Kolkata Court September 1948 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Calcutta Vs. the Burma Oil Compa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-29-1948
Reported in: [1949]17ITR343(Cal)
MOOKERJEE, J. - This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act as amended by Section 92 of the Amending Act VII of 1939.The question raised in this reference falls to be decided on the interpretation of sub-clause (a) of clause 1 of Part II of the India and Burma (Income-tax Relief) Order, 1936.The Burma Oil Co. Ltd., is a company incorporated in England having business concern in Burma and a part of the business is transacted in India. The extent and value of business in respect of the assessment year 1937-38 in Burma, India and the United Kingdom will appear from the following agreed statements :-Rs.1. Business income assessed in Burma. 3,11,15,378.2. Business income assessed in British India (78.8% of business income in Burma). 2,45,18,918.3. Business income assessed in the United Kingdom Pounds 2,270,508 (78.8% of which is Pounds 1,793,908); converted into rupees it is. 2,37,81,974.The assessee company claimed triple income-tax relief under the second part of ...
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Raja Jagadish ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-29-1948
Reported in: [1949]17ITR426(Cal)
MOOKERJEE, J. - This is a reference under Section 63(1) of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944.For the assessment year 1945-45 the assessee submitted a return for the accounting period 1350 B.S. including therein various items of agricultural income. While going through the books of accounts the Income-tax Officer traced from the ledger, produced by the assessee, that receipts from forest by the sale of Sal trees, amounting to Rs. 90,220-1-0, had not been included by the assessee in the return. The taxing officer considered this items to be assessable to agricultural income-tax and made the assessment accordingly. On an appeal by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner this assessment was upheld has being 'agricultural income from rent and revenue.' The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and by an order dated October 9, 1947, it was held that the income from forest in this particular case was not agricultural income, and therefore, not ...
Tilokchand Punamchand, Landlord Vs. Kanhayalal Agarwala Tenant
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-28-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ482
ORDERSen, J.1. This rule has been obtained by the landlord in respect of an order passed by the Bent Controller under Section 21, Calcutta Bent Ordinance, 1946, whereby he has been fined the sum of Rs. 50/- for not carrying out certain orders passed by the Bent Controller in previous proceedings.2. The facts briefly are as follows: The tenant applied under Section n- A, Calcutta House Bent Control Order, 1943, to the Bent Controller for a notice to be served on the landlord requiring him to restore the supply of electricity which the landlord had cut off. The Bent Controller granted the application and directed the landlord to restore the supply of electricity within a -week from the date on which the order was passed which was 14th May 1946. The landlord appealed from that order but that appeal was dismissed. He then filed a review application before the appellate Court. That also was rejected. Up till then the landlord had not restored the supply of electricity. The tenant then filed...
Nirmal Kumar Ghosh Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-22-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ468
Sen, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of having committed an offence punishable under. Section 7,(1) of Act xxiv [24] of 1946, that is to say of having sold paper above the price fixed by the Government of India and has been sentenced to pay a fine of us. 1000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The case against the appellant briefly is this: The appellant is a dealer in paper. On 4th March 1948, Sub Inapector Sarkar of the Enforcement Branob sent a teat purchaser Bajrangi. Jal with marked notes to purchase paper from the acoused. The accused is alleged to have charged Es. 83 for three reams of paper although the controlled rate was ks. 5 5-0 per ream. as soon as the purchase was made the Sub-Inspector came into the shop, seized the paper, made a search and then sent up the accused for trial. The defence of the accused is that ha did not sell any paper at all and that he took an advance of En. S3 from the purchaser for supplying a special kind of paper na...
Sasadhar Banerjee and anr. Vs. Prahlad Chandra Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ544
K.C. Chunder, J.1. This is a petition of revision against an appellate decision of the Additional Sessions Judge of Midnapore setting aside the conviction and sentence of the accused opposite party and acquitting him of a charge of defamation.2. One, Bishnupriya Choudhurani, who be karmachari or agent is the complainant in the present case, is a big zamindar of the Malihati Estate in the Midnapore District The accused opposite party Prohlad Chandra Dutta was in service under Bishnupriya Choudhurani. The accused filed a petition before the Magistrate of Midnapora making various allegations against the zemindar, her son and her officers, The learned Judge has said that these allegations contained in the document, namely the petition before the Magistrate, were, on the face of it, defamatory as they alleged robbery, extortion, wrongful confinement and other offences. It must not be taken that we are expressing any opinion whatsoever on the merits of the case. The learned Judge considered,...
Shamlal Bania Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-20-1948
Reported in: AIR1952Cal288
ORDERSen, J.1. The petitioner obtained this Rule against an order of conviction passed by a learned Presidency Magistrate convicting the petitioner of having committed an offence punishable under section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 30/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The accused petitioner is the landlord and the complainant is his tenant. The landlord wished to eject the tenant and the tenant was resisting ejectment. Tne reeungs between the parties were very strained. It is said that the complainant got a warning notice served on the accused on the morning of the date of the occurrence and that the accused abused, the complainant and thereby committed the offence for which he was convicted. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused petitioner points out that nowhere from the record can it be ascertained what the words used by the accused were. In the judgment the learned Magistrate says that the accused who was the...
Santosh Kumar and ors. Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1948
Reported in: AIR1952Cal193
ORDERSen, J.1. The petitioners are being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 409/120B & 477A, Penal Code that is to say, they are being tried for criminal breach of trust, conspiracy & falsification of accounts.2. Some of the petitioners were the managing agents of the Behala Sree Bank & some were the employees of the managing agents. The proceedings were started on the complaint of one Nani Gopal Haldar, a depositor, who had a current account with this Bank. His case briefly is that the managing agents of the Bank used the money which he deposited in his current account for the purpose of other businesses & thereby they committed the offences charged against them. On this petition of complaint, being filed the learned Magistrate ordered the police to investigate the matter treating the petition of complaint as the First Information Report. The police investigated the matter & submitted a charge-sheet & thereupon the learned Mag. proceeded against ...
Santiram Das Vs. Proshad Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1948
Reported in: AIR1952Cal358
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of an executor against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Howrah, direoting him to file an inventory & accounts.2. Srinibash Das, the testator, died leaving a widow, Sabitri & 3 minor sons, Prosad, Shiv Chandra & Tarapada. By his will he had appointed his two brothers Asutosh & Santiram as executors & after the death of the testator the litter applied for grant of probate which was actually directed to be issued on 9 51925. On 6 6-1926, Sabitri, the widow of the testator started revocation proceedings on various grounds which were ultimately disposed of on 13 11-1926, on agreed terms, the probate which had been issued being maintained. The properties left by the testator Srinibash were mainly held jointly with his other three brothers, Asutosh, Santiram & Kantiram. It is stated that the executors, appointed by the Court, did not file either an inventory or accounts within one year as required both under Section 817, Succes...
Munnalal Dwarkadas Vs. P. Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ521
ORDERSen, J.1. The petitioner baa obtained this rule against an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate of Howrah by which he has withdrawn a certain case from one learned Magistrate to his file and transferred it to the file of another Magistrate. The petitioner contends that this order of transfer is not justified and seeks to set aside the order.2. On behalf of the opposite party which is the Municipality of Howrah, it is contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate under 8. 628, Criminal P. C, as this would virtually amount to an order of transfer being made under 8. 626 of the said Code. It was pointed out that sitting singly this Court cannot pass an order of transfer under 8. 626, Criminal P. C. Secondly, it was contended that this Court has no power to set aside the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate because the same relief may be obtained by recourse to the specific provi. sions contained...
Amrendra Nath Chatterjee and ors. Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ463
ORDERSen, J.1. The petitioners in this case have been found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 148, Penal Code, as well as of offences punishable under Sections 447 and 426. Penal Code, and they have been sentenced to pay certain fines.2. The case for the prosecution briefly is this: The land in suit belonged to a zemindar of Sainthia in the District of Birbhum. It was let out to the complainant who again let out the land to one Barkatulla. The land was fallow and Barkafulla sought to bring the land under cultivation by erecting ails upon it. It is Said that the accused persons at about 7 or -9 o'clock in the night came there and out the ails. On getting information of this, Barkatulla and four or five others went to the locality and seized three of the accused persons and took them to the thana and lodged a first information against them. The other persons who were there ran away. On these allegations the accused were pro. secuted for committing the offence...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »