Kolkata Court April 1973 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.
Balaram Chatterjee Vs. Hindustan Steel Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1973
Reported in: (1975)ILLJ23Cal
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Balaram Chatterjee, the plaintiff in this suit, was appointed by the defendant Hindustan Steel Ltd. in its establishment known as Durgapur Steel Project in the post of a supervisor. The plaintiff, as such supervisor, was entitled to a monthly salary of Rs. 265 per month consisting of basic wages and dearness allowance. The plaintiff's said appointment was terminable by a month's notice on either side.2. On 18th January, 1960 the General Manager, Durgapur Steel Project, acting for and on behalf of the defendant, without giving the stipulated notice to the plaintiff, terminated the latter's appointment with effect from 22nd January, 1960. as such the said termination was wrongful.3. By reason of such breach of contract on the part of the defendant the plaintiff has suffered loss and damages assessed at Rs, 50,000. The defendant has not paid any part of the said sum of Rs. 50,000 to the plaintiff in spite of demands.4. The above is shortly the case made out in the pl...
New Chhatabar Coal Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. J.G. Kumarmangalam and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Cal242
ORDER1. This application has been made for the issue of a Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from giving any effect to the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Ordinance, 1973, in relation to the Chhatabar Colliery of the petitioner situated in Mouza Chhatabar. P.S. Nirsha in the district of Dhanbad. The application also seeks for the issue of a Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents Nos. 1 to 8 to deliver back possession and management of the said Colliery to the petitioner. Rule nisi in terms of the aforesaid prayers was directed to be issued by me and I passed also at the time of the issue of the rule nisi certain ad interim orders which need not be mentioned now.2. Mr. R.C. Deb appearing for the petitioners also prayed for an ad interim order directing the respondents Nos. 1 to 8 to restore back the possession of the said Colliery to the petitioners. At the time of the issue of the Rule I did not pass the said ad interim order bu...
Calcutta Chromotype (Private) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1973
Reported in: [1974]95ITR595(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice K. L. Roy delivered on 11th March 1970. In an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, which is the appellant before us, had challenged a notice dated 17th February, 1966,'under Section 131, issued to the principal officer of the appellant by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XV, Calcutta. There was a covering letter to this notice which was as follows :' Sir, Sub. : Your assessment for 1961-62 assessment year. In connection with the above assessment you are hereby required under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to produce your books of accounts for financial years ending on 31st March, 1949, 31st March, 1950, 31st March, 1951, and 31st March, 1952, respectively on 22nd February, 1966. A notice under Section 131 is enclosed herewith. Yours faithfully, (Sd.) D. P. Guha, Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XV, Calcutta.' 2. Before we deal with the rival contentions of the ...
Anglo India Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Sarjoo Prasad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Cal419,77CWN530
Debi Prosad Pal, J.1. The only question raised in this appeal on behalf of the defendant-appellant relates to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is a tenant under the defendant-appellant and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the rights and possession of the plaintiff in the suit land as a tenant.2. The defendant is the owner of the disputed land. The defendant brought a case against the plaintiff under Section 17 (1) (a) and (b) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Bhagchas Officer, Barrackpur for eviction of the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant required the suit land for bringing the same under personal cultivation. In the said proceeding the plaintiff contended that he was not a bargadar but a tenant. This plea was overruled by the Bhagchas Officer who held the plaintiff to be a bargadar. Against that decision ...
Kripa Sindhu Biswas Vs. Sudha Sindhu Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Cal496,77CWN760
Laik, J. 1. In this important case there is some useful discussion on the law of arbitration. I have to plough through several authorities. Doctrines are laid down which would not be likely to introduce some further uncertainty into this branch of law. I did not enter at length into the technical arguments that were addressed to us, as any observation made on the same, might open the way to easy defeat of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The time has long pone by since this Court showed any disposition to sit as a Court of Appeal on awards in respect of matters of fact.2. The case has a chameleon-like history. It has greatly protracted the hearing and added to the costs. In this unfortunate litigation the disputants are own brothers.The defendant No. 1 appellant is a legal practitioner in the Howrah Court The plaintiff respondent No. 1 is a medical man.3. This appeal is presented from a judgment and decree passed in part, in a suit for p...
Mahabirprasad Birhiwala Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1973
Reported in: [1973]31STC628(Cal)
Debi Prosad Pal, J.1. The petitioner in this application has challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, on the short question as to whether conversion of turmeric and black pepper purchased by the petitioner and crushed into powder can be considered as 'manufactured or processed by him' so as to attract liability under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts which have given rise to this controversy are shortly as follows : The petitioner's business is to purchase 'whole' turmeric and black pepper from the market, to crush them into powder and to sell such powdered turmeric and black pepper. The petitioner purchased between 30th July, 1963 and 15th November, 1963,, 'whole' turmeric and 'whole' black pepper in the State of West Bengal and paid tax on the said purchase under the Act. He filed his return for the period of assessment between 30th July, 1963, to 15th November, 1963 (Dewali year 2020), showing his gross ...
Superbuilt Machineries Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1973
Reported in: [1973]31STC557(Cal)
Debi Prosad Pal, J.1. The question involved in this application is a short but interesting one. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on, under the name and style of Superbuilt Machineries, the business of manufacturing for sale various machineries and implements mainly used in agriculture. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner sold certain parts of machineries which are specially manufactured and sold to parties for the purpose of fitting in the agricultural implements sold to them. A certificate from the Director of Agriculture, West Bengal, has been annexed to the petition in support of the contention that the spare parts purchased from the petitioner by the different officers of the Directorate of Agriculture were meant for fitting with the agricultural implements only.2. For four quarters ending 31st March, 1965, the petitioner had been assessed under Section 11(1)...
Lincoln J. Willis Vs. Shanisul Haque and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ23
P.C. Borooah, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order dated the 12th February, 1969 passed by Sri S. N. Mukherjee. Presidency Magistrate. 15th Court, Calcutta.2. The appellant Lincoln. J. Willis was tried along with his son Oliver A. Willis alias Jambo before the learned Magistrate on a complaint filed by the respondent Shamsul Haque. Against the appellant there was a charge under Sections 427/114 of the Indian Penal Code and against his son there was a charge under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned magistrate by his order dated 3-12-68 found both the appellant and his son guilty of the charges and convicted them accordingly. Against that order this Court was moved in revision, and in revision the order of conviction and sentence passed on the appellant was set aside, but the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant's son was maintained.3. On the 5th February, 1969 the appellant Lincoln J. Willis filed a petit...
Gopal Chandra Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Cal3,77CWN642
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J. 1. On July 21, 1972 a rule was issued by this Court in Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction on the application of some workmen of the Kalyani Spinning Mills Ltd, Kalyani (hereinafter referred to as the Company) commanding the State of West Bengal and its servants as also the Company and its officers to show cause why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing them to act according to law and to ensure safety of the petitioners and other workers so that they could join their duties without fear, prevention and hindrance and also commanding other workmen of the company named in the petition not to interfere with the rights of the petitioners to join their duties without hindrance and obstruction and with their free movements. An interim order was passed on the same day to the following effect: 'There will be an interim order upon respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to act in accordance with law and to ensure safety of the petitioners movements so that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›