Kolkata Court February 1946 Judgments
Dwijendra Nath Chatterjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal120
Roxburgh, J.1. This is a rule against proceedings of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate as a result of which Rs. 500 has been realised from the petitioner by a distress warrant. The petitioner stood surety for one Sris Chandra Banerjee who was a petitioner before this Court in respect of an order of conviction passed by the Presidency Magistrate. A rule was issued and was disposed of on 13-6-1945 the order being that the accused should surrender to his bail forthwith and serve out the remainder of his sentence. The order was communicated to the Chief Presidency Magistrate and received by him on 15-6-1945. He noted there 'Put up on 21-6-45' and issued a notice on the form of 'summons to an accused person' scribbled almost illegibly, but directing that the surety should produce the accused Sris Chandra Banerjee by 21-6-1945. On 21-61945 the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate recorded an order 'Notice served by posting. Forfeit Rs. 500 Issue D.W. for 3-7. Inform H.C.' We see that on...
Tag this Judgment!Bengal Silk Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Aisha Ariff
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal106
Gentle, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Das J. granting the respondents' application to set aside an award made by Ameer Ali J. as umpire in an arbitration under two agreements, both dated 17th March 1941, made between the parties, by which they referred to arbitration three suits instituted in this Court. Each agreement, in Clause 6, provides as follows:That if there is any difference between the arbitrators such difference and if any matter is not decided by the arbitrators such matter shall be decided by His Lordship Mr. Justice Ameer Ali.2. On behalf of the appellant, the Bengal Silk Mills Co. Ltd., it is contended that (a) Ameer Ali J. was not appointed an umpire by the two arbitration agreements, (b) he did not dispose of the matters which 'came before him in the capacity of an umpire, but as a Judge of this Court acting extra cursum curiae with the agreement and consent of all parties, and (c) if his disposal was as umpire the application to set aside the award wa...
Tag this Judgment!Dickinson and Co. Vs. Bristow.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1946
Reported in: [1946]14ITR38(Cal)
LORD GREENS, M.R. - The point raised by this appeal is one which might fairly be described as singularly devoid of merit. We have to decide a bare question of law.Put in diagrammatic form, so to speak, the question may be thus formulated. A trading company in the year 1 sells goods on credit. The amount so owing to it is brought into account in the computation of its profits and gains for the year 1. In the years 2 and 3 events happen which, first of all, depreciate the value of that debt, and later on destroy its value altogether. In the accounts for the years 2 and 3 the Revenue accept the view that the depreciation and final devaluation of the debt should be made the subject of an allowance in those respective years. In the year 4 further events happen of a quite unusual and, indeed, unexpected nature, which have the effect of converting the debt which has been treated as bad into a perfectly good debt, which is paid in the year 4. The Revenue then says : 'In taking the account of y...
Tag this Judgment!Cossimbazar Raj Wards Estate Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal87
Gentle, J.1. This is a case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66, Income-tax Act, at the instance of the assessee, who is the Manager of the Cossimbazar Raj Estate appointed by the Court of, Wards. The question which this Court is required to consider is:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 1 lakh received by the Cossimbazar Raj Wards Estate from the Bengal Coal Company Ltd. was, in law, assessable to income-tax.2. The estate of the Maharaja of Cossimbazar has been in the management of the Court of Wards since about the year 1920 or 1921. A portion of the estate comprises some colliery lands in Moujas Gangutia and Chhotadhamua, On 25-91916, prior to the Court of Wards taking charge, the Maharaja granted, by a Bengali Pattah, a mining lease of that property to the Bengal Nagpur Coal Co. Ltd., upon, inter alia, these terms : (1) The lease to be for a period, of 20 years from date. (2) The lessees would have the right of raising coal fr...
Tag this Judgment!Cossimbazar Raj Wards Estate Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1946
Reported in: [1946]14ITR377(Cal)
GENTLE, J. - This is a case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the assessee, who is the manager of the Cossimbazar Raj Estate appointed by the Court of Wards. The question which this Court is required to consider is :-'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 1 lakh received by the Cossimbazar Raj Wards Estate from the Bengal Coal Co., Ltd., was, in law, assessable to income-tax ?'The estate of the Maharaj of Cossimbazar has been in the management of the Court of Wards since about the year 1920 or 1921. A portion of the estate comprises some colliery lands in Moujas Gangutia and Chhotadhamua. On the 25th September, 1916, prior to the Court of Wards taking charge, the Maharaj granted, by a Bengali pattah, a mining lease of that property to the Bengal Nagpur Coal Co., Ltd., upon, inter alia, these terms :-(1) The lease to be for period of 20 years from date;(2) The lessees would have the ri...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioners of the Burdwan Municipality and ors. Vs. Bata Shoe C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal383
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The Bata Shoe Company Ltd. (hereafter called the company) is a company registered under the Companies Act. Its paid up capital is Rs. 10,00,000. It manufactures shoes and other foot-wear at Batanagore in 24 Par-ganas. It has two retail shops within the limits of Burdwan Municipality from which it sells a part--may be a very small part--of the goods manufactured at Batanagore. The Commissioners of the Burdwan Municipality exercised the powers given by Section 123(1), Clause (f), Bengal Municipal Act of 1932 (hereafter called the Act) by passing a resolution at a meeting held on 27-2-1941 for the imposition of a tax on trades, professions and callings. The resolution mentioned all the different items of Schedule 4 of the Act as worded before the amendment of 1940 and fixed the tax at the maximum rates mentioned in the said schedule, Item 1 of that schedule had been amended in a material manner by Notification No. 1662 M dated 16-12-1940 issued by the Provincial Governme...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›