Kolkata Court April 1979 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.
Calcutta Construction Investment Co. Vs. Sekhar Chand Law and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Cal324
ORDERPadma Khastgir, J. 1. This application has been taken out by Calcutta Construction and Investment Company for an order for appointment of a Receiver to take possession of premises No. 50, Kailash Bose Street, Calcutta and also for an order of injunction restraining the defendant No 1, Shekar Chandra Law, his servants and/or agents or assigns from dealing with, disposing of, encumbering and/or letting out by way of lease or transferring in any manner the said premises No. 43, (sic) Kailash Bose Street, Calcutta. 2. The case of the petitioners shortly is that by a letter dated 13th of Nov. 1978 Shekhar Chandra Law wrote to his broker, B. C. Baid authorising him to lease out the said premises on the terms and conditions as contained in the said letter. According to the petitioner, the petitioner by a letter dated 15th of Nov. 1978 accepted the said offer and agreed to take lease of the said suit property on the terms and conditions as mentioned in the said letter. Pursuant to one of ...
Set Jethanand Tahilram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1979
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT538(Cal)
Deb, J.1. This Rule Nisi under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed inter alia, against the re-seizure of the same goods which were seized earlier under section 110(1) of Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as die 'Act') This Rule also directs the respondents to show cause why they should not return those goods to the petitioner.2. As to other orders and notices mentioned in the Rule, Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, does not press them and therefore the scope of this Rule is now limited to the questions to whether the proper officer has any power under section 110(1) of the Act to seize the goods after their restoration to the petitioner and whether these goods are liable to be returned to the petitioner.3. On September 15, 1969 the proper officer seized these goods under Section 110(1) of the Act while they were in possession of the petitioner. No notice under Section 124(a) of the Act was given to the petitioner within six months from t...
Jethanand Tahilram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1468,1979(4)ELT538(Cal)
ORDERS.C. Deb, J.1.This Rule Nisi under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed, inter alia, against the re-seizure of the same goods which were seized earlier under Section 110(1) of Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). This Rule also directs the respondents to show cause why they should not return those goods to the petitioner.2. As to other orders and notices mentioned in the Rule, Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, does not press them and therefore the scope of this Rule is now limited to the questions as to whether the proper officer has any power under Section 110(1) of the Act to seize the goods after their restoration td the petitioner and whether these goods are liable to be returned to the petitioner.3. On September 15, 1969 the proper officer seized these goods under Section 110(1) of the Act while they were in possession of the petitioner. No notice under Section 124(a) of the Act was given to the petitioner within 6 m...
Dr. Abdur Rahaman Vs. Makimar Rahaman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1471
ORDERMonoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. In this Rule the only question that falls for determination is whether the Court of the Committing Magistrate is competent to give consent to the withdrawal, in respect of cases in which the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Session, under Section 321 of the Cr. P.C. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The question arises in this way.2. A complaint was filed by the petitioner before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat against the accused-opposite parties alleging offences punishable under Sections 147, 447, 427, 379, 323, 354, 325 and 504 of the I.P.C. The learned Magistrate directed the officer-in-Charge, Basirhat Police Station to treat the complaint as First Information Report and to investigate into the same under Section 156(3) of the Code. The Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 307 of the I.P.C., besides other sections and cognisance was taken thereupon. When the case was awa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›