Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal610,56CWN264
ORDERDas, J.1. This rule was issued on 18-5-1951, calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why the order complained of in the petition should not be revoked or cancelled or why a writ in the nature of Mandamus or in the nature of Prohibition should not issue to the opposite parties prohibiting them or directing them to forbear from giving effect to the said orders complained of or why such other appropriate order or orders under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be made as to this court may seem fit and proper.2. The orders complained of are dated 18-11-1950 and 13-11-1950. By the order dated 18-11-1950, the petitioner was informed by a communication received from the District Transportation Officer that the petitioner has been removed from his service. By the order dated the 13th of December 1950, passed by the District Transportation Officer the petitioner was informed that the matter of his removal has been finally heard and that the appeal preferred by the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal591
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 45, Specific Relief Act, for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing certain orders made by the respondents refusing to grant import licences for cloves and betel-nuts and also for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to deal with and consider certain applications of the petitioner's firm for import licences for cloevs and betel-nuts, on merits and in accordance with law.2. The petitioner No. 1 Haji Sattar has been carrying on the business inter alia of importers and wholesale dealers for the last 17 years underthe name and style, of Haji Sattar Haji Pir Mohammed. The principal place of business of the said firm is at 23, Amratola Lane Calcutta. The petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the said premises and while in Calcutta he resides at the said premises. The said firm has branches at Bombay, Madras, Kanpur, Agra, Delhi, Bhatinda, 'Vizianagaram, Cochin, Calicut, Jamnagar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1959Cal704
Das Gupta, C.J. 1. The orders against which this appeal is directed were made by Sinha J., on an application by the Manager of the Purna Theatre and the executor to the estate of Manomoy Banerjee, who is carrying on business under the name of Purna Theatre. As people who frequent cinema houses are aware, advertisements are displayed on the screen during the usual hours of display of pictures. According to the present appellants, the owners of the theatre are bound in law to take out licenses in respect of the display of such advertisements on payment of money in accordance with the rules made by the Corporation under Section 229 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. The owners of the Purna Theatre having refused to take out such licenses, the Deputy License Officer of the Corporation wrote to the Manager on 5-1-1956 stating that action would have to be taken within the specified date for enforcement of law in respect of this. On the 2nd of February 1958 the License Inspector issued a no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 81CWN699,[1978]114ITR379(Cal)
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This appeal is against tl5e judgment andorder of Sabyasachi Mukharji J. dated November 27, 1975 [Cachar PlywoodLtd. v. Income-tax Officer : [1977]109ITR470(Cal) whereby the connectedrule was discharged.2. The petitioner-appellant is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was being duly assessed till the assessment year 1969-70 by the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Karimganj. The Central Board of Direct Taxes passed the following order in respect of the assessee on December 23, 1972.'FNo. 185/141/72-IT(AI)Central Board of Direct Taxes,New Delhi, 23-12-72.OEDER 3. No. 572-J. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 127 of the IT Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), and of all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby transfers the case, the particulars of which are mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule hereto annexed from the Income-tax Officer mentioned in column 4 to the Income-tax Officer mentioned in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2008(3)CHN857
Dipankar Datta, J.1. Rizwanur Rahman (hereafter Riz), since deceased, son and brother of the petitioners 1 and 2 respectively, was laid to rest in September last. The suspicious circumstances in which he died, the role of the State Police agencies in investigating the cause of his death, the conduct of certain police officers of Kolkata Police both before and after his death, alleged involvement of his father-in-law Ashok Todi (respondent No. 12) and his uncles-in-iaw Anil Saraogi (respondent No. 13) and Pradeep Todi (not a party to the petition) in connection with his unnatural death, investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereafter the CBI) being directed by this Court - all these and much more, have exercised thoughtful consideration of this Court on the face of eloquent arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the State, the accused police officers and the respondent No. 12 and learned Counsel for the CBI and the respondent No. 13, b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 44Ind.Cas.930
Barnes Peacock, C.J.1. It is always a most unpleasant duty for a Judge to be compelled to vindicate his own honour, or the dignity of the Court over which he presides, by adopting measures which may cause pain, or wound the feelings of any man. Bat a Judge who would shrink from the discharge of what he considers to be his public duty, merely because it is to him a painful one, is not fit to be entrusted with the office which he holds. To me the duty which I am now called upon to perform is all the more painful, because the gentleman whose conduct is called into question is one with whom in times gone by I have held social and friendly intercourse. The case is one of public importance, and I am anxious that there shall be no misunderstanding of the views and opinions of the Judges and of the reasons which induced them to adopt the course which they have pursued. Above all, I am desirous that there shall be no further misrepresentations such as those with which unhappily we are called up...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1893)ILR20Cal116
Ameer Ali, J.1. The question raised in this reference is of such vital importance to the Mahomedans of India and so materially affects their law and religion, the enjoyment of which has been guaranteed to them by the British Government, that I must state at some length the reasons that have compelled me to differ from my colleagues.2. The facts of the case are as follow:One Bikani Mia, a Mahomedan inhabitant of Dacca, shortly before his departure in 1874 on a pilgrimage to Mecca, executed a wakfnama in respect of a considerable portion of his property and registered the document in accordance with the law.The deed recites that the executant was in the full possession of his sense and power of understanding,' that he was not indebted to anybody, that the property to which it related was acquired by Bikani himself, and that he had an 'exclusive right, ownership and possession therein.3. The executant then goes on to say--I now think it advisable to lay down, according to our Mahomedan sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 7Ind.Cas.359
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The appellant, Ashok Chandra Nandy having died since the institution of these appeals, there are at present before the Court 18 appellants, all of whom have been convicted under Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code of offences against the State. Two of the appellants, Barindra Kumar Ghose and Ullaskar Dutt, were convicted under Sections 121, 121A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death eight of them, i.e., Indra Nath Nandi, Upendra Nath Banerjee, Bibhuti Bhusan Sircar, Hrishikesh Kanjilal, Sudhir Kumar Sircar, Sailendra Nath Bose, Hem Chandra Das and Barendra Chandra Sen, were convicted under Sections 121, 121A, 122 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life; Abinash Chandra Bhattacharjee was convicted under Sections 121 and 121A of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life: Indu Bhushan Roy was convicted under Sections 121A and 122 and sentenced to transportation for life, Pares Chandra Maulik, Sisir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.257
Richard Harington, J.1. In this case, 35 persons appeal against the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Dacca convicting them under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code, and against the sentences varying from transportation for life to rigorous imprisonment for three years passed on them on that conviction. In the lower Court, 44 person were placed upon their trial of these, eight were acquitted; one of those convicted has not appealed and is said to have become insane. The remainder are the appellants before us.2. Stated, as shortly as possible, the case for the Crown is that the first appellant, Pulin Behary Das, founded an association known as the Dacca Anusilan Samity, that that association had branches or similar associations affiliated to it throughout Eastern Bengal, that the object for which the association was formed was for the purpose of bringing about revolution by force of arms and depriving the King of the sovereignty of British India, that the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1913)ILR40Cal421
Jenkins, C.J.1. But see Bajrangi Singh v. Manokarnika Bakhsh Singh (1907) I.L.R. 30 All. 1; L. R. 35 I. A. 1.2. In that case their Lordships held the consent of the kinsmen to be evidence of the bond fides of the transaction. That, moreover, was a case of sale. Their Lordships refused to extend the Bengal doctrine of Nobokishore's case (1884) I.L.R. 10 Calc. 1102. further, and to apply the rule of sale to mortgages would be to extend the operation of the Bengal doctrine.3. It was held by the Privy Council in Behari Lal v. Mad ho Lal Ahir Gayawal (1891) I.L.R. 19 Calc. 236; L. R. 19 I. A. 19 I. A. 30. that the widow must withdraw her whole interest. A mortgage is not a case of withdrawal of the entire interest.4. In Bajrangi Singh v. Manokarnika Bakhsh Singh (1907) I.L.R. 30 All. 1; L. R. 35 I. A. 1. the whole estate was transferred, and the point decided was that consent of the reversioners after the transfer would not make it inoperative.Mookerjee, J.5. Do you say that this case negat...
Tag this Judgment!