Kolkata Court May 1950 Judgments

Kshitish Chandra Mondal Vs. Shiba Rani Debi and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1950Cal441

R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal, on behalf of defendant 1, arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title to the disputed land and for recovery of vacant possession after removing a temporary shed erected by the defendant thereon. Only such facts as are relevant and necessary for deciding the limited questions raised in this appeal may be shortly stated.2. Under the Maharaja of Cossimbazar Nirendra and his brothers held a jama in respect of C. S. plot No. 2122 within the Ranaghat municipality. Subsequently, Nirendra became the sole owner of the leasehold right. The plaintiff's case is that on C. S. plot no. 2122 they had erected certain thatched sheds. The principal defendant was inducted as a monthly tenant of those sheds for a fruit stall. A suit for ejectment bad been filed against the defendant after due service of a notice under Section 106, T. P. Act. Daring the pendency of the suit however there wag a fire in the bazar when this particular shed wa...

Bibhuti Bhusan Das Vs. Satya Narayan Debanshi and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1951Cal235,54CWN714

Roxburgh, J.1. These are appeals against three decrees of the District Judge of Birbhum affirming the decrees of the Munsif of Rampurhat decreeing three rent suits but rejecting the plaintiff's claim in each case for the Ashar kist of 1351 B. S. The appeals are by the plaintiff and relate to the rent of this kist.2. The sole question that arises for decision is the relative position of the plaintiff as girbidar or statutory mortgagee under Section 13 (4), Regulation VIII [8] of 1819. The plaintiff is a darpatnidar in respect of a patni held under the Maharaja of Burdwan. He came into possession of the patni under the provisions of Section 13 (4) in 1330 B. S. by depositing in the sale proceedings under the Regulation the amount of rent due for the patni. Subsequently, execution of a rent decree obtained by the Maharaja for rent of the patni, the patni was sold in auction in Rent EX. case No. 37 of 1940, the sale being confirmed on 5-5-1944.3. The defendants contend that the plaintiff i...

Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Abani Kumar Baner ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1950Cal437

Das Gupta, J.1. On and February 1948, a petition of complaint was filed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta by one Haridas Mukherjee. On that petition of complaint, the learned Magistrate passed the following order:'To D. C. D. D., for enquiry and report. If it is found that the Bank has ceased functioning, the enquiring officer to seize the books at once on the strength of a search warrant I should issue on his application. If the Bank is functioning he should apply to me for instructions. To 13/2.' On 9th February 1948, a report was received that the Bank had ceased functioning. On 10th February 1948, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate ordered issue of a search warrant. A report from the police was received on 23rd March 1948. On 14th June 1948, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate passed the following order:'Heard learned Pleader. Let D. C. D. D., take cognizance of this case at once, and seize the books of this Bank that are necessary.' Thereafter a challan w...

isthmian Steamship Lines Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1952Cal148,[1951]19ITR33(Cal)

ORDERHarries, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the assessees.2. The question which has been formulated for the opinion of this Court is as follows :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the Tribunal was right in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation at the end of the year 1938-39 which was not given effect to in the subsequent years, could not be treated as part of the allowable depreciation for the relevant assessment years which are assessment years 1941-42, 1942-43 and 1943-44.'3. The assessees, Messrs. Isthmian Steamship Co. of New York, are assessed in India as a company through their agents, Messrs. Angus & Co. Ltd. In the three relevant assessment years which are referred to in the question as also for the assessment year 1940-41, the unabsorbed depreciation as at the end of the assessment year 1938-39 was not allowed to be carried forward by the Income-T...

Sm. Nandarani Dassi Vs. Satyanarayan Harit

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1951Cal405,54CWN589

Bachawat, J.1 This is an appln by the deft under Section 18 (1), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 for an order that the decree passed in this suit be vacated & for leave to pay in arrears of rent within the time to be fixed by the Ct & for other reliefs.2. The deft was a tenant of the pltf in respect of shop room & a store room at premises No. 114/1, Cotton Street.3. In August 1949 the pltf instituted this suit for ejectment of the deft from these rooms, for recovery of arrears of rent, taxes, electric charges & for other reliefs. He alleged, firstly that there was default in payment of rent for three consecutive months & therefore the tenancy stood 'ipso facto' terminated & he also alleged that the tenancy as to one room has been forfeited on account of certain breaches of the covenant.4. The suit was tried before Sarkar J. He held firstly, that there was default in payment of rent for three consecutive months & therefore the tenancy stood 'ipso facto...

Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, West Bengal Vs. Ramnath BajoriA.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1951]19ITR79(Cal)

SINHA, J. - This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The question referred is in the following terms :-'Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case Section 14(2) of the Excess Profits Tax Act is a bar to recovery of the excess profits tax for the chargeable accounting period ended the April 30, 1945, from the purchaser, Ramnath Bajoria.'The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : For the chargeable accounting period commencing on May 1, 1944, and ending on April 30, 1945, and assessment was made under the Excess Profits Tax Act on the unregistered firm of Manton & Co. The net demand was Rs. 1,48,260. The firm consisted of three partners. On July 23, 1946, the business was sold by the firm to Ramanth Bajoria by an agreement. By clause 2 of the agreement the price was fixed at Rs. 1,86,965-10-11 and was payable in certain instalments. Clause 7 of the agreement provided as follows :-'All income-tax and excess profits tax in respect of the said bu...

Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax Vs. Ramnath Bajoria

Court: Kolkata

Sinha, J.1. This is a reference under Section G6 (1) of the Income-tax Act. The question referred is in the following terms :-Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case Section 14(2) of the Excess Profits Tax Act is a bar to recovery of the excess profits tax for the chargeable accounting period ended the 30th of April, 1945, from the purchaser, Ramnath Bajoria.2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : For the chargeable accounting period commencing on 1st May, 1944, and ending on 30th April, 1945, an assessment was made under the Excess Profits Tax Act on the unregistered firm of Manton & Co. The net demand was Rs. 1,48,260. The firm consisted of three partners. On 23rd July, 1946, the business was sold by the firm to Ramnath Bajoria by an agreement. By clause 2 of the agreement the price was fixed at Rs. 1,86,965-10-11 and was payable in certain instalments. Clause 7 of the agreement provided as follows:All income-tax and excess profits tax in respect of th...

iswar Madan Gopal Jiu and ors. Vs. Province of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1950Cal463,54CWN807

K.C. Chunder, J.1. These four revision cases arise out of the Land Acquisition proceedings in Mouza Hirapur within the Sub-division of Asansol in the district of Burdwan. Notification for acquisition of land was issued on 29th April 1940. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 10th February 1945 and on 1st April 1945, the Province of Bengal took possession. Then on the application of the petitioners be-fore us the Collector made a reference under Section 18 to the District Judge of Burdwan on the question of valuation of the land, and this gave rise to Land Acquisition Case No. 9 of 1946. On 15th August 1947, the Indian Independence Act came into force and from that day the Province of Bengal was divided into two provinces-of West and East Bengal. On 13th August 1949 the province of West Bengal now represented by the State of West Bengal objected before the District Judge of Burdwan that in view of the Indian Independence Order Eights of Proper, ties, etc., of 1947 the liabil...

iswar Gopal Jew Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1951Cal309,[1950]18ITR743(Cal)

Sinha, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act.2. The facts which have given rise to this reference may be stated as follows.3. By a registered instrument of dedication, dated 7-9-1861, Rani Katyani dedicated certain immovable properties situate in Calcutta to the Deity Sree Sree Iswar Gopal Jew which she had installed in the Cossipore house, in order to defray the expenses of the daily sheba and the periodical festivals of the said deity. The deed made provision for meeting the expenses of the seva and puja of the deity out of the income of the dedicated properties, and then went on to provide as follow :'During my lifetime, I, in my capacity as shebayet will remain in possession of the said debutter properties, subject to the conditions or trusts attached thereto and out of the income of the houses and bazar aforesaid, I will pay the rates and taxes and the costs of repairs of the houses &c.;, and all other necessary expense and apply the surplus income to the s...

Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, West Bengal Vs. Karam Chand Thaper ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1950]18ITR722(Cal)

HARRIES, C.J. - This is reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act in which the following question has been propounded for the opinion of the Court :-'Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was corrected in holding that Rule 5 of Scheduled I to the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, did apply in this case.'The assessee is a limited company whose main business is to act as managing agents for joint stock companies and it appears that at the time the case was before the Appellate Tribunal they were in fact acting as managing agents for about thirty companies. The question arose whether Rule 5 of Scheduled I of the Excess Profits Tax Act applied and whether the assessee was entitled to relief under that rule.The chargeable accounting period was 1st September, 1939, to 31st March, 1940, the standard period being 31st March, 1938, to 31st March, 1939.The average bank loan during the standard period was Rs. 2,74,114 though the actual amoun...