th February, 1961, passed by respondent No. 2 (Assistant Commissioner), which is at annexure H, directing a fresh assessment and the fresh order of assessment made by respondent No. 1 (Commercial Tax Officer) on 27th October, 1964 (annexure I to the petition), in pursuance of the aforesaid direction.2. Though the petition has become somewhat clumsy after amendment, the substance of the petitioner's case is that the agreement at annexure A by which the petitioner-company contracted with the Calcutta Corporation to instal certain electric lamp posts, constituted an indivisible works contract and did not include any separate contract to supply materials so as to be assessable to sales tax On the value of the materials so supplied. The facts of the case are as follows :3. In pursuance of an invitation for tender from the Calcutta Corporation for the installation of electric lamps on its ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Aluminium Corporation of I ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR371(Cal)
P. B. MUKHARJI J. - the question asked on this income-tax reference is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,56,806 was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business and as such allowable as business expenditure ?'The assessee is the Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. of 7, Council House Street, Calcutta. The statement of the case relates to the assessment year 1955-56, the corresponding previous year being the financial year ended on March 31, 1955. BY an agreement dated December 30, 1949, the assessee appointed Messrs. J. K. Alloys Ltd. as the sole selling agent for selling its aluminium products. The agreement was effected for a period of 5 years from April 1, 1950. Under the terms of the agreement the selling agents were to receive the commission on all sales either effected by the agents themselves or by the principals directly. Clauses 6 of the agreement states as follows :'T...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Cal355,[1969]39CompCas126(Cal),72CWN424
ORDERBijayesh Mukherji, J.1. By this application the plaintiff, the Eastern Coal Co., Ltd., asks for amendment of the plaint presented and admitted on July 10, 1956.2. The plaintiff company went into a members' voluntary liquidation on June 26, 1958. And the amendment asked for seeks to incorporate that only, in the plaint, in suitable terms.3. The first attempt to defeat such amendment is rested on section 446 of the Companies Act, 1 of 1956, by which, amongst other things, all proceedings that pend in a court other than the Company Court, have got to be transferred to the Company Court, when a winding-up order has been made. When, however, it is pointed out that what bulks large here is a case of members' voluntary winding-up, not a winding-up by the Court or subject to the supervision of the Court, and that section 489 does not list section 446 as one of the sections applicable to a members' voluntary winding-up, the attempt is given up, it being conceded that section 446 is irrelev...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Prasad Sharma Vs. Prafulla Chandra Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal198,72CWN328
ORDERB.C. Mitra, J. 1. This is an application for a rule nisi in a petition for a writ of quo warranto. The petition was moved on January 12, 1968, when an order was made directing the petitioner to serve notice of this application on the respondents. Pursuant to this order notice has been served upon the respondents who have appeared in this application, but some of them opposed the issue of a rulenisi, while others supported the petitioner.2. Briefly stated the events that have led to this application are as follows:--After the last Genera! Election several political parties, whose members are members of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council of West Bengal, formed a coalition under the name and style of 'United Front'. The members of the United Front in the Legislative Assembly, enjoyed the support of the majority, and the Governor appointed the respondent No. 12, who was the leader of the United Front, as the Chief Minister of the State, and on the recommendation of t...
Tag this Judgment!Polsan Ltd. and ors. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal247,1969CriLJ595
T.P. Mukherji, J.1. Appellant No. 1 M/s. Poison Limited and appellants Nos. 2 and 3, employees of the firm at Calcutta, filed this appeal against their conviction under Sections 16(1)(a)(i)/7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act bya Municipal Magistrate at Calcutta, Appellant No. 1 has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- while appellants 2 and 3 have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to simple imprisonment for three months. The subject-matter of the prosecution was ghee which on chemical analysis was found to be adulterated in the sense that the moisture content therein and the oleic acid content also, exceeded the standard as prescribed in A 11.14 of Appendix I to the Rules framed under the P. F. A. Act. The standard for moisture content prescribed for West Bengal is 0.3% while that prescribed for oleic acid is 3%. The result of analysis in the present case disclosed a moisture content of 1% and oleic acid content of 4.2%. The learned Magis...
Tag this Judgment!Fazal Mir Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1968
Reported in: 1968CriLJ816
N.C. Talukdar, J.1. This Rule is against an order dated the 26th November, 1965 passed by Shri L.C. Sen, Additional Sessions Judge, Murshidabad, dismissing an appeal from an order dated the 3rd November, 1965, passed by Shri S. Niyogi, Magistrate 1st Class, Kandi, convicting the present :petitioner under Section 5 of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1950 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The caroused Lal Bibi, who is the wife of the present petitioner, did neither file any appeal before the Sessions Judge Murshidabad nor prefer any motion in this Honourable Court.2. The fasts leading on to the present Rule may be put in a short comas. The prosecution case is that on the 6th September, 1964, P.W. 1, A.S.I.N.N. Baul and P.W. 7, S.I.P.B. Das, lien attached to the Kandi Police station, leached upon suspicion the house of the accused. petitioner Fazal Mir at Jiadara, P.S. Kandi and recovered two bundles of copper-wire, Exts. I and II respectively...
Tag this Judgment!Baidyanath Sikdar Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1968
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1135
ORDERT.P. Mukherji, J.1. The petitioner, who was discharged by a Magistrate, first class, at Ranaghat, in a case under Section 498/373 of the Indian Penal Code and whom the learned Sessions Judge under Section 487 of the Criminal P.C. has directed to be committed to the Court of Sessions on a charge under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code only, obtained this rule for setting aside the order of commitment.2. Mr. Mukherjee appearing in support of the Rule raises two contentions, first, that the materials on record do not justify the order for comment and, secondly, that the order for commitment straightway made under Section 437 of the Criminal P.C. is, on the facts of this case, bad in law, inasmuch as that order does away with the necessity for compliance with the provisions of his 211, 212 and 218 of the Criminal P.C. and not only that, it takes away the discretion of the enquiring Magistrate under Section 218(2) of the Code to discharge the accused if he is satisfied after complia...
Tag this Judgment!P.L. Jalan Vs. Gour Mohan Chandra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ808
ORDERT.P. Mukherji, J.1. Sometime in the year 1966 on information lodged at the instance of opposite party No. 1, the Detective Department of the Calcutta Police took up investigation into a case involving offences of cheating, forgery, conspiracy etc against the present petitioner. In April 1967 the petitioner filed a complaint against opposite parties 1, 2 and 8 in the court of the police magistrate at Alipore alleging similar offences. The learned magistrate sent the complaint to the officer-in-charge of Watgunge police station for investigation. The order was made obviously under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, it appears, the investigating officer who was investigating the case earlier instituted at the instance of opposite party No. 1 moved the Deputy Commissioner of the Detective Department praying that that case as also the case of the Watgunge police station referred to above may be investigated by the same officer. On July 20, 1967 D.C.D.D. app...
Tag this Judgment!Director General Ordnance Factories Employees' Association Vs. Union o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal149,74CWN1,(1970)ILLJ707Cal
ORDERD. Basu, J.1. This Rule involves a dispute between two sections of the subordinate employees in the office of the Director-General of Ordnance Factories, represented by two Unions.2. The Petitioner is the Employees' Association which represents employees other than stenographers. The 'Stenographers' Association' has been added as Respondent No. 3 at their intervention. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India and Respondent No. 2 is the Director-General of Ordnance Factories.3. According to the Petitioner Association, the Stenographers are outside the clerical cadre: that there is no Rule authorising the promotion of Stenographers to the grade of Assistants and that the Stenographers had no higher prospects in their career. Administratively, however. Respondents reserved a post of Assistant-in-Charge to be filled up from the cadre of Stenographers of Grade 13 and on the protest of the Petitioner. Respondent No. 2 stated that it was only a 'non-recurring measure' (Annexure A) which h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›