Kolkata Court February 1970 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Swapan Kumar Banerjee Vs. SahabuddIn Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1970
Reported in: 1971CriLJ715
ORDERAmaresh Roy, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order passed by a Magistrate at Alipore on 15th of May, 1969, in G. R. No. 2647/68 Case ________________ by which order he T.R. 429/68has allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the case and discharged the accused persons. The order is purported to be made Under Section 494, Criminal P.C. The case was one in which several accused persons were prosecuted for alleged offences Under Sections 148, 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code over occurrence alleged to have happened in May, 1968.2. When the case was pending before the learned Magistrate on 13 of May, 1969 as application was filed by the Officer-in-charge of prosecution stating therein,I have been intimated by the S. D. P. O. Alipore to withdraw the case from the prosecution as per Government order No. 2872(14)-F/142/69 dated 30-4-1969. as Government has decided to withdraw the case.The learned Magistrate thereupon made the order allowing the prayer to withdraw the prosecution.3. ...
Sailendra Nath Neogy Vs. Purnendu Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Cal169,74CWN897
ORDER1. This Rule arises out of aproceeding for pre-emption under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949. The opposite parties were the pre-emptors and the petitioner the pre-emptee. 2. The learned trial Judge allowed the application for pre-emption subject to payment of compensation, amounting to Rs. 400/-, to the petitioner for the alleged improvements, effected by him in the disputed land since his purchase. 3. The lower appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the aforesaid order of the learned trial Judge, allowing pre-emption in favour of the opposite parties, and upheld the said order for pre-emption. It also allowed the opposite parties' cross-objection against the grant of compensation by the learned trial Judge and dismissed the petitioner's claim in that respect. 4. The petitioner then obtained the present Rule, challenging the preemption order in question and disallowance of compensation. 5. In support of the Rule, several points w...
Mahadev Shaw Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Cal161,74CWN733
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of our learned brother T. P. Mukherji J. under leave, given by him under the said Clause.2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of our learned brother, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-Corporation of Calcutta to restrain them from demolishing the plaintiff's disputed structures.3. The relevant facts are admitted and they are as follows: The disputed construction appears to have been detected by the Corporation authorities in December, 1951. They were actually completed in or about March, 1952. During these periods, the old Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923 was in force and the Corporation authorities duly issued a stop-work notice under Section 365 of the said Act Actually, however, no step was taken under Section 363 of the above Act, either in the shape of issue of a sh...
Beharilal Agarwalla and anr. Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Cal450,1970CriLJ1344
Das, J. 1. This is an appeal against conviction under Section 7(i)/16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The appel-lant Beharilal was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rupees 1000 while the appeflant Girdharilal was sentenced to rigorous impri- sonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 2. The prosecution case is as follows : On November 29, 1963 the Food Inspector. Calcutta Corporation, visited the shop of Beharilal Omprakash at 149 Cotton Street, Calcutta. The appellant Giridharilal was then present. He took sample from one tin ol lanka powder in presence of witnesses after observing the rules. He also took charge of the tin and then went to the godown of the firm at 37 Cotton Street across the street. There also he found 41 tins of lanka powder and took sample from one such tin. All formalities were complied with and one sample of each seizure was handed over to the appellants. He also seized all the 42 tins of lanka po...
Municipal Commissioners of Howrah Vs. Calcutta Electric Supply Corpora ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Cal414,74CWN904
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is by the Municipal Commissioners or Howrah against a decision of the lower appellate Court holding inter alia that the assessment of Holding No. 433/1, G. T. Koad for the period in question is void and illegal and decreeing the plaintiffs suit for such declaration and temporary injunction, restraining the appellant Municipality from realising taxes on the basis of the said impugned assessment.2. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Judge but, on appeal, that decision was reversed and the plaintiffs suit was decreed, as aforesaid.3. On the materials before us, we are in agreement with the learned court of appeal below in regard to its conclusion that the impugned assessment was in contravention of Section 134 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, as applying to Howrah and, prima facie, therefore, apart from the question of the bar of res judicata, which we will discuss hereiubelow, the said assessment would have been void and illegal. The difficulty, ho...
Dooni Lal Seal and anr. Vs. Smt. Giniya Devi Rateria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Cal452
Ramendra Mohan Datta, J. 1. This suit is, inter alia, for the recovery of possession of the northwestern portion of premises No. 12/2 Kyd Street and the entirety of premises No. 13, Kyd Street, Calcutta (hereinafter called the said premises). By a registered Deed of Lease dated October 18, 1966 the said premises were demised by the lessors on a lease for 99 years in favour of the defendant No. 1. Besides the re-entry clause in case of non-payment of three months' rent and/or breach of any of the covenants contained therein the said lease, inter alia, provided the following clause :-- 'Clause 6 (a). That the lessee shall at any time within period of six months from the said lease pay to the lessors (plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 and their mother) either at a time or by two equal monthly instalments the aggregate sum of Rs. 21,000 as and by way of advance rent. Provided, however, that the defendant would be at liberty to adjust the said advance rent of Rs. 21000 so to be paid...
Hanuman Prosad Singhania Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1970
Reported in: [1971]27STC289(Cal)
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. This rule has been obtained by the petitioner against an order of assessment dated 30th December, 1964, of the opposite party No. 1, the Commercial Tax Officer, Jorasanko Charge, under Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act) read with Section 11(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act of 1941). The period of assessment is the year ending K.B. 15, 2018, and the commodity in respect of which the assessment has been made is betel-nut (supari).2. The petitioner carries on the business of a commission agent, in respect of various commodities including commodities notified under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act of 1954). The petitioner is a registered dealer under the State Act of 1941 and the State Act of 1954 and he is also a registered dealer under the Central Act.3. Section 25 of the State Act of 1954 provides that if the Stat...
Sankar Dome Vs. Kalidasi Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Cal461,74CWN932
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This is the plaintiffs second appeal, arising out of a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and mesne profits.2. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge. On appeal that decision has been reversed and the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the plaintiffs suit upon the view that to the admitted deceased owner of the property, the defendant respondent is a preferential heir to the plaintiff, and that, accordingly, the plaintiff cannot claim title to the same.3. The whole question is whether the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in holding that the defendant respondent's claim of title by inheritance to the disputed property was to be preferred to the plaintiffs.4. The suit property, admittedly, belonged to one Santosh Kumari and it was her Ayautuka Stridhan, Santosh Kumari died leaving no issue. Her husband was also dead at the time and it is not disputed thatthe disputed property would devolve on Santosh Kumari's husband's sapinda, a...
Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta Vs. Agarpara Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Cal17,74CWN900
D. Basu, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff respondent No. 1 against two defendants, the Union of India representing old B. N. Railway at present Eastern Railway and the Commissioners to the Port of Calcutta, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,64,00 (Rupees Six Thousand and sixty-four) for non-delivery of two consignments of goods from Barajamda to the Kidderpore Dock described as K. P. Dock under the control of the Commissioners on the allegation the two consignments which were despatched on the 24th May, 1951 and the 5th June, 1951 respectively and were to be delivered by the Port Commissioners at the dock were not delivered at the usual date and that on the 5th December, 1951, the Port Commissioners informed the plaintiff respondent that the consignment in question had been mis-delivered by them to one H. K. Das Mangilal. The plaintiff pleaded that this was due to the negligence of the defendants and claimed damages against ...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Assam Oil Company Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1970
Reported in: [1972]83ITR456(Cal)
P.B. Mukharji, Actg. C.J.1. This is an application by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, asking for a rule to show cause why the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, should not be required to treat the reference application as made within the time allowed under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, after condoning the delay of one day in filing the same on 24th December, 1968.2. The facts giving rise to this application may be briefly stated at the outset. The respondent is the Assam Oil Co. Ltd., Digboi, Assam. For the assessment year in question, the royalties were paid to the Assam Railways to the extent of Rs. 8,54,503 under the lease which was allowed by the Income-tax Officer by his order dated 22nd January, 1963, as revenue expenditure. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), being aggrieved, issued a notice to the assessee-company on 14th December, 1964, proposing to take action under Section 33B of the said Income-tax Act...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »