Kolkata Court January 1951 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.
Jiban Krishna Das Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal31
1. The applt. was convicted by the Assistant Ses. J., Midnapore, under Section 395, I. P. C., in accordance with the unanimous verdict of the Jury & sentenced to R. I. for four & a half years. The prosecution case was that on 2-7-1949, at about 10 P. M. thirty or forty persons came into the house of the complainant Atul Bharati, broke open the bera of the southern room & opened the eastern khirki by means of a dhenki & that when they threatened to beat the inmates of the house, the male folk retreated, some outside the house & some to the roof of the house, after which they removed a number of articles from the house after breaking open some trunks. It is said that Atul Bharati's aunt, mother & sister were assaulted & their ornaments were taken away. It is further the prosecution case that the present applt. was recognised by the aunt, mother & sister of Atul Bharati.2. The accused pleaded not guilty. His case was that there was no dacoity at all & the case was falsely instituted becau...
Atulyadhan Banerjee Vs. Sudhangsu Bhusan Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal32,55CWN343
Das, J.1. This rule arises out of an appln. under Section 115, Civil P. C., and Article 227, Const. Ind.2. The facts are as follows. The opposite party was a month to month tenant under the petnr. in respect of premises No. 110/2A/3 Amehrst Street, Calcutta at a rent of Rs. 16- per month, payable according to the Gregorian Calendar.3. The opposite party failed to pay the rent for the months of February, March and April 1949.4. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 12, West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, which was then in force, the interest of the opposite party in the said premises became ipso facto determined and the opposite party could no longer be deemed to be a tenant.5. The petnr. gave the opposite party 7 days notice to vacate the premises, and on the failure of the latter to do so, initiated on 5-8-1949, proceedings under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, for recovery of possession of the said premises, on the ground that the inter...
Saila Behari Singh and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal191,[1951]19ITR430(Cal)
Harries, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (i), Income-tax Act, at the instance of the assessee in which the following questions are propounded for the opinion of the Court:(1) Whether the legal obligation created by the deed was rightly construed by the Tribunal as a private religious trust? If so,(2) Whether the last paragraph of Section 4 (3) (xii) enumerated above governs both the words 'trust' and; 'other legal obligations' as mentioned in Section 4 (3) (i) or only 'trusts'?2. The income sought to be assessed in this case was income from property which admittedly was devoted to religious purposes. The only difference between the parties was whether these properties which produced the income, which were admittedly debutter properties, were properties held in trust for deities or properties dedicated to the deities. The question arose upon the true construction to be given to the phrase 'held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for religious or charitable purposes...
Ganeshmal Bhawarlal Vs. Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal10,55CWN349
ORDERBachawat, J.1. This is an application for setting aside an ex parte decree passed on the 28th February, 1950 by this Court. The facts are fairly simple but certain important questions of law arise in this case.2. There were disputes between the petitioner firm Ganeshmal Bhawarmal and Keshoram Cotton Mills Ltd. The disputes were eventually referred to the arbitration of the Indian Chamber of Commerce. The arbitration tribunal made an award in favour of the respondent on the 5th July 1950. The award was filed in Court and on the 18th January, 1950 notice of such filing was issued by the Registrar. A clerk in the employ of the Attorneys of the respondents went to Raipur for serving Ganeshmal Bhairudan and Hastimal all alleged to be partners of the petitioner firm. It appears from the affidavit of the process server that on the 24th January 1950 three several copies of the notices were tendered to and accepted by all the three persons who were then at Raipur but all of them refused to...
Debaprasanna Mukherji Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1951
Reported in: [1951]20ITR293(Cal)
HARRIES, C.J. - This is a reference made under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act in which the Court is asked to express its opinion upon the following questions :-(1) Where the source of income has been mentioned in previous assessment orders and is thus by implication within the knowledge of the department is the Income-tax Officer debarred from taking action under Section 34 if any fresh information about the income from that source having arisen and escaped assessment comes to his knowledge ?(2) Whether it is necessary for the Income-tax Officer under Section 22 (2) read with Section 34 to give in the notice a detailed list of income which has escaped assessment and, if so, can the Income-tax officer in these proceedings, assess any other items of income which may have escaped assessment but were not included in the list given with the above notice ?(3) Whether in the circumstances of this case Rs. 79,532 has been rightly assessed as the income for the assessment year 1939...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›