Kolkata Court May 1972 Judgments
Pramila Chakraborty and ors. Vs. the Superintendent, Hoogly Jail and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ407
Anil Kumar Sen, J.1. These three Rules issued on three applications under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been heard together as they involve common questions of law and fact. The subject-matter of challenge in the three Rules is the detention of three persons Rabindra Chakravarty alias Gora, Sujit Kumar Mukherjee alias Tapan and Ajit Kumar Mukherjee alias Naru, Rabindra Chakravarty has been put to detention under an order dated July 6. 1971 passed by the District Magistrate. Hooghly in exercise of his powers under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the West Bengal Prevention of Violent Activities Act, 1970 The object of detention being to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the securitv of the State or the maintenance of public order. Suiit Kumar Mukherjee and Ajit Kumar Mukherjee have been out to detention under similar orders re-selectively dated July 9, 1971 and July 24, 1971. Ajit and Sujit are the two brothers. The grounds for detent...
Tag this Judgment!Madanlal Jindal Vs. Income-tax Officer, c Ward and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR546(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. There was a firm called Messrs. Omprakash & Co. The wife of the petitioner was alleged to be a partner in the said firm. This application relates to assessment year 1961-62. The petitioner received a notice for reopening of the said assessment. It has been stated that the said reopening was done beyond the period of four years. It was stated that the proceedings for reopening were taken for the reasons mentioned in Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner challenged the said reopening on the ground that the Income-tax Officer had no materials to reopen the said assessment and that at the time of the original assessment the petitioner had truly and fully disclosed all facts material for the assessment. It appears that there were several ladies who were partners in this firm, Messrs. Omprakash & Co., and the Income-tax Officer, 'J' Ward, Dist. III(2), Calcutta, had held that the ladies were benamidars of their respective husbands. Accordingly, ...
Tag this Judgment!Kartic Prosad Khettry Vs. Amar Nath Khettry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal115,76CWN992
ORDERHazra, J.1. This is an application for execution of a decree dated July 10, 1945 passed in a Partition and Administration Suit. The decree was by consent of the parties. Clause 3 of the decree, provided, that the defendant Amar Nath Khettry would pay to the plaintiff Kartic Prosad K'hettry Rs. 4,000/- (being the excess amount) taken by the said defendant from the Receiver appointed in the suit within 6 months from the date of the decree and the properties allotted to the said defendant in terms of Clause 1 of the said decree remain charged and in default of payment, the plaintiff would be entitled to execute the decree with interest (5) 6% per annum on the said sum of Rs. 4,000/-.2. Clause 4 of the decree, provided, that the defendant Amar Nath Khettrv would return the valuables and jewelleries to the plaintiff within one vear and a half from the date of the decree, and in default, the said defendant Amar Nath Khettrv would pav Rs. 5,000/- to the plaintiff with interest @ 6% per a...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Alim Vs. Commissioner of Wakfs, West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal117
Mitra, J.1. The subiect-matter of this appeal is the validity of an order ap-pointing the appellant as Mutwalli under Section 40 of the Bengal Wakf Act, 1934 (sic). The appellant's father created a public Wakf in 1916 with regard to premises No. 13/1. H. M. M. Square and premises No. 37 North Range. Calcutta. It was provided in the deed of Wakf that uponthe death of the appellant's father the Wakf would be managed by six members, one of whom was to be the appel-lant. Five of the members nominated are now dead and the appellant is the only surviving member. The appellant's father had appointed the second son, one Hakim as Mutwalli in his own place. Hakim continued to be the Mutwalli till 1952. when he left for Pakistan upon resigning this Mutwalliship. owing to dis-putes and differences between the appellant and his two other brothers. The Official Mutwalli was appointed in 1952 es the Mutwalli. The Official Mutwalli functioned as temporary Mutwalli upto February 2, 1967. On February 3....
Tag this Judgment!Chittaranjan Mondal Vs. Sankar Prosad Sahani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal469,76CWN781
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J. 1. This Rule is against an order of Amaresh Roy, J. made on the 23rd November. 1971. The plaintiff instituted an Ejectment Suit in the City Civil Court. By its judgment delivered on July 12, 1971, the City Civil Court passed a decree for ejectment. The tenant-defendant preferred an appeal to this Court. It was Appeal No. 2365 of 1971. In this appeal the tenant-defendant made an application for an injunction restraining the plaintiff from executing the ejectment decree. This application for injunction came up for hearing before Amaresh Roy. J. and His Lordship dismissed the application on the 23rd November 1971. Against this order of dismissal the tenant-defendant has preferred a Letters Patent Appeal and this Rule has been obtained in connection with that appeal.2. Mr. Roy Choudhury appearing for the plaintiff in the Ejectment Suit has raised a preliminary objection. He says that the order of Amaresh Roy, J. dismissing the application for injunction is not a 'ju...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahim and ors. Vs. Kamalapati Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal541
Ranendra Nath Dutt, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendants-appellants for declaration of title and confirmation of possession or, in the alternative, recovery of possession in respect of plots Nos. 1636, 1757 and 1758 of Mouza Maglampur.2. The plaintiff's case was as follows:--The defendants were the owners of the plots, but the defendants sold the plots to Gobordhan Sahdhu Khan, Nirepada Sadhu Khan and Joygopal Sodhu Khan by three different kobalas in 1364-65 B. S. Since their purchase the Sadhu Khans were in possession of the lands. But in Bhadra 1370 B. S. they sold the lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 3.900/- and since his purchase the plaintiff has been in possession. The defendants threatened the plaintiff with dispossession and hence, this suit. The defendants contested the suit. Their defence was that they never sold the lands to the Sadhu Khans. They took loans from the Sadhu Khans, but the Sadhu Khans advanced the loans af...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Basu and Anr. Vs. the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal470,76CWN681
ORDER1. The petitioners who are citizens of India have challenged the constitutionality of the Letters Patent of 1965, the Calcutta High Court (Jurisdictional Limits) Act, 1919 and Section 34(2)(3) of the Adovcates Act, 1961 on the ground that they offend the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India2. Similar application was filed by the petitioner No. 2 Sri. E. H. Tippo and and another which came for consideration before D. Basu J, as to its maintainability. The said petition was dismissed on the ground that there were not sufficient averments to show which would render the alleged classification unreasonable and also to show how they were affected by the offending law. It was held that unless such averments were made the opposite parties could not get an opportunity to controvert such allegations or to set up further grounds for which the classification, if any, may be sustained. D. Basu. J, however, permitted them to file fresh application either by themselves or along ...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Ananta Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1327
Anil kumar Sen, J.1. This Rule was issued suo motu by this Court on perusal of a letter of the nature of a reference dated March 20. 1972 from the learned Judge, Fourth Tribunal. Alipore. It arises out of case No. 1 of 1970 now pending trial by the said Tribunal. The said letter was written .by the learned Judge seeking for appropriate orders or directions from this court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) to meet an unprecedented situation created by the disruptive behaviour adopted by some of the accused on trial,2. The aforesaid tribunal was constituted by the State Government under Section 3(1) of the Tribunals of Criminal Jurisdiction Act. 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said Tribunals Act) and the aforesaid case No. 1 of 1970 against Ananta Singh and others was distributed to the said Tribunal for trial under Section 4 (2) of the said Tribunals Act. In the case the prosecution has laid charges under Section 120B, ...
Tag this Judgment!Munilal Bhagwat Sharan and ors. Vs. the Chief Commercial Superintenden ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal405
ORDERPradyot Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm and deals in foodgrains and oil seeds. The petitioner No. 1 Messrs. Munilal Bhagawat Saran is the holder for value of several Railway Receipts having been negotiated through Bank in Calcutta, upon payment made by the petitioner firm. The Railway Receipts are quite a number issued between 11th October, 1967 and 15th October, 1067. The said Railway Receipt is for carrying on maize and bazra from different stations in Haryana to Howrah. It is alleged that the State of Haryana is a surplus State in foodgrains but there was a ban on export of maize from the said State imposed by the Northern Inter Zonal (Movement Control) Order, 1967. It is alleged that the State Government of Haryana lifted the ban on export of maize and other coarse grains including bazra outside the State of Haryana from October, 1967. It is further alleged that an announcement to the said effect was made at Karnal by the then Hon'ble Chief Minister o...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmal Kumar Banerjee Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1582
A.K. De, JJ.1. This is an application for bail by one of the accused persons in G R Case No 790/71 of Uttarpara P. S. under Sections 364, 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. State opposed the prayer for bail.3. The case for the prosecution is that Pradip and his friend Biswadeb left Howrah for Nabagram on the 30th May 1971 for attending Sradh of their friend Debu Banerjee's mother. When they did not return, enquiry was made from Debu's father and it was learnt that Bulan Chakraborty brought some young men to his house. No information, however, could be had 'of those young men. from Bulan, Nine dead bodies were discovered at Nabagram on the 31st may 1971. Police arrested a number of persons and produced twenty of them before the Magistrate on the 3rd June 1971; Petitioner Nirmal was produced in custody on the 5th August. 1971. He applied for bail before the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge who refused his prayers.4. Mr. Sadhan Gupta. Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »