Kolkata Court January 1977 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.
Sri Gouri Sankar Mukherjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal125,81CWN903
ORDERM.N. Ray, J.1. On July 19, 1976, a Rule against notices in Annexures 'B' and 'C' to the petition was issued by this Court whereby suo moto proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The said petition was signed and verified by one Ananda Bhairab Ghose claiming to be the Karmachari and Tadbirkar of the petitioner. All statements in the said petition excepting those made in paragraphs 6 and 11 to 19 were affirmed as true to his knowledge. There has of course been a certificate by the learned Advocate that the said deponent was the authorised Karmachari of the petitioner and was competent to affirm the affidavit and sign the petition on his behalf.2. At the time of issuing the Rule, this Court was pleased to grant an order maintaining status quo as on July 19, 1976 for a period of six weeks, with liberty to the petitioner to apply for extension of the said order on the petition of motion with notice to the Respondents. The petitioner wa...
Benoy Bhusan Dasgupta Vs. Sm. Sabitri Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal199,(1977)1CompLJ175(Cal),82CWN252
M.N. Roy, J.1. This appeal from appellate decree is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 30, 1970, made in Title Appeal No. 337 of 1970 by Shri S. K. Dutta. Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Alipore, affirming thereby the judgment and decree dated January 30, 1970, made in Title Suit No. 234 of 1968, by Shri D. K, Panda, Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore.2. The plaintiff-respondent, being the owner of the premises in suit brought the Title Suit in question against the defendant appellant for recovery of khas possession by eviction and for mesne profits and also for compensation for damages Caused to the same. It was alleged that the defendant appellant was a tenant in respect of two bed rooms, one privy and one verandah at a monthly rent of Rupees 35/-, payable according to English calendar month. It was contended that the tenant defendant broke open a portion of the wall in between the bed rooms of his tenancy, made a hole in the wall of the privy and broke other portion...
Jogendra Lal Malakar Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1977
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ520Cal
ORDERT.K. Basu, J.1. A short bat very interesting question of law arises for consideration in the present Rule. The petitioner Jogendra Lal Malakar joined the services of Macneill and Co., on the 1st March, 1932 as a clerk. It may be mentioned that this company by virtue of successive amalgamations is now known as Macneill and Magor Ltd.2. In April, 1972 the petitioner was drawing a total salary of Rs. 1.040. On the 16th September, 1972 the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force. On the 1st March, 1973 the petitioner retired after 41 years of service. His last pay drawn was Rs. 1,045 per month.3. Thereafter the petitioner made a claim before the company for payment of gratuity under the provisions of the Act. The company contended that no gratuity was payable to the petitioner for reasons which are not necessary to go into at this stage. Thereafter the petitioner applied before the Controlling Authority under the Act for payment of gratuity t...
Himangau Chakraborty Vs. L.i.C. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1977
Reported in: (1978)ILLJ71Cal
T.K. Basu, J.1. This is an application by Himangau Chakraborty and ten others challenging certain notifications issued by the respondents. The application is in a representative capacity and it may be mentioned that, at the time of the issue of the rule nisi, leave was granted by me under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. Before I come to the impugned notifications it would be useful to deal with the background of this case3. As is well-known life insurance business in India was nationalised by virtue of the enactment of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Prior to the commencement of the Act, life insurance business was in the hands of private institutions whose volume of business varied to a considerable extent.4. It is in this background that Section 11 of the Act and Sub-section (2) thereof in particular was enacted, Section 11 of the Act in so far as is material for our purpose may be usefully set out hereinbelow:11(...
Rani Pravabati Roy and ors. Vs. Saileshnath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Cal147
B.C. Ray, J.1. These two appeals are against the common judgment and order No. 114 dated Oct. 9, 1969 passed by the Subordinate Judge, 6th Court, Alipore passed in Misc. Case No. 55 of 1967 and Misc. Case No. 5 of 1968 arising out of Title Execution Case No. 13 of 1967 under Section 47 of the Civil P. C.2. The salient facts of the cases are one Raja Promoda Nath Roy of Dighapatia who was possessed of considerable immovable properties in the various districts of undivided province of Bengal executed a will on February 13, 1926 whereby he appointed his eldest son Prativa Nath Roy as one of the co-executors along with other executors. The said Raja died leaving behind him his widow Rani Girija Kumari and 6 sons and three daughters. The entire estate of the testator was divided into three divisions 'ka' which has been described as main estate was given to the eldest son Kumar Prativa Nath Roy, and 'kha' estate was given to all the sons of the testator excluding the eldest son Kumar Prativa...
Ramani Mohan Barman Vs. Sm. Gouri Rani Barman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal128
ORDERMasud, J.1. This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for stay of a suit filed by the respondent Sm. Gouri Rani Burman for dissolution of a partnership firm under Section 44(d) and (g) of the Partnership Act. The facts of the case may, briefly, be stated as follows:2. On August 7, 1964, a registered partnership was constituted between Gouri Rani Debi, respondent No. 1, Ramani Mohan Burman, the petitioner, and 3 children of Gouri Rani, namely, Kumari Sajal Rani Burman, Kumari Bharati Burman and Kumari Bani Burman who were 15 years, 13 years and 11 years old in 1964. On December 1. 1973, the petitioner wrote a letter to the said Gouri Burman expressing his wish to discontinue as a partner of the said firm. In the said letter he has suggested her to buy his share in the partnership firm for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Thereafter, long correspondences took place till November 20, 1975, for settling the amount which would be payable to the petitioner as the value ...
Jogesh Chandra Sen Vs. Sm. Kiron Bala Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal167,81CWN505
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This appeal is from the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, 8th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta dated January 27, 1969 in a suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises. The plaintiff is the owner of premises No. 9-B, Mathura Sen Garden Lane P.S. Jorabagan, Calcutta which she purchased on October 12, 1966. The said premises hadbeen in occupation of the defendant as a monthly tenant at a rental of Rs. 25/- payable according to the Bengali Calendar month. The plaintiff's case was that she with her family had been residing in a small house at 87-A, B.K. Pal Avenue, Calcutta as a tenant with three rooms in her possession. The said premises were insufficient for the accommodation of herself and her family consisting of her husband, eldest son, his wife, second son, a daughter, husband's sister and two employees of the business of the plaintiff's husband and her son. The plaintiff, it was stated required the said premises for her use and occupation and...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Textile Agency Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1977
Reported in: [1981]132ITR481(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee is a company. The assessment year under consideration is 1966-67. The accounting year ended on March 31, 1966, The assessee had earned during the accounting year gross foreign dividends to the extent of Rs. 11,903. The ITO brought to tax the entire sum of Rs. 11,903.2. Before the AAC, the assessee submitted that only the net dividend should be taxed as the provisions relating to grossing up of dividends applied only to income-tax paid by a company in India and not to tax paid by a company outside India to a foreign Govt, The AAC did not agree with the assessee and upheld the order of the ITO.3. The Tribunal, however, agreed with the assessee that only the net foreign dividend income was taxable. The following question has been referred to us:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that only the net amount of foreign dividend ...
Sudhir Kumar Ghosh Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1824
Bimal Chandra Basak, J.1. This application is directed against a proceeding before the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Howrah, in Case No. 1829 of 1972 and the order dated 2nd June, 1975 passed in the said proceeding.2. The said proceeding arises out of a petition of complaint filed by the Inspector of Factories, West Bengal. The petition of complaint was filed on the basis that the petitioner before us has committed an offence Under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for contravention of Section 6 of the said Act read with Rule 3 of the West Bengal Factories Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). The allegation made in the petition of complaint is to the effect that while visiting the premises known as Heat Treater Industries (Private) Limited situated at 12/9 Hrishikesh Ghosh Lane, P. O. Salkia, P.S. Golabari, on the 4th July, 1972, the complainant found that more than ten workers were employed in the manufacturing pro...
Lalit Mohan Mitra and ors. Vs. Samirendra Kumar Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal174,81CWN870
N.C. Mukherji, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by Sri. M. Roy, Additional District Judge, 13th Court at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 1854 of 1966 dated 29th September 1967 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30th September 1964 passed by Sri N. C. Mahanty, 2nd Court Munsif, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 16 of 1963.2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows:-- Premises No. 4/1, Jadu Mitra Lane, Calcutta, belonged to two brothers Lalit (defendant No. 1) and Pramatha. The above premises comprised an area of about 5 cottas and odd. To the adjacent of the above premises is the residential premises of the plaintiffs. Formerly there was a back space of 10 feet in respect of the joint premises of the two brothers at 4/1', Jadu Nath Mitra Lane. The joint premises was constructed in terms of the sanctioned plan of the Calcutta Corporation in 1932. Sometime in 1933 the defendant No. 1 tried to make an unauthorised pucca construction in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »