Kolkata Court April 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.
Debi Charan Basu Vs. Sudhindra Nath Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Cal141,81CWN745
B.C. Ray, J. 1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. and it is directed against Order No. 47 dated Jan. 16, 1976 passed by the Additional District Judge, Second Court, Alipore in Insolvency Case No. 17 of 1971 dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 35 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. 2. The salient facts of the case is that the petitioner came to be acquainted with the opposite party who was working as & finance broker and the opposite party introduced to the petitioner a firm known as Pioneer Stereotype Company as being in temporary need of some loans. Theopposite party recommended highly the said firm as absolutely solvent and trustworthy. On such representation of the apposite party the petitioner and some of his relatives lent and advanced several sums of money to the said firm sometime in 1965-66 against several hundies executed by the said firm in favour of the petitioner and his relatives. Sometime thereafter in 1966 the opposite part...
Jagat Bandhu Shaw and ors. Vs. Ram Nagina Pandey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal281
R. Bhattacharya, J. 1. The plaintiffs who are the appellants before us filed a suit for eviction of the respondent-defendant under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. At first the suit was decreed ex parte. Subsequently, the defendant Ram 'Nagina Pandey filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the C. P. C. and the same was ultimately allowed. As a result the ex parte decree was set aside and the ejectment suit was restored to file. That order for restoration of the suit was maintained by this Court on a revisional application filed by the plaintiffs against that decision. Before the ex parte decree was set aside, the plaintiffs had obtained possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendant in execution of the said ex parte decree. After the ex parte decree had been set aside, the defendant respondent filed an application in the trial court under Section 144 of the C. P. C, 1908 for getting back the possession of the suit property. The application...
Kanailal Dholey and ors. Vs. Kalicharan Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal499,81CWN707
Janah, J. 1. This is a Letters Patent appeal arising out of a second appeal. The heirs and legal representatives of the defendant No. 1 are the appellants before us. 2. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for a declaration that C.S. Khatian No. 164 of mouza Chalk Baidyabati recording a jama of Rs. 91 in respect of the land and the tank in the names of the defendants as tenants under the plaintiff was erroneous and also for a declaration of the plaintiff's khas dakhali title to the said tank and the land in the aforesaid khatian except 0.27 acres of land on the bank of the tank in plot No. 823 which appertained to the defendants' jama of Ra 30. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court found in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly decreed the suit. The courts below also found that the garden and the tank in question had come in khas possession of the plaintiff in the year 1322 B. S. and since then Ambika Dholey possessed the same as an agent of the plaintiff and aft...
Asoka Marketing and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1977
Reported in: [1978]111ITR783(Cal)
T.K. Basu, J. 1. In this rule, the petitioner Ashoka Marketing Ltd., challenges eight notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The notices for the assessment years 1953-54, 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57 are all dated the 10th May, 1966. The notice for the assessment year 1957-58 is dated the 18th February, 1966. The notices for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 are all dated the 20th January, 1967.2. Dr. Debi Pal, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, although several grounds have been taken in the petition, this matter can be disposed of on one short point. In order to appreciate the point it would be necessary to set out the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officers before the issue of the eight impugned notices. Before I set out the recorded reasons I may mention that although the reasons for these eight years have been recorded by the two Income-tax Officers, viz., Mr. D.L. ...
Seikh SaifuddIn Mondal Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1021
Anil K. Sen, J.1. In this revisional application one Sheikh Saifudidin Mondal, Secretary of Purui Union Amzad High School, is challenging the validity of an order dated March 5, 1976, passed by the Chief Judicial! Magistrate, Birbhum, whereby he stayed further proceedings of the criminal case pending before him till the disposal of an appeal pending before the Appeal Committee of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.2. It appears that on an information being lodged with the police by the then Secretary of the aforesaid school as against the opposite party Jamaluddin Ahmed an investigation was taken up as to how far the allegations of criminal breach of trust by the opposite party, who happened to be the Head Master of the school in respect of the school funds, are correct or not. Such an investigation being conducted the police found out a prima facie case as against the opposite party and submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 406/408 of the I.P.C. On the charge sheet as afor...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Shalimar Works Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1977
Reported in: [1977]47CompCas664(Cal)
Bhattacharya, J. 1. This is an application under Section 15A of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951, as amended by the amendment Act of 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act, filed by the Union of India against the Shalimar Works Ltd., an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at No. 4 Garden Reach Road, Calcutta, for leave to carry out an investigation as indicated in Section 15A of the Act. 2. The petitioner's case is that several winding-up petitions are pending before this court against the Shalimar Works Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the company, and that the petitioner feels that an investigation is necessary under Section 15A of the Act. Mr. Seth appears on behalf of the petitioner and the application is opposed by Mr. Mukherjee for the company. Mr. Mukherjee raises a question whether the present application is maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is being submitted that the compan...
State of West Bengal Etc. Vs. Mir Fakir Mohammad Etc.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal285
R. Bhattacharya, J. 1. These two applications under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, one filed in connexion with the Second Appeal No 1658 of 1965 and another relating to Second Appeal No. 1603 of 1966 have been heard together as the same question of law about the maintainability of these two applications are involved therein and this order shall govern both the matters.2. The Appeal No. 1658 was allowed on 21-7-1976 and the Appeal No. 1603 was dismissed on 5th July, 1976. The plaintiff-respondent in Appeal No. 1658 filed the application for leave to appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent on 3-11-1976 and the appellant of the other appeal filed an application under Clause 15 on 21-9-1976. For the sake of convenience both the matters were heard together. Mr. Panchanan Pal, the learned Advocate for the appellant, who is the apposite party in the application, filed in connexion with the Second Appeal No. 1658 and Mr. S. C. Das Gupta, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the r...
Dr. R.D. Anklesaria Vs. Mrs. Kamala Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal464
G.N. Ray, J.1. This Rule is directed against Order No. 69 dated August 16, 1976 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 97 of 1975 allowing the application of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint.2. The facts concerning the Civil Rule are inter alia that the plaintiff opposite party instituted a suit for ejectment against the defendant petitioner in respect of a portion of premises No. 1, Woodburn Road also known as 4A, Woodburn Park, Calcutta on the ground of building and rebuilding after demolishing the suit premises on the allegation that such building or rebuilding could not be carried out unless the defendant petitioner was evicted from the suit premises.3. The defendant opposite party entered appearance in the said suit and contested the said suit by filing a written statement inter alia contending that the alleged purpose of building and rebuilding was mala fide, motivated and not tenable in law.4. During the pendency of the saidsuit th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›