Kolkata Court March 1968 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri S.K. Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal4,[1970]76ITR291(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J.1. Four persons, namely Gostodhan Chatterjee, Krishna Chandra Chatterjee, Prithwis Chandra Biswas and Santosh Kumar Bose, started a business in co-partnership in the firm name of Popular Transport Service, under a deed of partnership dated the 1st July, 1945 with equal shares in the firm. Subsequently the aforesaid four partners agreed to introduce one Dhirendra Nath Banerjee as the fifth partner of the firm, The original four partners reduced their joint holding in the firm to 29/30th part of the business and the new partner was allotted the remaining 1/30th share. The aforesaid five partners carried on the business of the firm till the 21st July, 1952. On that date a deed, described as a deed of transfer, was executed by and between the said Prithwis Chandra Biswas, Santosh Kumar Bose, Gostodhan Chatterjee, Krishna Chandra Chatterjee and Dhirendra Nath Banerjee described therein as parties of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth part respectively and Bhagwan Shaw, L...
Tag this Judgment!Birendranath Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal386
A.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner's case in the instant Writ petition is that he is a voter of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly and after the constitution of a Gram Shabha named 'Nawda-Asannagar Gramshabha' he became a member thereof as his name was included on the Electoral Roll in the voters' list of one of its Constituency, Beltalspara. His further case is that the election of Anchal members of the Asannagar Anchal which was held from 17-4-1964 to 29-4-1964 and the election of respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 10 as Prodhan and Upa-Prodhan held on 11-5-1964 are all illegal because among those who were elected as members of the said Anchal Panchayet, the respondents Nos. 3 and 6 are both below 25 years and the respondent No. 4 Mahendra Nath Biswas is a Pakistani citizen who surrendered his Pakistani passport after coming to India sometime in 1953 and since then he has not been registered as a citizen of India. It is also alleged that the respondent No. 14, Paban Kumar Mondal, fil...
Tag this Judgment!Usharani Bej and ors. Vs. Mongal Munda and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1968
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1298
ORDERT.P. Mukherji, J.1. The second party to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure obtained this Rule against the order of, the learned Magistrate in the proceeding declaring possession with the first party and restraining the second party men from interfering with that possession except in due course of law. Opposite party No. 1 as the first party applied to a Magistrate holding a camp Court at Kakdwip that he was in possession of certain lands as bhagidar, that the present petitioners have raised a dispute over that land and have been trying forcibly to harvest the standing crop with the help of lathials. Preventive action under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prayed for. It was further stated that over this dispute, the first party had earlier initiated a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case which was numbered M 18 of 1967 and that a restraint order under the section had been made in that case against t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Narayani Debi Sureka Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal286
ORDER1. This Rule was obtained by the claimant petitioner in a requisition proceeding. The property requisitioned was the top-floor flat and ground-floor garage at Premises No. 23A/95N, Diamond Harbour Road, Calcutta. The flat was requisitioned on December 4. 1963, and possession was taken on December 19, 1963, and the garage was requisition-ed on February 23, 1964 and possession was taken on February 25, 1964.2. The First Land Acquisition Collector assessed the monthly compensation of the flat at Rs. 465/- and of the garage at Rs. 35/-. The claimant petitioner, feeling aggrieved, asked for a reference and she claimed a rate of Rs. 1,100/- for the flat and Rs. 60/- for the garage as monthly compensation.3. The matter was, accordingly, referred to arbitration and the learned Arbitrator eventually upheld the offer of the Land Acquisition Collector and fixed the monthly compensation for the requisitioned flat and the garage at the respective rates of Rs. 465/- and Rs. 35/-.4. From the abo...
Tag this Judgment!Sivapada Senapati and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal28,1969CriLJ160
Das, J.1. This is an appeal against conviction under Section 302/149 I. P. C. The appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellants Shivapada Senapati and Motilal Loher were also convicted under Section 148 I. P. C. and the rest of the appellants under Section 147 I. P. C., but no separate sentence was inflicted.2. The prosecution case is as follows;The deceased Monsaram Mahato and his sons, deceased Abhoy, Debu alias Debendra and Jagat and Parikshit were in possession of a paddy field known as Barakhet and the adjoining khets within Burir-bandh-namo khet. This appertained to a Jama of 11-30 acres in Plot No. 1460 of Manpur Mouza. Monsaram took settlement of the land from Panchakote Raj Estate at a rental of Rs. 35 and he got an Amalnama dated Ppus 17, 1345 B.S. They were in possession of the land for cultivation. On 27th Sraban, 1371 B. S. in the morning, corresponding to August 12, 1964 Mansaram with his sons Abhoy, Debu and Jagat and his brother Paresh went to the f...
