Kolkata Court February 1976 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.
Netai Chandra Ghose and ors. Vs. Phani Bhusan Biswas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal40
N.C. Mukherji, J. 1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against Order No. 195 dated February 18, 1972 passeed by Sri R. L. Mukherjee, Subordinate Judge, 9th Court at Alipore in Misc. Case No. 96 of 1967 arising out of Title Suit No. 100 of 1967. 2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows :-- 3. The petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 100 of 1967 for declaration of title, recovery of khas possession and injunction. The petitioners subsequently filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code and the opposite parties were restrained by an order of ad interim injunction from raising any construction on the suit land. The said order was served upon them on 13th November 1967. In spite of service of ad interim injunction the opposite parties started to raise construction. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application under Order 39, Rule 2 (3) of the Code for attachment of the properties. The said applicati...
Bengal Coal Co. Vs. Shahed Miah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1976
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ516Cal
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.2. The respondent was an employee of the appellant and had suffered physical injuries by reason of an accident in course of his employment on the 28th December. 1963, His wages were between Rs. 100 and Rs. 150 per month. The Commissioner has found that he sustained a permanent partial disability and assessed his loss of earning capacity to the extent of 10 per cent. The Commissioner made an award of compensation for Rs. 980. He directed payment of the balance, of Rs. 550 with corresponding costs and hearing fee assessed at Rs. 10.The respondent did not go to the witness box to adduce any evidence but there was medical evidence both by the employee's doctor as well as the employer's doctor.The accident occurred, as we have said, on the 28th December, 1963. It is admitted that the respondent resumed his duties on the 18th June, ...
Bimal Chand Dhandhia Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1594
ORDERA.N. Banerjee, J.1. These two rules arising out of the same case are directed against an order dated 9-8-75 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. By the said order charges under Section 414/511, I.P.C. were framed against the petitioners. Facts leading on to the framing of such charges may be briefly stated as follows:On 22-7-74 Sm. Ranu Mukherji of 7, Harington Street, Calcutta, informed in writing the police that on Saturday 13-7-74 she by mistake left a very valuable large sapphire ring on her dining table and she discovered the loss on the next morning. She immediately searched the dining table and room but did not succeed in getting it though she had combed the whole house. The description of the ring was given as one oval shaped sapphire, surrounded by 18 diamonds and four claws. On the basis of this information the police started a case of theft under Section 380, I.P.C. by filing in a formal F.I.R. form on 24-7-74. It was on that day, the accused N...
K.B. Debnath Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1869
H.N. Sen, J.1. The Rule obtained by the accused petitioner is directed against an order dated December 16, 1974 passed by Shri C. Samaddar, Fifth Additional Special Judge, Calcutta rejecting the prayer of the accused petitioner for copies of the statement of witnesses and documents.2. The petitioner, who was the Manager of Employees' State Insurance Corporation having its office at 61, Diamond Harbour Road, Calcutta, was arrested by C.B.I., S.P.E., Division Calcutta on 9-7-73 in connection with case No. C.B.I./S.P.E. R.C. No. 49/72 under Sections 120-B/409, 420, 419, 467, 407, Indian Penal Code and was produced before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ali-pore, 24 Parganas but was released on bail.3. Upon a police report filed by one Shri D. Bagchi, D.S.P., C.B.I., S.P.E. Calcutta through Shri K. L. Varma, Public Prosecutor, the learned Judge on the basis of the allotment order received prior thereto, took cognisance of the offence under Sections 409/120-B of the Indian Penal Cod...
Amitananda Roy Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal408
ORDER1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging an order passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, West Bengal on the 19th of March, 1973, in exercise of power conferred under Section 89 of the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).2. This application is by one Amitananda Roy claiming himself to be the share-holder and Secretary of the Writers Buildings Employees' Co-operative Canteen and Stores Limited which is a society registered under the said, Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Society) in respect of which the impugned order of liquidation was passed. The petitioner's case as made out in the petition is as follows: It is stated that the said society was founded in 1964 and since its inception it is functioning as a non-profit making concern. The Managing Committee at the time of making of this application was elected on 30th January, 1973. and it assumed charge on 7th...
Latika Sharma Sarkar Vs. University of Calcutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal212,80CWN359
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji delivered on December 18, 1970. The appellant before us, in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenged the second publication of results of the M. A. Examination in Political Science held in 1968.2. The facts briefly are that the appellant appeared at the said M. A. Examination in political Science from 29th January, 1969 to 24th February, 1969. Her Roll Number was CAL. POL. 358. The Board of Examiners, in their meeting held on the 30th May, 1969, declared result. The appellant was placed in the First Class securing 480 marks which were the minimum for a first class. The result declared had certain peculiar features. 73 per cent of the candidates who appeared had failed in the examination but as many as 10 candidates were placed in the first class.3. On the 2nd July, 1969 the mark sheet was issued. Thereafter the University received representations from students in Po...
Sunderlal and Sons Vs. Yagendra Nath Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal471
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an application for execution. The decree was passed on 18th September, 1962. The decree-holder applied for certified copy on the 15th September, 1962. He obtained the said certified copy on the 15th March, 1964. The application for execution was made on the 10th June, 1975. The question, is, whether the said decree can be executed now. In this application two contentions were urged it was submitted, firstly, that the claim for execution had become barred by lapse of time. It was, secondly, submitted that the execution being by an unregistered firm, such execution was not permissible. So far as the first question of limitation is concerned the relevant Article is Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The said Article provides as follows:'136.For the executionof any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) of orderof any Civil Court.Twelve YearsWhen the decree ororder becomes enforceable or where the decree or any subsequent o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Provincial Farmers (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1976
Reported in: 81CWN1,[1977]108ITR219(Cal)
Deb, J.1. The following questions are involved in this reference under Section 256(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there was any sale or transfer of capital asset by the assessee attracting the provisions of Section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? (2) If the answer to question No. (1) is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the assessee returned the sum of Rs. 50,785 to the vendor-company, any capital gains accrued to the assessee ?' 2. The assessment year is 1963-64. The previous year ended on June 30, 1962. The assessee is a private limited company. It derives income from property and 'other sources '.3. Messrs. Sur Estates (P.) Ltd., hereinafter stated as the 'company', was the owner of the house property involved in this reference. The company agreed to sell this property for Rs. 1,30,000 to one Mr. Gostho Behari Sircar. On February 2, 1946, Mr. Sirca...
Ananta Singh Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1609
N.C. Mukherji, J.1. This is an application under Section 401(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Sections 439 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and directed against the order dated 28th November 1974 passed by the 4th Tribunal at Alipore in Tribunal Case No. 1 of 1970 rejecting the petitioner's applications dated 9-10-1974, 16-11-1974 and 19-11-1974. In those petitions several legal and constitutional points were raised.2. The first question raised was that the cognizance of the offence taken by the Tribunal by Order No. 1 dated 3-11-1970 is not according to law as there has been a violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that this illegality is fatal for the subsequent proceedings. The second point raised was regarding the validity of the Tribunal of Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1952. It was contended that the Act of 1952 specially Sections 5 and 11 are repugnant to the provisions of the New Criminal Proce...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›