Kolkata Court May 1949 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.
Bengal Jute Mills Co., Ltd., Calcutta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1949
Reported in: [1949]17ITR308(Cal)
HARRIES, C.J. - This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, made by the Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, in which the following question is propounded for the opinion of this Court :-'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the income in question, viz., Rs. 2,000, was rightly treated as the income form business for excess profits tax purposes ?'The facts giving rise to this litigation may be shortly stated as follows : The assessees are a limited liability company carrying on business as manufacturers of jute products. The assessees had let a portion of their business premises to a firm known as Radha Kant & Co. who were conducting the business of dehydrating potatoes. The assessees claimed that the rent payable by Radha Kant & Co. had not been fixed and that there was a dispute concerning it. Hence their return did not show any rent received in respect of this letting. The Income-tax Officer did not accept this contention and estimated the income...
Nagendra Nath Bhowmik and ors. Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1949
Reported in: 1950CriLJ1
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal by six persons who were convicted of an offence under Section 395 (2), Calcutta Municipal Act, and each sentenced to pay a fine of RSection 1000 and in default of payment each was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for five months Under Section 395 (2)/488.2. The six accused persons are shebaita of a deity. It appears that all six were minora and proceedings seem to have been taken against them through their mother as a kind of guardian ad litem. There is nothing on the record to show what the age of these six persona were, but it i8 unnecessary to conaider whether they could or could notice be guilty of any criminal offence because the appeal can be disposed of on other grounds.3. The section creating the offence of which they were convicted is Section 395 (a), Calcutta Municipal Act, which is in these terms :No person shall establish a new private market for the sale of, or for the purpose of exposing for sale, animals intended for human food, o...
Motilal Chakrawarty Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1949
Reported in: 1950CriLJ115
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal by one Matilal Chakravarti who was convicted by a learned Additional Presidency Magistrate of an offence Under Section 420, Penal Gode and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. In default of payment of the fine he was ordered to undergo a further period of six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The complainant in the case carried on business in the firm name of the Indo Trading Company with offices at No. 11, Netaji Subhaa Road. According to the complainant the appellant Matilal Ghakravarty accompanied by one Amarriath Bhattaeharyya, who was known to the complainant, came to him and offered to sell him 100 shares of the Indian Steamship Company. The case was that it was represented to the complainant that the shares had belonged to the appellant and that Amarnath Bhattaoharyya bad obtained them from him and was desirous of disposing of them. The complainant agreed to buy these shares and paid the price of the...
Ashutosh Roy and anr. Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1949
Reported in: 1950CriLJ123
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order passed by a Municipal Magistrate convicting the petitioners under Schedule XVIII Rule 4, Sub-rule (1), Calcutta Municipal Act, and sentencing them each to pay a fine of RSection 100 and in default of payment of the fine each to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.2. The petitioners were the owners of certain property known as 85 Kali Kumar Banerjee Lane. These premises were let to the Calcutta Corporation at which a school was carried on under the direction of the Corporation. It was alleged by the Corporation that the premises were in a deplorable state of disrepair and eventually the Corporation served a notice on the petitioners under Rule 4,Sub-rule (1) of Schedule XVIII, Calcutta Municipal Act calling upon them to secure and repair the premises. In this notice details of the necessary repairs were stated.3. The Corporation said that they were prepared to give vacant possession of the premises to enable the repairs ...
Sm. Maya Debi and ors. Vs. Sm. Rajlakshmi Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal1
G.N. Das, J.1. These three appeals arise out of proceedings in execution of decrees for rent. In First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 83 of 1945, the appellant is Sm. Maya Debi. First Miscelloneous Appeal No. 22 of 1948 and First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 145 of 1947 arise out of the same execution proceedings. In F. m. A, 22 of 1948, the appellants are Probodh Kumar Roy and Pabitra Kumar Roy. In F. m. A. 145 of 1947, the appellants are Kshitish Chandra Roy and Shib Chandra Roy. The facts common to all these appeals may be stated now.2. The Maharaja of Cossimbazar was the proprietor of a zemindary under which a putni was held by one Sarat Moni Debi whose interest is now represented by Maya Debi. Under the putni there were several dar-putnies. We are concerned with three of such dar-putnies in these appeals. One of the dar-putnies was held by the Midnapore Zemindary Company. A second Dar-putni was held by Satish Chandra Roy, since deceased, Kshitish Chandra Roy and Stub Chandra Roy and Suryyap...
Kashi Prosad Agarwalla Vs. H.W. Jones
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal349
ORDERBanerjee, J.1. This is an application for setting aside an ex parte order made on 22-3-1949, appointing Receiver of a certain Provident Fund money. The matter was mentioned to me on 24-3-1949, & I directed that the order should not be drawn up for a week. In the meantime this application was made.2. The petitioner is the widow of one Jones who in his life time was a senior engine driver in the East Indian Railway. On 29-8-1947, the plff. obtained a decree against the petitioner's husband. The D. H. made an application for execution of the decree on which the order was made as aforesaid on 22-3-1949. The question is whether a Receiver can be appointed of a Provident Fund amount which stood to the credit of the deceased J. D. at the time of his death.3. The solution depends upon the construction to be given to Section 3(2), Provident Funds Act, 1925, & the determination of the effect thereof.4. It is Unnecessary to discuss the matter in detail inasmuch as, Rankin J., in an illuminat...
Kalipada Das Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1949
Reported in: 1950CriLJ125
J. P. Mitter, J1. This is a petition for revision of an order of Mr. U. N. Ghatak, Magistrate First Class, Ulubaria, dated 25th October 1948, whereby he made absolute an order Under Section 133, Criminal P.C. requiring the petitioner to remove the shed which he had constructed on a piece of khas mahal land.2. The petitioner's case is that until about five years ago he had a shop near the Lock-gate at Ulubaria. As the Military authorities wanted to construct a bridge across the Ulubaria Canal, the petitioner's shop was removed to the present site, where he was permitted by Government Officers to construct a shed or a stall. For several years he hag since been carrying on business there without causing inconvenience to the public and he claims to have acquired some sort of tenancy right under the Irrigation Department.3. On 31st March 1948, the Executive Engineer of Cossy Division wrote to the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Ulubaria to say that the petitioner had trespassed on Government k...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›