Kolkata Court February 1949 Judgments
Sm. Parul Bala Roy Vs. Srinibash Chowmal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal364
1. In 1938, the appellant Parul Bala Roy Choudhury purchased from the Calcutta Improvement Trust a plot of land No. 881 of Scheme No. 33 covering an area of 5 cottas 13 chataks & 25 sq. ft. While she was the owner of the whole of the plot, she submitted a building plan for sanction by the Calcutta Corporation. The plan was sanctioned by the Corporation on 15-5-1939, This plot viz: 381 is a corner plot abutting on two 40ft. wide streets made by the Calcutta Improvement Trust. The greater length of the plot is north to south. One face of the plot, namely, the northern one, abuts on one 40 ft. road & west face of the plot on the other 40ft. road. The plan which was submitted for sanction & which was sanctioned by the Corporation showed for the purpose of the building the frontage of the plot to be on the northern road. An open space was left at the farthest end opposite to this road & at the back of the proposed building, that is to say, the open land was shown to be the southern part of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sasadhar Ghose Vs. Harihar Kar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal378
ORDER1. This application in revision by the judgment-debtor is against orders passed by the Dist J., of Midnapure dismissing an appeal preferred under Section 174 (5), Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The decision in this appeal depends upon an interpretation of the proviso to Sub-Section (5) of Section 174, Bengal Tenancy Act, & more particularly of the concluding words namely 'no such appeal shall be admitted unless the appellant deposits such amount in Court'.3. The application filed by the judgment-debtor under Section 174 (8) of the Act was disposed of by the Subordinate Judge by an order dated 10-5-1948, dismissing the same. After allowing time taken for obtaining a certified copy of the judgment, the last date for filing the appeal was 20 6-1948, On the day previous, namely, June 19, a, memorandum of appeal was presented on behalf of the judgment-debtor, in the Court of the Dist. J. along with a petn. stating that the applt. had not been able to collect the amount required to be deposited ...
Tag this Judgment!Kartik Chandra Pal Vs. Dibakar Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal362
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the J.-D. against an order passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Burdwan dismissing an objection filed under Section 47, Civil P. C.2. The plff.-respondent had brought a suit for specific performance of a contract against the defts. The suit was decreed on 21-2-1948 in the following terms: Claim for 'Properties mentioned in the Schedule below belonged to one Raman Dhara & defts. became owners of the same after the death of said Raman Dbara Defts. on different dates took Rs. 600 as earnest money from the plff. & executed a bainanama in favour of the plff. & promised to sell those properties to plff. by executing & registering s sale deed. A deed of sale was dratted on proper stamps on the advice of the deft. 1, But as defts. subsequently refused to execute & register the said deed, plff's claims are for a decree of specific performance of contract in respect of the said deed against the deft. & on deft, fail- ing to execute & reg...
Tag this Judgment!Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. the Comr. of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal355
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, raising a question dependant on an interpretation of E. 2, Sch. II with the explanatory sub-para, of Excess Profits Tax Act (xv [15] of 1940).2. The assessee company, Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd., is a company incorporated in India carrying on different branches of insurances including Life, Eire, Marine & general insurances. We are not concerned with the Life Insurance branch of the business but only about the method of calculation to be adopted for determining the excess profits tax payable in respect of the other branches for the accounting period commencing from 1-9 1939 and ending December 1939. The Co. having exercised option as regards standard profits under the second proviso to Section 6 (1), Excess Profits Tax Act, such standard profits have to be calculated by applying the statutory percentage to the average capital employed in the business during the relevant chargeable accounting period.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Piggot Chapman and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal414
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is a reference Under Section. 66 (1), Income Tax Act. On an application, by the Commissioner of Income Tax Calcutta, the following question of law has been formulated by the Tribunal for answer by this Court.'Whether in the circumstances of the case a sum of Rs. 6698/- paid out to Mr. Mitchell-Innes. wholly & exclusively for the purposes of the business was a revenue expenditure so as to-be allowable as an admissible deduction under Section 10 (2) (XII), Income Tax Act (as it stood, before its amendment in 1946).'2. Messrs. Piggot Chapman & Co. is a firm of exchange brokers Mr. Mitchell-Innes & Mr. Danbeny who were working in partnership as exchange brokers, under the name & style of Halford Smith & Co. entered into ah agreement on 22-10-1919 with the partners of the assessee-firm Piggot Chapman & Co. It is not necessary for our present purpose to state in full the terms of this agreement. Broadly speaking Messrs. Mitchell-Innes & Danbeny who were the sole exc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta Vs. Messrs. Piggot Chapman and Co ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1949
Reported in: [1949]17ITR317(Cal)
MOOKHERJEE, J. - This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. On an application by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta, the following question of law has been formulated by the Tribunal for answer by this court :-'Whether, in the circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 6,698 paid out to Mr. Mitchell Innes wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business was a revenue expenditure so as to be allowable as an admissible deduction under Section 10(2)(xii) of the Income-tax Act (as it stood before its amendment in 1946).'Messrs. Piggot Chapman & Co. is a firm of exchange brokers Mr. Mitchell Innes and Mr. Daubeny, who were working in partnership as exchange brokers under the name and style of Halford Smith & Co., entered into an agreement on October 22, 1919, with the partners of the assessee-firm Piggot Chapman & Co. It is not necessary for out present purpose to state in full the terms of this agreement. Broadly speaking, Messrs. Mitchell Innes and Daubeny, wh...