Tag this Judgment!Jewell Filter Co. Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1968
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ221Cal
B.C. Mitra, J.1. The petitioner is a sterling company incorporated under the English Companies Act with its registered office in London. It has an Indian branch at Nos. 28 and 30, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta, and a workshop at No. 109, Foreshore Row, Howrah. It carries on business as water purification engineers. The total number of employees of the petitioner in its Calcutta and Howrah establishments were 88 in all. At a meeting of the board of directors of the company held at its registered office in London the following resolution was passed:It was resolved to close down all Jewell Filter Company, Ltd.'s, activities and thereafter to take the company into voluntary liquidation.2. Pursuant to this resolution the branch office in Calcutta decided to close down permanently, its activities in India both at the Calcutta and Howrah establishments, and a notice to that effect was put up on the notice-boards at the company's offices in Calcutta and Howrah on 26 December 1967. By this noti...
Tag this Judgment!Ashoka Marketing Ltd. Vs. Company Law Board
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1968
Reported in: [1968]38CompCas519(Cal)
Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 635B of the Companies Act, 1956. The appeal was filed before the Companies Tribunal. The said Tribunal was abolished by the Companies Tribunal (Abolition) Act, 1967, with effect from 1st July, 1967. Under the provisions of the said Act this appeal has been transferred to this court.2. The appellant is a company having its registered office at 18A, Brabourne Road, Calcutta, but it has its regional offices at different places including Chandigarh in the State of Punjab. One K. S. Paul is a senior sales officer of the said company posted at Calcutta. On or about 15th January, 1966, the managing director of the appellant company transferred the said Mr. Paul to Chandigarh for a period of six months and directed him to report for duty at Chandigarh by 24th January, 1966. Mr. Paul applied for leave for 12 days with effect from 25th of January, 1966. The said leave was granted. The employee was directed to report for duty at Chandigarh on the expiry...
Tag this Judgment!Jhabarmull Agarwalla Vs. Kashiram Agarwalla and Others.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR269(Cal)
R. N. DUTT J. - This rule is directed against an order made by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, making over certain documents seized by the police, to the Income-tax Officer, Companies Dist. III, E Ward, Calcutta.On August 3, 1964, at about 3 p.m. when opposite party No. 1, Kashiram Agarwalla, was removing 9 trunk loads of documents, the police seized them. The same day the petitioner filed a petition of complaint against opposite party No. 1 and his wife, opposite party No. 2, before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate. He directed the petition of complaint to be put up on the next day and on August 4, 1964, he examined the petitioner and then sent it to the police for enquiry and report. The police made an enquiry and submitted a report and thereafter the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate summoned opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 under section 424 of the Indian Penal Code. The Income-tax Officer, Companies District III, E Ward, Calcutta, who has been mad...
Tag this Judgment!Stadmed Private Ltd. and ors. Vs. Kshetra Mohan Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Cal572,72CWN601
Ray, J. 1. This appeal is from the order of the Companies Tribunal dated 14th March, 1967.2. The appeal is under Section 10(d) of the Companies Act which provides that an appeal shall He to the High Court out of any decision, finding or order of the Tribunal only on questions of law.3. The order of the Companies Tribunal was made on the application of Kshe-tra Mohan Saha and Sridhar Sikdar dated 26th May 1966 under Sections 397, 398 and 403 of the Companies Act. The reliefs which were asked for were, inter alia, that Amarendra Lal Das, Sujata Saha, Ranendra Lal Das and Sushil Kumar Roy be removed forthwith from the Board of Directors and injunction do issue restraining the said persons from operating the bank-accounts of the company and also restraining them from terminating or suspending or transferring services of the employees of the company. The further reliefs asked for were that a Special Officer be appointed forthwith to take charge of any conduct and run the business and that a...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ganges Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1968
Reported in: [1968]38CompCas603(Cal),72CWN618
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is a public limited company. The affairs of the defendant are managed by the plaintiff as its managing agents on terms and conditions contained in the managing agency agreement dated October 31, 1961. It is alleged that the plaintiff is entitled to get remuneration from the defendants in accordance with the scale of commission mentioned in the agreement on the net profits of the defendant to be computed in the manner laid down under Sections 348 and 350 of the Companies Act, 1956, subject to a minimum remuneration of Rs. 50,000. The plaintiff states that according to computations in the manner laid down in the said provisions of the Companies Act, the profit of the defendant for the year ending on March 31, 1966 was Rs. 7,48,362. The defendant, according to the plaintiff, in terms of the managing agency agreement is liable to pay to the plaintiff a remuneration for the said year amounting to Rs. 65,551. The defendant paid to the plai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »