Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1958Cal213,1958CriLJ622,62CWN198
Chaturvartti, C.J. 1. This is a Rule, calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the proceedings pending against the petitioner before a Presidency Magistrate should not be quashed or why such other order or orders should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. The petitioner, Premchand Khetry, is one of three persons who are on trial for certain oSences under the Opium Act and who were being tried according to the procedure laid down in Section 251A of the Cri. P. C. His contention is that Section 251A does not apply to the case and that the procedure laid down in Section 252 and subsequent sections of the Code ought to be followed. 2. The facts are simple. It is alleged that on receipt of some information, an Inspector of Excise, named Shri B. N. Ray, began to maintain a watch on premises No. 42, Ganesh Chan-dra Avenue, Calcutta, from 24-7-1956 and on that very day noticed a car, bearing the number MBI-1864, coming to the place at about 8-30 P. M. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1966Cal319,69CWN767
Bose, C.J. 1. This appeal No. 156 of 1964is from an order of Mallick, J. dated the 26th May 1964 refusing an application for trial of certain issues arising in the suit as preliminary issues and for examination of certain witnesses de bene esse in respect of such preliminary issues. 2. The suit out of which the application for trial of issues as preliminary issues arises was instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents on or about the 30th October 1961 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,42,500 for damages, interest and costs against the appellant Royal Nepal Airline Corporation. The cause of action as stated in the plaint is in substance as follows:- The defendant is a Corporation incorporated under the laws of Nepal having its Head-Office al Kathmandu, Nepal and it carries on business inter alia at No. 42 Chowringhee Road, Calcutta, within the jurisdiction of this Court. One Meher Singh Legha was at all material times employed as an Aircraft Pilot by and under the defendant on a basic salary ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal202
Das Gupta, J.1. These two applications are against two orders of conviction and sentence under Section 7 of Act XXIV [24] of 1946, read with Section 8 of the same Act, in two different cases. In both the cases the petitioners were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two and a half months, and the paddy was forfeited.2. They were heard together, as both of them raise the same question of law--the question whether on the alleged date of contravention of orders for which the petitioners have been convicted, 23rd September 1948--Act XXIV [24] of 1946 was in force. Mr. Mukherjee who has argued the cases for all the petitioners has contended that Act XXIV [24] of 1946 ceased to be in force after 3lst March 1948. If this contention be correct, it must be held that the conviction of the petitioners for acts committed on 23rd September 1948, would be unsustainable.3. Admittedly, Act XXIV [24] of 1946 is, or was a temporary Act. As the preamble states, it was enacted to provide for the contin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2004(2)CHN527,2004CriLJ3881
G.C. De, J.1. The nine accused persons, namely 1) Nemai Ghatwal, 2) Sukul Ghatwal, 3) Dulal Ghatwal, 4) Mangla, 5) Samru Ghatwal, 6) Haradhan Sen @ Hara, 7) Prasanta Kumar Roy, 8) Surya Kanta Sen, 9) Kazimat Mia faced a trial under Sections 148, 149/159, 149/302, 149/380 of the Indian Penal Code, but seven of them were acquitted, and Haradhan Sen and Nemai Ghatwal were found guilty and both of them were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 302/149 of the I.P.C. However no separate sentence was imposed for the offences under sections 148, 380 and 459 of the I.P.C.2. Against the said judgment of conviction and sentence dated 9.7.98 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court-cum Additional Sessions Judge of Burdwan, Haradhan Sen filed C.R.A. No. 212 of 1998 and Nemai Ghatwal filed another jail appeal which was registered as C.R.A. No. 343 of 1998 Mr. R. Biswas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal907
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in the nature of Quo Warranto against the respondent District Board and the members thereof to exhibit the authority under which they purport to exercise the functions and powers and perform the duties of the District Board of 24-Parganas and of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and the members thereof and also for the issue of an appropriate writ directing the respondent State of West Bengal to. revoke or cancel certain notifications issued under West Bengal Ordinance 3 of 1948 and under West Bengal Act 23 of 1948 and under Act 14 of 1950 and Act 51 of 1950.2. The petitioners are inhabitants of villages Dhop Dhopi and Dakshin Chatra in the district of 24 parganas and are qualified to vote at elections of members of the District Board of 24 parganas and to stand as candidates for election as members of the said District Board. 3. On 1st October 1886, a District Board known as the District Boar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1965Cal562,68CWN333
D. Basu, J.1. N.K. Sen, J., sitting singly, referred this Second Appeal to the Division Bench for disposal since, in his Lordship's opinion, there was a conflict of authorities upon the only question of law which called for his determination in this appeal.2. The second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondents, who are minors, for a declaration that the ex parte decree for rent obtained by the appellants against them and their co-sharers, in R. S. No. 2006 of 1944, was not binding upon the respondents inasmuch as the respondents were, in that suit, impleaded as represented not by their mother who was their natural guardian, but by their brother, Gobinda alias Gobardhan, who was defendant No. 12 in the suit. It is now established by the findings of the Courts below that there was no adverse interest of defendant No. 12 against the minor defendants, though he did not contest the suit and also that the decree was not tainted by any fraud on the part of the appellants or of d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1971Cal519
ORDERD. Basu, J. 1. The Petitioner in this Rule is an Advocate enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961. In his petition filed on 16-4-1969, he challenged the validity of Rule 22 of Chap. I of the 'Rules of the High Court of Calcutta (1914) --Original Side', on certain grounds. During the pendency of the Rule, the High Court, on 3-10-1969, amended Rule 1 of Chapter I of the said Rules, by inserting a Proviso to that Rule, which was published by the Registrar, Original Side, on 16-10-1969 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the 'proviso to Rule 1), with the leave of this Court, by order dated 29-9-1969. Since by that order the Registrar was also given permission to give effect to the said Proviso, corresponding leave was granted to the petitioner to so amend his petition as to comprehend the Proviso within the sweep of his petition.2. The Petitioner having accordingly amended his petition, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner at the hearing may be summarised as follows:(i) Rule ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1985]151ITR790(Cal)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The State of West Bengal appeals against the judgment of a learned single judge declaring that the West Bengal Entertainment-cum-Amusements Tax Act, 1982, violated Article 301 of the Constitution and was on that ground ultra vires and void.2. The aforesaid Act imposed an annual tax of Rs. 50 per television set, on the holder of the television set. The learned judge below held that television was a form of intercourse within the meaning of Article 301 of the Constitution. The impugned tax impeded the intercourse and thus infringed the free intercourse throughout the territory of India guaranteed by Article 301. The Act was not saved by Article 304.3. At the hearing before the learned single judge, counsel for the parties made their submissions on other points of challenge, namely, that the State legislature lacked competence to enact this statute and that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution was violated. The learned judge, however, chose not to express any opinio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1960Cal565,64CWN246
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. In this Rule a short point arises for consideration. The point, however, is of considerable and far-reaching importance and it has assumed some amount or complexity too, due to certain recent judicial pronouncements. The question, involved, is the question of jurisdiction of the learned Additional District Judges, or, rather, the Additional Judges, under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act and other sister statutes. It covers a wide field and its decision one way or the other, may amount to much for the administration of law in this State, nay, for the entire Union, over the whole of which its reaction may be felt in varying degrees. But for the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. The State of Punjab, : 1956CriLJ781 , the petitioner, who challenges the lower court's jurisdiction in the instant case before us, could have possibly advanced no argument whatsoever. The decisions of this Court, which may have any bearing on the ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)3CALLT464(HC),[1999]236ITR950(Cal)
S.K. Sen, J.1. In the instant reference under section 256(2) of income-tax Act. 1964 the three questions raised at the instance of the Reason for consideration are as follows:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the finding of the Tribunal that the transactions of sales of shares of two companies viz.. (a) The General Fibre Dealers Ltd. (b) Bhagatpur Tea Co. with Shri R.L. Kanoria, Chairman of the assessee company had been proved and were done as an act or prudency, was based on no evidence or partly relevant or partly irrelevant evidence and is otherwise perverse and arbitrary? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the findings of the Tribunal that the Revenue failed to establish its case of false sale transaction of shares of Jokai India Ltd. to Shri R.L.Kanoria, Chairman of the assessee company and had objected the share loss on surmise and conjectures, was based on no evidence or partly relevant or parity irrelevant evidence and is otherwise...
Tag this Judgment!