Tag this Judgment!General Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1949
Reported in: [1949]17ITR331(Cal)
MOOKHERJEE, J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act raising a question dependent on an interpretation of Rule 2 of Schedule II with the explanatory sub-paragraph of the Excess Profits Tax Act (XV of 1940).The assessee company, Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd., is a company incorporated in India carrying on different branches of insurances including life, fire, marine and general insurances. We are not concerned with the life insurance branch of the business but only about the method of calculation to be adopted for determining the excess profits tax payable in respect of the other branches for the accounting period commencing from September 1, 1939, and ending December, 1939. The company having exercise option as regards standard profits under the second proviso to section 6(1) of the excess Profit under the second proviso to section 6(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act such standard profits have to be calculated by applying the statutory percentage to th...
Tag this Judgment!Dominion of India Vs. Gobordhandas Shroff
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal384
ORDERDas Gupta, J.1. This application is for a revision of an order of the Full Bench of the Small Cause Court dismissing an application against an order of a Judge of that Court, decreeing in part the claim for damages with regard to a consignment of 125 bales of hemp sent by the opposite party by the East Indian Railway. It was said that a part of the goods had been damaged by fire in transit & the delivery of the remainder was taken by the opposite party. The consignment was booked under cover of Risk Note B. The consignment was loaded in a closed wagon & neither side has offered any explanation as to how the hemp caught fire. In view of the terms of the Risk Note B the opposite party will not be entitled to any damage except on proof that 6f the loss or damage arose from a misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration or its servants. Admittedly no direct evidence about this was given. The learned Small Cause Court Judge however held that as the goods were loaded in closed w...
Tag this Judgment!Amarendra Nath Ghose and ors. Vs. Nilratan Baidya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal488
ORDERSen, J.1. These three rules have been obtained by the creditors in an appln. under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors' Act for a settlement of four debts. The appln. was made on 15-2-1939 & the order on which these rules have been issued was made on 6-8-1948. These two dates will show that this matter which is supposed to be decided speedily has not yet been decided although more than ten years have elapsed. I am constrained to say with great respect that this piece of legislation which is designed to give a speedy remedy is one of the most confused pieces of legislation I have had to deal with & far from giving a speedy remedy it has had the effect of prolonging proceedings to an unbelievable extent. This is due not only to the defective nature of the Act but also to the fact that the persons who administer this Act are not versed in law & yet are expected to deal with fairly intricate questions of law.2. I shall now state a number of events which have taken place in this litigation...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra Kishore Acharjya and ors. Vs. Keshab Sankar Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal382
ORDERDas Gupta, J.1. This petition is for a revision of an order passed by the Munsif at Alipur dismissing the petitioner's application under Order 21 Rule 58, Civil. P. C. It appears that one Suresh Ch. Sanyal, being the owner of premises No. 27 Hindus-than Park left a will by which on his death his widow Charusila became entitled to life-interest in it & his son Amiya to remainder after Charusila's death. Both Amiya & Charusila after Suresh's death lived in these premises. The other facts which are not in dispute may also be stated. One Sudhir Ranjan Ganguly obtained a decree & in execution thereof the petnrs purchased Amiya's interest in these premises on 10-10-1947, that is, some months before the date of the present attachment. No further steps as regards delivery of possession were taken by them, it is alleged, on the ground that Amiya had no interest which could be taken possession of now. An application under Order 21 Rule 59, Civ. P. C. was filed by the pre-sent petitioners ob...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »