Kolkata Court March 1973 Judgments
Rukmani Debi Kashuka Vs. Jadu Nath Misra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1139
ORDERAnil Kumar Sen, J.1. This rule was issued on a writ petition. The petitioner is a woman who being served with a requisition dated June 4. 1970 by respondent No. 1 an Investigating Officer belonging to the Orissa Criminal Investigation Department for production of six items of documents at his office at Cuttack has taken out this Rule on the above writ petition disputing the legality and competency of such a reauisition.2. New General Trading and Transport Corporation carries on transport business. On November 30. 1969 this firm entrusted certain Aluminium Ingots to a Truck Driver namely Ram Singh for carrying those Ingots from Hirakud to the office of the Indian Aluminium Company at Belur. Entrust-ment was made at Hirakud. It is alleged that the said Driver along with the cleaner misappropriated those ingots and sold them off somewhere either at Howrah or at Calcutta. Unfortunately, two first information reports were lodged over the same incident on behalf of the Transport Corpora...
Tag this Judgment!The Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. M.G. Wagh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Cal413
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice K. L. Roy delivered on November 20, 1970. By this judgment the validity of a notice under Section 12 (2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was upheld. There was another notice under Section 5 (1) of the said Act with which we are not concerned in this appeal. In the writ application before Mr. Justice Roy the notice under Section 12 (2) dated the 9th December, 1968 was challenged and appropriate writs were prayed for. 2. The appeal first came up for hearing before my learned brother Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji and myself. It was urged on behalf of the respondents that in view of certain observations of the Supreme Court we would be invited to differ from a division bench judgment of this Court on the point involved in the appeal. It was urged further that there were also other strong reasons why the division bench of our Court should not be followed. For avoiding all controversies I constituted...
Tag this Judgment!Billeswar Kumar Vs. Smt. Nirupama Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Cal460
A.K. Sinha, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff appellant against a judgment and decree of the Trial Court refusing grant of probate briefly in the circumstances as follows: 2. The appellant made an application in the Court of the District Judge, Malda for grant of probate of a Will of one Rajes-wari Debya. The case set up by the appellant briefly was that Rajeswari Debya died on or about 29th December, 1956, at the residence of her daughter Sushamabala Debya at Khaskhole in the district of Malda leaving considerable amount of the immovable properties described in the Affidavit of Assets as also her near relations namely two daughters -- Sushamabala and Nirupama and their several sons and daughters. The Will was duly executed on 16th Agrahayan 1363, B. S. corresponding to 2nd December, 1956. The testatrix at the time of her death, it is alleged, had a fixed place of abode at Khaskhole. The appellant a son of Sushama was appointed executor in the Will and there being no othe...
Tag this Judgment!Ramgopal Lath Vs. the Commonwealth Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Cal504
ORDERRamendra Mohan Datta, J.1. This is an application for setting aside the award dated June 25, 1970 made by Mrs. Pratibha Bonnerjea, an advocate of this Court mainly on two grounds. It is firstly argued that by the order made under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 the arbitrator was directed to decide the question whether or not the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance had been satisfied by the petitioner herein. The second argument is to the effect that the arbitrator was guilty of legal misconduct inasmuch as she was clearly wrong in appreciating the evidence adduced before her and in making her award for Rs. 20,000/-in favour of the claimant.2. In support of his first contention Dr. Das has referred to the order made by Mallick, J., which reads as follows:--'As indicated before there is clearly a dispute as to whether the insurance company is liable to compensate. Whether or not, the terms and conditions have been satisfied and the petitioner is entitle...
Tag this Judgment!Hindusthan Motors Ltd. Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Cal450,77CWN711
ORDERAnil Kumar Sen, J.1. A summons under Section 12 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (Act 54 of 1969, hereinafter referred to as the said Act) issued on April 14, 1972 by the Monopolies and the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the said Commission) and an order dated May 12, 1972 passed by the said Commission are the subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition.2. M/s. Keshoram Industries and Cotton Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as Keshoram Industries) applied for Central Government's approval under Section 22(2) of the said Act to a proposal for the establishment of a factory at Patan, District Sikar in the State of Rajasthan for the manufacture of cement. Central Government made a reference under Section 22(3)(b) of the said Act to the said commission to make necessary inquiries and report its opinion such application. On February 4, 1971 the said commission issued a notification inviting informations from all ...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Kumar Singha Vs. Abodh Gopal Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Cal473,77CWN515
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a judgment of affirmance. The facts as stated in the plaint are as follows:The defendant had been a monthly tenant under the plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- payable according to English calendar month in respect of the ground-floor of premises No. 29-B, Satish Mukherjee Road, P.S. Tollygunge, Calcutta described in the schedule A to the plaint hereinafter referred to as the suit premises. The plaintiff served an ejectment notice dated November 17, 1962 calling upon the defendant to vacate the suit premises on ground of default in payment of rent and also for own use and occupation by the plaintiff landlord. The defendant on receiving of the said notice promised to quit and vacate the suit premises and at last gave a notice by post-card dated June 30, 1963 stating that he would quit and vacate the suit premises on July 31, 1963. He also gave another notice informing the plaintiff that he would vacate the suit prem...
Tag this Judgment!Saroj Kanti Basu Vs. R.T.A. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Cal182,77CWN805
ORDERDebi Prasad Pal, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the resolution dated 30th July, 1969 and the notification dated 20th August, 1969, issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Howrah. The facts which have given rise to the present controversies are shortly as follows:2. The petitioner is the owner of Bus No. WBU-248 and plies his bus on route No. 54 on the basis of a permanent stage carriage permit. Route No. 54 extends from Howrah to Bally Khal. There are two other routes, namely, route No. 51 and route No. 56 which extend between Howrah Station and Dunlop Bridge. By a notification D/- 30th July, 1969, the Regional Transport Authority announced that it was decided at a meeting dated 30th July, 1969 that the three routes, namely, Route No. 51, Route No. 54 and Route No. 56 would be amalgamated. The Regional Transport Authority appointed a Sub-committee at its mating held on 12th May, 1969, to examine the problem...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Sureka Vs. Bhavani Cinema and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Cal6
ORDERS.K. Hazra, J. 1. This is an application by the defendant No. 2, Georgina May Narayan for leave to enter appearance and to defend this suit filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit is for principal amount of Rs. 50,000/- and for interest amounting to Rs. 16,769.98 on Hundies from the respective due dates. The claim of the plaintiff Madan Mohan Sureka for the same amount is based on five Hundies for Rs. 10,000/- each, all dated February 1, 1969. Each of the Hundies is drawn by Martin John Sarkies, partner of Bhavani Cinema, Cooch Bihar. The drawee is M. J. Sarkies and the holder is the plaintiff Madan Mohan Sureka. The drawee, the holder, the amount and the dates of the Hundies are all same. 2. In the petition, the petitioner Georgina May Narayan has taken several points. Some are points of facts and some are points of law. She states that service of summons of the suit was made on her in her personal capacity and as such she cannot be sued...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Belarani Bhattacharyya and ors. Vs. Khondkar Asadar Rahaman and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Cal79,77CWN633
ORDERMurari Mohan Dutt, J. 1. This Rule is directed against order No. 25 dated December 5, 1969, passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Chandernagore, deciding issue No. 7 regarding the valuation of the subject-matter of the suit.2. The plaintiffs have instituted the suit for a declaration that the disputed lands are Pirottar properties and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants. The plaintiffs have also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from denying the Pirottar character of the disputed Lands or from interfering with the possession of the Muslim public of Haripal ,as representing the Pirottar. The plaintiffs have valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees at Rs. 1.000 under Section 7, Clause (v) of the Court-Fees Act and the plaintiffs have paid ad valorem court-fees on that value.3. The defendants in their written statement challenged the value of the suit, as made by the plaintiffs. It is alleged by them that ...
Tag this Judgment!Performing Right Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1973
Reported in: [1974]93ITR44(Cal)
Pradyot Kumar Banerjee, J.1. This rule is directed against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, rejecting the application made under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the English Companies Act in London with its registered office at Copyright House, 33, Margaret Street, Cavendish Square, in the County of London, England. The petitioner No. 1 is a non-profit making body and renders public service. The petitioner No. 2 is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act having its office at 26, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta. The petitioner No. 2 was appointed by the society as its true and lawful attorney. By virtue of power of attorney granted by the said society to petitioner No. 2, the Natsin India Pvt. Ltd., the latter company are agents in India for the Performing Right Society and has the power to commence, prosecute, etc. The petitioner No. 1, the Performing Right Society,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »