Kolkata Court February 1972 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.
Nishakar Pan and ors. Vs. Mahedeb Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal258,77CWN747
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J. 1. This Rule has been obtained against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Asansol made on the 17th January, 1968 in Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1967 arising out of Misc. Case No. 20 of 1966 in the court of the Munsif, Second Court, Asansol. By this order the petitioners' claim for pre-emption has been refused. The property in dispute is a tank. It is Dag No. 40, P. S. Kansa, Mouza Alma Biswanathpur, District Burdwan. The petitioners, the opposite party No. 3 and one Nishingha Thakur were co-sharers of this tank having Niskar right. The petitioners had 12 annas share in the tank, the opposite party No. 3 had 2 annas share and Nrishingha Thakur had the remaining 2 annas share. On the 14th April, 1954 the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 came into force. In accordance with the provisions of this Act the aforesaid co-sharers retained the tank. In the record-of-rights under the Estates Acquisition Act several Khanda-khatiang were made. These Khanda-khatians ...
Tempa Landu Vs. Ranjit Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal496
ORDERR.N. Dutt, J.1. The petitioner is the tenant and the opposite party is the landlord of the disputed premises. The opposite party filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default. The petitioner filed written-state-ment. Subsequently the opposite party filed an application under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and the learned Judge allowed that application and struck out the petitioner's defence against delivery of possession. Thereafter, the suit was decreed ex parte on September 1, 1967. On September 22, 1967 the petitioner filed an application under Section 17-C of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act as incorporated by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Ordinance, 1967. The application was resisted by the opposite party and the learned Judge rejected the application. The petitioner has thereafter obtained this Rule.2. Under Section 17-C as incorporated by the said Ordinance an application could be made in a proceeding where t...
New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Dwijendralal Brahmachari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR467(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The petitioner, New Central Jute Mills Ltd., challenges in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the summons dated 6th June, 1969, issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In order to appreciate the controversy it will be necessary to set out certain facts. On the 11th April, 1963, an order was passed under Section 237(b)(i)/(ii) of the Companies Act, 1956, appointing an inspector to investigate the affairs of the petitioner-company. On the 12th June, 1964, another order was passed under Section 237(b)(i)/(ii) of the Companies Act, 1956, appointing another inspector along with the previous inspector to investigate the affairs of the petitioner-company. On the 30th June, 1964, another order was passed under Section 237(b)(i)/(iii) of the Companies Act appointing another inspector in place of the earlier inspector and extending the time for investigation. On the 20th July,1964, inspectors appointed under Secti...
Carew and Co. Ltd. Vs. Sailaja Kanti Chatterjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1972
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ359Cal
Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J.1. This rule was obtained by the employer M/s. Carew & Co. Ltd. and it is directed against an appellate order of the learned Chief Judge, Small Cause Court, Calcutta, in an appeal under Section 14(6)(a) of the West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts that lie in a short compass may be stated as follows:The opposite party No. 1, Sailaja Kanti Chatterjee, is a clerk under the petitioner's company. His salary was raised from Rs. 582-590 and odd per month inclusive of dearness allowance at the relevant time. During the period January, 1966 to March, 1968, he had done overtime work for a total period of 1043 1/2 hours and as such he was entitled to recover from the petitioner's company the total overtime wages amounting to Rs 1,730.36 calculated at one and half times of his basic salary. On or about 15th May, 1968, he made an application under Section 14(2) of the Act against the petitioner before the authori...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›