Kolkata Court June 1968 Judgments
Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal95
ORDERD. Basu, J.1. Common questions of law have been raised by these two petitions brought by two employees of the Durgapur Steel Plant appertaining to the Hindusthan Steel Ltd.2. In C. R. 1330, the Petitioner was the General Manager, who was appointed on 9-4-65 by the order of the President of India, which is at Annexure A, The Petitioner alleges that in the first week of July. 1967, he was verbally asked to resign by Sri Rao, Chairman of the Hindusthan Steel Ltd., (Respondent No. 4). On the 17th July, he was handed over the impugned letter at Ann. B, by the Chairman. This letter states that-(a) Government 'have decided to terminate your services ......... with effectfrom the forenoon of the 19th July, 1967'; (b) The Petitioner had, however, the option of submitting resignation, which would be readily granted; (c) The Petitioner might also terminate the contract with the Hindusthan Steel by sending a notice with a leave application before the 19th July, in which case he would be grant...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Vanaspati Manufacturing Company and anr. Vs. Katihar Jute Mills ( ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal496
Ray, J.1. This appeal is from the judgment of Mallick J. dated 29 July 1964 awarding the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 45,000 against the defendant Modis and a decree for Rs. 25,000 against the defendant Bhaduris.2. The defendant Modi Vanaspati . and the defendant Bhaduri Sen and Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bhaduris' for the sake of brevity).3. The plaintiff filed the suit against the Modis and the Bhaduris and claimed a decree for Rs. 80,960 as mentioned in paragraph 17 of the plaint and if necessary an enquiry into damages and decree for such sum as might be found due. The . plaintiff's case was that by exchange of letters and telegrams between the month of July 1952 and the month of November 1952 it was inter alia agreed that the Bhaduris would sell two sets of generating plants to the plaintiff with parts and equipments more fully mentioned in the correspondence to the plaintiff and the price of each plaint would be Rs. 70,000. The correspondence was set out in sched...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyanmal Agarwalla Vs. District Magistrate, Midnapore and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Cal12,1970CriLJ32
R.N. Dutt, J.1. This is an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus against the detention of Kalyanmal Agarwalla under Sub-section(2) of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act 1950.2. It appears that the detenu Kalyanmal Agarwalla is being detained on the basis of an order of detention made by the District Magistrate, Midnapore, on February 29, 1968, under Section 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.3. Mr. Mukherji first argues that no copy of the detention order was served on the detenu and as such the detention order should be struck down. It has been stated in the application that no copy of the detention order was served on the detenu when the detenu was taken into custody. The District Magistrate has in his affidavit said that copy of the detention order was served on the detenu when he was taken into custody. The District Magistrate has said this in his affidavit from information derived from the records ...
Tag this Judgment!Chirajit Pal Vs. West Bengal Khadi and Village Industries Board and an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal152
A.K. Sinha, J.1. These two rules are taken up together for hearing as they are issued at the instance of the petitioner against successive orders of his transfer while working under the West Bengal Khadi and Village Industries Board the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Board).2. The case of the petitioner briefly is that the Board is a body corporate established under Section 3 of the West Bengal Khadi and Village Industries Board Act (West Bengal Act XIV of 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act) having its Head-Office at Calcutta and certain Regional Offices at several places including Tamluk in the district of Midnapore and Coochbehar. The petitioner was appointed by an appointment letter dated 25th February, 1961, to the post of 'Marketing Assistant' under the Board on terms and conditions mentioned in the letter and since then continued to serve in that post diligently. This post was created by a resolution of the Board passed at its meeting held on 10/15th Octob...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal171,[1970]77ITR575(Cal)
S.P. Mitra, J.1. In this Reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the assessee is a limited company, whose main business is transport of cargo from ships berthed at the Calcutta Port The assessment year is 1961-62. The relevant previous year ended on the 31st October, 1960. Messrs. K. C. Bose & Co., a firm of Chartered Accountants, were the assessee's tax consultants. The assessments for the years 1948-49 to 1952-53 were reopened under Section 34 (1) (a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. At that time the original assessments for the years 1953-54 to 1959-60 were also pending. The assessee agreed to pay Messrs. K. C. Bose & Co. consolidated fees at the rate of Rs. 2,000 for each assessment year for these twelve years for settling each year's assessment irrespective of the fact whether there was any appeal or not in respect of a particular year.2. Out of the sum of Rs. 24,000, a sum of Rs. 8,000 was paid in the preceding year and was allowed by the Income-tax O...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Mitra Vs. Commissioners for Port of and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1968
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ232Cal
S.C.Ghose, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21 July 1966, passed by B.C. Mitra, J., discharging the rule nisi and dismissing the application of the appellant-petitioner for inter alia issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for quashing a notice dated 7 March 1964, terminating the service of the appellant under the respondents.2. On 1 September 1914, the appellant-petitioner was appointed a clerk in the A.R.P. Unit under the respondents. On 1 April 1946 the appellant petitioner was transferred to the Traffic Department of the respondents as a shed clerk. The service of the appellant-petitioner was confirmed on 1 August 1947.3. The facts leading to the application before the trial Court were as follows.4. The Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta is a body corporate established by the Calcutta Port Act (Bengal Article 3 of 1890) entrusted with the powers and duties set out in the said Act in respect of the Port of Calcuttta.5. Under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Rahini Roy Vs. Jethmull Bhojraj and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal218
ORDERS.A. Masud, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the petitioner, a partnership firm, under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside a decree passed by me as an undefended suit on 8th September, 1967. Admittedly, this suit was instituted as a summary suit under Order XXXVII on three hundis for Rs. 10,000/- each payable to the plaintiff or order 180 days after the said date without grace. The said hundis were drawn by the petitioner firm, M/s. Jethmull Bhojraj on K.K. Sukhani and were purported to have been accepted by one K.C. Sukla, the defendant No. 2. The said hundis on maturity were duly presented to the defendant No, 2 for payment but were dishonoured by non-payment due notice of which was given to the defendant No. 1 also. The defendants having failed and neglected to pay the amounts of the said hundis, the present suit was instituted against the defendants for a decree for Rs. 35,365/- on 12th January, 1967. On 9th February, 1967, the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Punam Chand Daga Vs. Subhakaran Dassani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal547
A.K. Mukherjea, J.1. These are nine applications for certificates under Article 133(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India for appeal to the Supreme Court. The applications arise in the following circumstances.2. The petitioner is a monthly tenant under the opposite party in respect of nine tenancies. All the nine tenancies are in respect of different rooms in premises No. 36, Shibtolla Street, Calcutta. The petitioner's landlord served nine ejectment notices in respect of these nine tenancies. As the petitioner failed or omitted to quit and vacate the premises, nine suits for ejectment were filed against him. All the nine suits were tried together and one judgment was delivered covering all the nine suits in November 1959. All the suits were decreed and the petitioner was given three years' time to vacate the premises. The petitioner preferred nine appeals from the original decrees in all the nine suits and on his prayer the appeals were heard analogously by the Court of appeal co...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Gani Vs. Md. Israil and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Cal554,73CWN61
Sinha, C.J.1. This is a reference in which three questions have been referred to us for answer. The relevant facts are all set out in the order of reference. It will be convenient to refer to it briefly. The suit was for eviction of the defendant, a monthly tenant, from one ground floor room within the premises 71A, Colootolla Street, Calcutta. A notice to quit dated 21st September. 1961 was given by the landlord through his lawyer, a copy of which is set out in the order of reference. It sets out two grounds, corresponding to clauses (a) and (f) of Section 13(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). There is no express statement therein to the effect that in default of making over possession a suit will be filed. As the referring Court was of the view that the proposition laid down in the decision of the Division Bench in Dulin Chand Dutta v. Renuka Banerjee, 68 Cal WN 296 that if a notice to quit would not, by itself, be a notice o...
Tag this Judgment!Budge Budge Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR772(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment year is 1959-60. The corresponding accounting year was the year ended on the 31st May, 1958. The assessee is Messrs. Budge Budge Investment Co. Ltd., which, inter alia, deals in jute and hessian. In the course of its dealings in jute and hessian during the relevant accounting year the assessee sustained a loss of Rs. 75,609. The Income-tax Officer refused to treat this loss as a business loss. He found that in no case delivery of the goods was given or taken. He, therefore, treated' the loss as a speculative loss.2. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it was contended on behalf of the assessee that contracts for each transaction of purchase and sale were in the form prescribed by the Indian Jute Mills Association and these contracts were settled in each case by giving and taking delivery of pucca delivery orders. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that, as...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »