Kolkata Court January 1979 Judgments
Dwip Chand Munda and anr. Vs. Pravash Kumar Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Cal165,1979(1)CHN107,1979CriLJ542,83CWN389
P.C. Borooah, J.1. This Special Bench has been constituted on the requisition of N.C. Mukherjee, J., who being unable to agree with a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kamal Krishna De v. State (81 Cal W. N. 976) : (1977 Cri LJ 1492) and in view of conflicting decisions of other High Courts on the point, referred the matter to the learned Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench relying on the principle laid down in the case of Tara Dutta v. State, : AIR1975Cal450 (SB).2. On December 16, 1975 the complainant opposite party Pravash Kumar Chowdhury lodged a petition of complaint against the petitioners in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Basirhat alleging commission of offences under Sections 148, 324, 307 and 395 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate after examining the complainant and one witness by an order dated December 16, 1975 issued process against the petitioners under the aforesaid sections overruli...
Tag this Judgment!Lachman Singh Vs. Sm. Hasi Rani Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Cal196
ORDERJyotirmoyee Nag, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order passed by the learned Munsif 1st Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 237 of 1964 being Order No. 122 dated 10-9-1973.2. The plaintiff was ordered by the Court to deposit Commissioner's fees by Order Nos. 91 and 92 dated 18-3-1971 and 25-3-1971 and another chance was given to the plaintiff to deposit the same by Order No. 114 dated 26-4-1973 again by Order Nos. 114 and 115. Thereafter, in spite of repeated adjournment being given to the plaintiff on his own applications, on one plea or the other the plaintiff failed to carry out the court's order and ultimately by Order 116 dated 2-5-1973 the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. Against this order the plaintiff made an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. to set aside the order of dismissal to restore the suit That application for restoration was rejected by the learned Munsiff. Against that order, Order No. 122 dated 10-9-1973 the plaintiff has come up in revision under...
Tag this Judgment!Albert David Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1979
Reported in: [1981]131ITR192(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The facts leading up to the present reference as found or admitted or as are matter of record, are shortly, as follows:M/s. Albert David Ltd., the assessee, was promoted in 1938 by one named Albert Judah Judah as a private limited company. In 1948, the assessee was converted into a public limited company. Judah and his wife owned more than 90 per cent. of the ordinary shares of the assessee till September, 1954. Judah was also the largest holder of the preference shares of the assessee and was appointed its managing director for life under its articles ratified by an agreement between him and the assessee. Judah inducted Dr. S. L. Mukherjee, a chemist, in the business of the assessee. Dr. Mukherjee was made a director of the assessee in July, 1940, when Judah made a gift of 1,000 ordinary shares of the assessee to Dr. Mukherjee.2. Subsequently, by the middle of 1954, the relationship between Judah and Dr. Mukherjee became strained and disputes arose between them. ...
Tag this Judgment!Satyanarayan Kamal Kumar Vs. Birendra Pr. Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Cal197
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J. 1. The plaintiffs suit is on a hire-purchase agreement dated 24-7-67 in respect of a 1962 model Willys Jeep bearing registration No. WBB 9796 against the defendant No. 1 as the hirer and against the defendant No. 2 as the guarantor, for recovery of arrears of hire, interest and damages. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, in breach of the terms of the said agreement had removed the vehicle to Tarwa, in the District of Varanashi and failed to pay the agreed hires. The agreement was terminated by the plaintiff by notices dated 4-12-67 and 19-12-67, In this suit, the plaintiff also claimed possession of the said vehicle or in lien the present market value of Rs. 6498/-. 2. Only the defendant No. 2 contested the suit. In the written statement he alleged that prior to 24-7-67, there was an oral agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 for purchase of this vehicle and the plaintiff had given loan to the defendant No. 1 in that connection. The...
Tag this Judgment!Tapan Kumar Paul Vs. Krishna Kanta Paul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Cal28
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 challenging the award dated 30th of Jan. 1978 made by one Shri A. K. Sen, Barrister-at-Law. The award and the dispute centre round a family concern named as Ramkanai Jamini Ranjan Paul Pvt. Ltd. Before I deal with the history of the dispute it may be relevant to refer to certain facts for the purpose of appreciating the grounds upon which the challenge to the award is based. It appears that there was an application to this Court under Sections 237, 397, 398 & 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 about the disputes amongst the shareholders in the company named Ramkanai Jamini Ranjan Paul Pvt. Ltd hereinafter called the said company. It is not necessary to set out in detail the history of the said dispute. But thereafter the parties agreed to refer the disputes to the arbitration of Shri A. K. Sen, arbitrator; an arbitration agreement in writing dated 10th of May, 1977 was entered into. ...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal Vs. Bimal Kumar Sinha Sahas Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Cal399
ORDERSudhindra Mohan Guha, J. 1. The present Rule was issued against the order dated 11-8-72 passed by Sri S. N, Bhattacharya, the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Midnapore in Misc. Appeal No. 177 of 1971 upholding the order of dismissal of a Miscellaneous Case passed under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C., by the learned Munsif of Jhargram.2. The State of West Bengal, the defendant in Title Suit No. 303 of 1970 of the Court of Munsif of Jhargram filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree in that suit on 23-3-1971 under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil P. C. The learned Munsif appears to have taken the suit for ex parte hearing after rejecting an application for time for the purpose of putting in written statement to contest the suit.3. The case of the State of West Bengal was that a large number of suits were being filed throughout the District that year and due to that such a situation arose that it had been difficult for petitioner to cope with. It was the furt...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mangolia Dairy Products
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR26(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Messrs. Mangolia Dairy Products (India), the assessee, owns and runs a cold storage plant. In the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the relevant accounting periods being the years ending on 30th June, 1967, and 30th June, 1968, the ITO allowed depreciation on the building of the said cold storage plant at only 5% on the written down value treating the same as a godown and on the electrical machinery and equipment therein at the general rate of 10% on the written down value. Being aggrieved by the said order of the ITO, the assessee preferred an appeal. The AAC held that as machinery was installed in the building for cold storage, the same should be held to be a factory and depreciation should be allowed at a special rate of 10%. He also held that, as the electrical machinery and equipment were being used for refrigeration, depreciation should be allowed at the prescribed special rate of 15%.2. Against the order of the AAC, the revenue preferred an appeal befor...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadish Prosad Agarwalla Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1979
Reported in: [1979]44STC412(Cal)
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against summary rejection of his writ petition by the judgment and order passed on 11th September, 1978, by his Lordship the Honourable Mr. Justice A.K. Mookerji.2. The appellant has claimed that he carried on business under the trade name M/s. Indra Cement Company at 279, Roy Bahadur Road, Calcutta-53. On 11th June, 1975, he had applied in form 1A under Rule 4 of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, to the Commercial Tax Officer, 24-Parganas Range, for registration under Section 7 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. He had mentioned in the said application that his business was wholesale and retail distribution. In his application and in the declaration form he had stated that he had been ordinarily purchasing cement for resale in West Bengal. After enquiry, the Commercial Tax Officer, 24-Parganas Range, by his order dated 4th September, 1975, issued registration certificate...
Tag this Judgment!American Express International Banking Corporation Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1979
Reported in: (1979)IILLJ22Cal
Manash Nath Roy, J.1. The petitioner, a company incorporated in the U.S.A. with limited liabilities and having its branch office at 21, Old Court House Street, Calcutta, had obtained this rule against an order of reference made under Section 10(1)(d), of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), which is in Annexure r to the petition.2. The petitioner-company carries on business, inter alia, of banking, It is their case that in or about 1970, an agreement was entered into between them and the American Express Employees' Union, which incidentally was the only union representing the petitioner's entire workmen at Calcutta and formed a temporary pool of workmen for the purpose of filling up purely temporary vacancies arising out of annual or sick leave availed of by their permanent workmen Such agreement. appears to have been implemented in 1970 when a list of approximately eight persons to form a temporary pool for the purpose of filling up temporary le...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal Vs. Jogindar Mallick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ539
ORDERMonoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. This Rule, at the instance of the State of West Bengal, is directed against an order dated Jan. 25, 1978 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Sealdah discharging the accused-opposite party, Jogindar Mallick, from a prosecution under Section 33A of the Calcutta Suburban Police Act, 1866 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. It has been alleged that the accused was found in possession of six bundles of human bones at Nilratan Sar-kar Hospital on July 7, 1974 and as he failed to account for such possession, he was arrested by a police officer of the Entally Police Station. He was produced before the learned Police Magistrate, Sealdah on the self-same day and was released on bail. After completion of investigation into the case, a report was submitted by the Offlcer-in-Charge on Oct. 7, 1974 praying for prosecution of the accused under Section 33A of the Act. The substance of the accusation was explained to the accused under Section 251 o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »