Kolkata Court August 1968 Judgments
Nitish Ranjan Das and anr. Vs. University of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Cal207,73CWN54
ORDERA.K. Sinha, J.1. Both these Rules which were issued at the instance of the two students of Shantipur College for quashing orders cancelling their B. Sc. Examination of the year 1963 of the Calcutta University, are taken up together as they involve common question of fact and law. The facts set out by the petitioners in both the petitions are substantially as follows:2. The petitioners were students of Shantipur College affiliated to the University of Calcutta. They appeared at the B. Sc. Examination of the year 1963 held by the University of Calcutta on and from 3-4-63 at Shantipur College Centre, having had Mathematics, Physics & Chemistry as their combination subjects and their roll numbers were 41 and 40 respectively. The examination passed off smoothly and peacefully and there was no disturbance either in the examination hall or outside. The petitioners, it is alleged, fared very well in the said examination and were expecting with reasonable certainty to come out successful. ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the India Electric Works Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Cal398
ORDERK.L. Roy, J.1. This is an application under Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the Winding-up of the India Electric Works Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The petitioning creditor is the State Bank of India, who claims to be a secured creditor of the Company to the extent of Rs. 1,67,78,000. The petitioning creditor is supported by two other creditors namely, Anwar Ali and Bros, whose claim against the Company is for Rs. 33,157 for the price of goods supplied and Steel Distributors, whose claim is Rs. 31,000 also for goods supplied to the company. The petition is being opposed by several creditors, namely, James Finlay and Co., whose claim against the company is for Rs. 59,527, M/s. Narayan Choudhury Bros. (P.) Ltd., whose claim amounts to Rs. 54,525 and by the Secretary of the India Electric Works Employees Association, a registered trade union, who claims that the company is indebted to the members of the said association to the extent of Rs. 29,50,000 cons...
Tag this Judgment!Bon Behari Mondal Vs. Bhusan Chandra Barui and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal287,1969CriLJ717,73CWN636
ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J.1. This Rule is against an order dated the 16th May, 1968, passed by Sri A.R. Bhattacharya, Magistrate, 1st Class, Diamond Harbour, 24-Parga-nas discharging the accused in case No. G. R. 359 of 1967 under Section 10 of the West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competitions Act (Act XXXII of 1957), 1957.2. The facts leading on to the preterit Rule can be put in a short compass. A first information was lodged on 15-3-67 by the de facto-complainant, Bonbehari Mondal, at the Sagore Police Station, Diamond Harbour against seven accused persons including the present opposite par-tips alleging that on 14-3-67 at about 9 p. m. the accused were found gambling without license at the mela ground at Companychar with dice and money. Certain alamats viz., one printed dice board, one leather cover, three ten-rupee notes, fourteen one-rupee notes and Rs. 4.40 p. in small changes were also deposited at the thana. On 17-3-67 the accused opposite party No. 1, Bhuban Chandra Barui after bei...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Purabi Banerjee Vs. Basudeb Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal293,72CWN905
Bijayesh Mukherji, J.1. This is an appeal by the wife Sm. Purabi Banerjee whose petition dated August 14, 1963, for annulling, by a decree of nullity, her marriage on April 26, 1963, with the respondent Basudeb Mukherjee, on the ground that her consent to the marriage was obtained by coercion and fraud, just the ground under Section 25, Clause (iii), of the Special Marriage Act, 43 of 1954, fails before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta.2. On April 26, 1963, when Purabi and Basudeb were married, Purabi was 23 or thereabouts and Basudeb 28 or thereabouts.3. On August 1, 1962, Basudeb started coaching Purabi -- then a B. A. student of Scottish Church College, Calcutta, and residing under the care of her uncles and aunts in their joint family residence at 235, Barrackpore Trunk Road, Calcutta 36. Basudeb was engaged so, on the recommendation of Purabi's cousin -- one Asim Ganguli alias Nantu whose colleague in office Basudeb was, Basudeb's remuneration was no more than R...
Tag this Judgment!Wazir Brothers Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Burdwan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Cal415
ORDERA.K. Sinha, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, West Bengal, rejecting the petition of revision of the petitioner dated 24th July, 1964 affirming the successive orders passed in appeal from an order of assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer.2. The facts set out, briefly, are as follows:The petitioner was running a railway canteen at Burdwan and Bandel Stations, District Hooghly and he had his head office at 147, Faithfulganj, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. It was registered as a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) having registration certificate number BN/55B under the Commercial Tax Officer, the Respondent No. 1 in respect of its business in West Bengal. While carrying on the above business the petitioner submitted return for four quar-ers ending 31st July, 1956, showing Rs. 72,347-14-0 as gross turnover out of which Rs. 45,019-4-0 was claimed as deduction on account o...
Tag this Judgment!Debesh Chandra Das Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal180
S.P. Mitra, J. 1. This matter has been assigned to me under clause 36 of the Letters Patent. P. B. Mukharji. J., and A. N. Sen, J., by their Lordships' order of April 11, 1968, have been pleased to state that their point of disagreement is as follows:-- 'Whether the order or direction of the Government of India contained in the letter dated the 20th June, 1966 and the 7th September, 1966, is unconstitutional or illegal.' 2. In 1933, the petitioner qualified himself for the Indian Civil Service. In 1934, the petitioner, after serving his period of probation, arrived in India and was allotted to Assam, now known as the State of Assam. Between 1938 and 1940 he held the post of Under-Secretary to the Assam Government in the Home (Political) Department. In 1940, the Government of Assam placed the petitioner's services at the disposal of the Government of India and he was appointed to the post of Under-Secretary in the Home Department. In 1947, the petitioner held the post of the Deputy Secr...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Krishna Lohia Vs. Hoolungooree Tea Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal312
A.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and order of Sen, J., dated 10th June, 1968. The order was made on the notice of motion dated 25th April, 1968, taken out by the plaintiff inter alia for an order of injunction restraining the defendants and each one of them, their servants, agents and assigns from holding the proposed Extraordinary General Meeting of the Company on April 29, 1968, and passing any resolution thereat pursuant to the purported notice dated March 30, 1968 and the Explanatory statement annexed thereto and also injunction restraining the defendants and each one of them, their servants, agents and assigns from holding any share-holders meeting of the company pursuant to any purported notice such as or similar to the said notice dated March 30, 1968 and the purported explanatory statement annexed thereto, and further injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect to or acting upon any resolutions which may be passed in any such meeting, and injuncti...
Tag this Judgment!Bireswar Sen and anr. Vs. Ashalata Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal111
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. I have had the advantage of reading, in advance, the judgment, prepared by my learned brother. I fully agree with him in his conclusion that the appeal should fail and be dismissed and that there should be no order for costs, either here or in the Court below.Bijayesh Mukherji, J. 2. The decision of this appeal by Pannalal Sen the unsuccessful plaintiff, in the Court of first instance, turns principally on the question whether the two documents listed below are vitiated by undue influence or not-(i) A registered deed of gift, as respects a pucca one-storied house with amongst others, land admeasuring 3 cottahs 13 Chhittacks and 32 square feet, being part of 66/3 Kaibartapara Lane, Salkia, within the jurisdiction of Malipanchghora Police Station in the Town of Howrah, executed on 7th February, 1951, by Muktalal Sen, since deceased, a brother of the appellant Pannalal, in favour of Ashalata Ghose, the first defendant, who is the wife of Manmatha Nath Ghose, the seco...
Tag this Judgment!Basanta Pandey and anr. Vs. Sudhir Lall Seal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal360,74CWN109
ORDERBijayesh Mukherji, J. 1. The two thika tenants, Basant Pandcy and Kanai Pandcy, sons of late Ishwar Pandey, have obtained this rule under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside an appellate order of affirmance, by which their eviction has been directed under Section 3, Clauses (iv) and (v), of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 2 of 1949. Clause (iv) makes a thika tenant liable to ejectment from his holding, inter alia, on the ground that the land is required by the landlord for the purpose of building. Likewise, Clause (v) makes a thika tenant liable to ejectment on the ground, amongst other things, that he has failed himself to occupy a major part of the holding for more than six consecutive months.2. Mr. Ranjit Banerjee, appearing in support of the rule, does not press the pointrounded on Clause (v). He does not, not because it lacks substance, as he says, but because it will be futile, in view of the findings of fact that all the essential ingredients to bring the case...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Chandra Seal Vs. Pabitra Kumar Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal232,1969CriLJ592
ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J. 1. This Rule is for setting aside a charge dated 2-5-68 framed under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and for quashing the proceedings based thereupon, being case No. C 870 of 1966, pending in the Court of Shri J.C. Ghosh, Magistrate, 1st Class, Alipore.2. The facts leading on to this Rule are short and simple. The accused-petitioner is the owner of a taxi-cab bearing number W.B.T. 2286 having the requisite insurance-certificate, the tax-token and the blue-book in his name. He also has the necessary R.T.A. permit in his favour. A registered partnership was entered into between the petitioner as also the complainant opposite party on 20-1-62 for the purpose of running the taxi and to carry on business in transport. There was difference between the parties over the terms and conditions and the complainant's case is that the petitioner took over the taxi on 20-5-66 from the driver of the opposite party and is since then in possession thereof. A diary was lodged ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »