Kolkata Court May 1971 Judgments
Ratan Lal Singh Vs. Gezer Bros. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal439,75CWN784
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J.1. This rule was obtained by the tenant defendant against Order No. 47, dated July 15, 1970 passed by the trial court rejecting his application under Section 17D (1) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, as not maintainable.2. The point for determination in this rule is the interpretation of the word 'decree' in Section 17D of the Act. This section, a new section, was inserted in the Act, with retrospective effect, by Section 5 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1969 (West Bengal Act XXXIV of 1969) hereinafter referred to as 1969 Act. Sub-section (1) provided as follows:'17D (1) 'Where before the commencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1968, (President's Act 4 of 1968), a decree for the recovery of possession of any premises was passed- (a) in a suit under this Act, in which no order had been made under Sub-section (3) of Section 17 striking out defence against delivery of possession, only on the ground r...
Tag this Judgment!K.L. BhasIn Vs. Sundar Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ371
ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J.1. This Rule is at the instance of the accused-petitioner K. L. Bhasin for setting aside an order dated the 20th September. 1969 passed by Shri R. P. Roy Chowdhury, Presidency Magistrate, 11th Court. Calcutta framing a charge under Section 406. Indian Penal Code or in the alternative under Section 403. Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioner in case No. C-3569 of 1968 and for quashing the said proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate. After the arguments were over, the Judgment was reserved and Postponed several times at the prayer of the parties who prayed for time to settle the dispute. The talks of compromise how-ever failed.2. A petition of complaint was filed in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate. Calcutta by the complainant. Sundar Singh, on behalf of the Associated Indian Enterprises (Private) Ltd. against the accused under Sections 420, 403/406. Indian Penal Code alleging inter alia that the complainant is the Sales Representati...
Tag this Judgment!D. Macropolo and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Cal350
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petition challenges the notice dated 2nd December, 1968, issued by the Estate Officer under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1953. The petitioner was for a long time a tenant in respect of a building known and numbered as premises Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Old Court House Street, Calcutta. The petitioner was paying rent at a particular rate. The Government of India purchased the said property on or about the 31st January, 1963. By a notice dated 22nd July, 1963, the Deputy Director of Estates and Under Secretary of the Government of India on behalf of the President of India terminated the tenancy in respect of the said premises on the expiry of the month of August, 1963. On the 21st September, 1963, the Estate Officer, Government of India, informed the petitioner that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the said premises and called upon...
Tag this Judgment!inland Revenue Commissioners Vs. Brown.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR383(Cal)
RUSSEL, L. J. - This is an appeal from the decision of Megarry J. which is reported in [1971] 1 W. L. R. 11; [1971] 82 I. T. R. 222, where the facts and the problems are set out and to which reference may be made.I take the first question whether the sum of Pounds 10,000 received by the taxpayer was a consideration which either was or represented the value of, assets which were available for distribution by the company by way of dividend. This depends on the one question - whether 'available' means legally available in the point of company law, or whether it has some other or wider meaning of available in some commercial sense. I, for my part, do not think that I can improve upon the reasons of Megarry J. for holding that the former meaning is the correct one, and I am content to adopt it, and I, therefore, uphold his judgment on this point : see [1971] 1 W. L. R. 11, 25-26, 27.I add that, though it was not apparently so contended below, it was suggested to us that the money borrowed f...
Tag this Judgment!Rajputana Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Iswarsingh Kripalsingh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Cal56
ORDERS.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application, inter alia, for, reconsideration of an order passed by me on August 26, 1970 under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act directing the striking out of the defence of the petitioner so far as delivery of the possession of the premises in suit was concerned. The said order was passed by me under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 on the ground that the defendant had failed to pay the landlord or deposit either in Court or with the Rent Controller an amount equivalent to the rent in respect of the six tenancies mentioned in the plaint for the month of May 1969, that is, a period after the institution of the suit.2. On March 6, 1969, the suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of possession of the premises in suit which were the subject-matter of six different tenancies. The Writ of Summons was served on the defendants on April 7, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Kumar Banerjee and ors. Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR6(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. It arises out of the estate duty assessment of the estate of late Panchu Gopal Banerjee (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who died on April 17,1955. On the death of the deceased, theapplicants, who were the accountable persons under the Act, furnished an account in the prescribed form of the properties passing on the death of Panchu Gopal to the Deputy Controller of Estate Duty, Calcutta, the assessing authority concerned. The Deputy Controller, by his order dated the 30th December, 1958, determined the principal value of the estate passing on the death of the deceased, at Rs. 16,51,31.4 and the duty payable at Rs. 3,12,214.50 nP. In the principal value aforesaid, the Deputy Controller included, inter alia, the value of the properties comprised in two trusts known as (a) Sarada Sampad Trust, and (b) Jagadhatri Sampad Trust.2. The question referred to this court is as follows: 'Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan and Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1971
Reported in: 75CWN741,[1972]84ITR427(Cal)
B.C. Mitra, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated April 30, 1970, whereby a rule nisi issued under Article 226 of the Constitution was discharged.2. For the assessment year 1962-63 the appellant filed its income-tax return on November 29, 1962, showing Rs. 2,092 as its profits. According to the appellant a mistake had occurred in the preparation of the return, inasmuch as the profit of Rs. 10,718.46 arising from construction work was left out from the return, but along with the return a copy of the balance-sheet and profit and loss account was filed by the appellant. In the profit and loss account, however, the profit from the construction work was Shown. The Income-tax Officer made the assessment on November 27, 1963, and it appears from the assessment order that the profit from the construction work was taken into account in making the assessment. The appellant, however, had filed a revised return showing the general profit of Rs. 2,092 as also the profit f...
Tag this Judgment!The Gaya Muzaffurpur Roadways Co. and ors. Vs. Fort Gloster Industries ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal494,76CWN17
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an appeal by a firm, a carrier, and its partners the defendants, against the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff No. 2 the insurer, in a suit for recovery of compensation and damages.2. According to the plaint, at all material times the defendant No. 1, the firm, used to carry on the business as Transport Contractor and used to carry and transport goods by road as such. The defendants Nos. 2 to 6 had been the partners of the defendant No. 1. A quantity of 125 tons (80 and 88 pieces) of electrolytic copper wire bars were entrusted and delivered to the defendants at K. G. and K. P. docks, Calcutta for transport to Tatanagar and the defendants agreed to carry the same for reward and to deliver them at destination. The goods were lifted by the defendants into lorries on May 11 and 18, 1961, but, the goods were not delivered at all at destination in breach of their obligation. The plaintiff No. 1 hereinafter referred to as 'the company' was ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankar Prosad Banerjee and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1971
Reported in: 1973CriLJ509
ORDERP.C. Borooah, J.1. Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 1085 of 1970. 1086 of 1970 and 1087 of 1970 are taken up together for hearing. In all the three cases the petitioners and opposite parties are identical.2. By three separate orders all dated 19.11.70 passed by Sri S.K. Acharva Magistrate, first class. Suri in G.R. Cases Nos. 1130 of 1968. 1131 of 1968 and 1132 of 1968. petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 and the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 31 in the three Rules were committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial under Sections 147 and 302. I.P.C. in three separate cases.3. All the three cases arose out of an incident which occurred in the early morning of 28.12.68. According to the prosecution, the petitioners and the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 31 took one Fani Muchi to Amajola Atchala and tied him to a Post of the Atchala. The accused opposite party No. 3 Nani Gopal struck a blow on the face of Fani and asked him to name his associates who took part in a theft along with him. Fani gave o...
Tag this Judgment!Steel and Allied Products Ltd. Vs. Gerbrueder Bholar and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Cal89
S.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an application for grant of a certificate under Articles 133(1)(a) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution for appeal to the Supreme Court. The order of the appellate Court is an order of dismissal of an appeal from an order made by a learned single Judge by which his Lordship corrected an earlier order he had made. The order as corrected reads : 'Leave is granted to the petitioner to withdraw this suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action .............. and it is further ordered that the plaintiff company do pay to the defendant company its costs of and incidental to this application assessed at Rs. 170/- and this Court doth certify that this is a fit application for employment of advocate.'2. As by the order leave was given to withdraw the suit and nothing further remained to be done by the Court in the matter, we are of opinion that the order is a final order.3. The next question which arises is whether the order and judgment of the ap...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »