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 : AIR1952Cal853
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of Bose J. dated 16-8-1951 dismissing an application for writs in the nature of mandamus. The appellant is at the moment being prosecuted in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta for an offence of staying in India longer than a permit which he had been granted permitted him so to stay.2. The defence is that the petitioner is a subject of the Indian Republic and that he is entitled to remain in British India. Further it is said that the statute and rules under which he is being prosecuted can have no application to him whatsoever and further that they are ultra vires the Constitution of India.3. The petitioner therefore moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ or order in the nature of a mandamus calling upon the State of West Bengal not to proceed with this prosecution. The matter came before Bose J. who dismissed the petition holding that there was no force whatsoever in it. From th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal508
Sinha, J.1. These are two applications, one by the Indian and General Investment Trust. Ltd., suing as Trustees of the Khalli-kote Raj Sterling Loan, 1906 and another by the Indian and General Investment Trust Ltd., for an order that certified copies of the orders passed on the 29th day of November 1949 by the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, England, in Actions Nos. 337 of 1949 and 351 of 1949 of that Court together with certified copies of the certificates dated the 9th day of January 1950 issued by the Master of the Supreme Court of Judicature in England, granted under Section 10 of the Foreign judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, 1933, together with the usual certificate of non-satisfaction, be transmitted to the District Judge's Court at Berhampore in the province of Orissa, for execution. These applications have been made under Section 44A read with Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By consent of parties, the two matters have been heard together.2. The facts ...
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 : AIR1956Cal253
ORDERSinha, J.1. The facts of this case are shortly as follows. The petitioner, the Calcutta Motor and Cycle Co., is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, carrying on business at No. 5, Bentinck Street, Calcutta. As is suggested by the name of the firm, its principal business is in cycles, motor cycles etc., but it seems that it is not confined to such articles only. The shop is situated at premises No. 5, Bentinck Street and its godown is situated at No. 16, Mangoe Lane.The Customs Authorities received certain Information that the petitioner firm along with various other firms, have been importing goods without valid licences, were not declaring the correct value or description of the goods at the time of importation, and were bringing into existence various documents for the purpose of creating evidence in their favour.It is stated that the Customs Authorities made enquiries, and came into possession of certain facts and eventually made an application before the Chief P...
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 : AIR1961Cal328,65CWN770,[1961]12STC535(Cal)
ORDERSinha, J. 1. The facts in this case are briefly as follows: The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and carries on business as an auctioneer. It is stated in the petition that the business of the petitioner is that of auctioning third party's goods and bringing the seller and buyer together for effecting the sale against a certain rate or percentage of remuneration. The petitioner company is registered as a 'dealer' under the provisions of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner submitted returns for the four quarters ending, last day of March 1950 and for the four quarters ending the last day of March, 1951. It was contended by the petitioner that it was not liable to assessment to sales tax in respect of all its business, as an auctioneer, because as such it was not a 'dealer' within the meaning of the said Act. The Commercial Tax Officer by his orders dated 28-10-1954 and 19-11-1954, rejected ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1962Cal387
Lahiri, C.J. 1. This appeal raises two important questions about the immunity of a foreign Sovereign State from the civil process of the Courts of our country. The plaintiff respondent instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,07,346/- as damages for breach of a contract for the supply of tea by the plaintiff. There are two defendants in the suit; the first defendant is the United Arab Republic and the second defendant is the Ministry of Economy, Supplies and Importation Department which is a department ot the first defendant and which according to the plaintiff, entered into the contract on behalf of both. Both the defendants entered appearance in the suit through the Vice Consul in charge of the Consulate General of the United Arab Republic in Calcutta and took out a Master's Summons for an order, inter alia, that the plaint be rejected and/or taken off the file. In the petition in support of the Summons it is stated that the first defendant came into existence as a result of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal578
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. We are unanimous on this Special Bench thatthe Rule' must be discharged.2. Search of a citizen's home and seizure of his books and documents without a warrant from any Court or Magistrate are, on this application, challenged as unconstitutional and illegal. Many sleeping lions, if not passions, are roused and the old forgotten war cries of the 18th Century legal battle of Entick v. Carrington (1765) 19 State Tr 1029, came roaring through the corridors of history to face the jaded jurisprudence of the 20th Century to find it unresponsive. Prized freedoms, newly won then, have now after two centuries, become too old to defend themselves.3. This Reference to the Special Bench under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India read with the Original Side Rules for Special Bench (Chapter V, Rules 2 and 3 of the Original Side Rules) raises (1) the question of constitutional validity of Section 37 (2) of the Income-tax Act and (2) the question of the statutory legality of the ste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal545,65CWN920
ORDERIn exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 23A of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (28 of 1954), the President is pleased to make the following order, namely:-1. This order may be Called the Calcutta High Court (Vacation) Order, 1960. 2. The vacations of the Calcutta High Court during the year 1961 shall be for the period specified below:- Eastern Vacation--From 31st March to 3rd April, 1961 (both days inclusive)--4 daysAnnual Vacation--From 9th October to 17th November, 1961 (both days inclusive)--40 daysChristmas Vacation--From 25th December to 31st December 1901 (both days inclusive).--7 days (M. Gopal Menon). Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India. To The General Manager, Govt. of India Press New Delhi.'2. Three representative members of all the three branches of the legal professions here, an Advocate, a Barrister and a Solicitor, have moved this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the President's order a...
Tag this Judgment!