Kolkata Court May 1951 Judgments

Satish Chandra Basu Vs. Sisir Kumar Roy

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1951Cal560

Das, J.1. This rule was obtained by the pltf. against an order dated 28-11-1950 pased by Mr. H. Ganguly, learned Small Cause Ct. Judge, Sealdah.2. The pltf. instituted a suit for recovery of rent of premises No. 208, Harish Mukherji Road, Bhowanipur, District 24-Parganas for the months of March & April 1950 at the rate of Rs. 140/-per month.3. The deft. pleaded that he had spent a sum of Rs. 480/- on account of repairs of the premises & claimed a set-off Under Section 108(f), T. P. Act.4. The learned Small Cause Ct. Judge held that the pltf. contracted to effect the repairs when the deft. took a lease of the premises, & that the deft. spent a sum of Rs. 480/- on account of repairs as alleged. In this view, the learned Small Cause Ct. Judge dismissed the suit.5. The pltf. has moved this Ct. in revn.6. Mr. Bagchi, learned advocate for the pltf. has contended that the repairs were effected in July 1948 & as the deft. did not comply with the provision of Section 18, Bengal Ordinance V (5) ...

Nagendra Bhusan Beed and anr. Vs. Mrs. M. Parker and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1953Cal465,55CWN661

G.N. Das, J.1. These are two petitions inrevision on behalf of the landlords against an order of Mr. S.C. Talukdar, Judge Fifth Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, reversing on appeal orders passed by the Rent Controller fixing the standard rent of premises Nos. 114C and 114D Ripon Street. It is abundantly clear that these two flats were let out to tenants on 1-12-1941, the respective rents payable being Rs. 110 and Rs. 125/-. It is therefore a case Where the basic rent is known and the Court has got to proceed to standardise the rent under Section 9(1) (a) of the Act read with Schedule A.2. Paragraph 4 of Schedule A can have no application to this case where there was a basic rent in respect of the premises in question. The' basic rent of the premises would be the rents payable in December 1941 plus ten per cent. The learned Judge of the Fifth Bench has entirely misunderstood the provisions of Section 9 read with Schedule A of the Act. He ought to have considered that the pr...

Allahabad Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Chakravartti, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) 'flu the Indian Income-tax Act by which the Calcutta Bench of the Appellate Tribunal has asked for the opinion of this Court on the following question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in disallowing Rs. 2,00,000 as a deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act.2. I shall have to say something presently about the scope of the question but before doing so, I should like to state the facts in outline and the course which the proceedings have taken.3. The assessee is a Banking Company carrying on business at, among other places, Calcutta and Allahabad. On the 15th of March, 1946, it executed a deed by which it purported to create a trust for the payment of pensions to members of its staff. The deed declared that a pension fund had been constituted and established. It then recited that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 had already been made over to three p...

Allahabad Bank Ltd., Calcutta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Ben ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1952]21ITR169(Cal)

The Judgment of the Court was delivered byCHAKRAVARTTI, J. - This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act by which the Calcutta Bench of the Appellate Tribunal has asked for the opinion of this Court on the following question of law :-'Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in disallowing Rs. 2,00,000 as a deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act.'I shall have to say something presently about the scope of the question but before doing so, I should like to state the facts in outline and the course which the proceedings have taken.The assessee is a Banking Company carrying on business at, among other places, Calcutta and Allahabad. On March 15, 1946, it executed a deed by which it purported to create a trust for the payment of pensions to members of its staff. The deed declared that a pension fund had been constituted and established. It then recited that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 had alre...

Tarakdas Dutta Vs. Sarat Chandra

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1953Cal335,56CWN296

ORDER1. This Rule was obtained by the plaintiff in a proceeding for recovery of possession under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act against the order of the Registrar of the Small Cause Court by which he set aside a consent decree obtained by the plaintiff under Section 18(1), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1950.2. The facts which are material for the purposes of this Rule are undisputed and may be stated as follows: The plaintiff started the present proceeding against the opposite party for recovery of possession of a portion of premises No. 59, Ahireetola of which the opposite party was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 23/-. On 23-5-1949, the said proceeding terminated in a compromise decree made by the Registrar under which the opposite party undertook to vacate the premises. The date of delivery of possession was extended by consent to 24-4-1950. On 31-3-1950, the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1950 came into operation and on 1...

Maharajadhiraja Bahadur of Darbhanga Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1953Cal344,[1952]21ITR258(Cal)

Chakravartti, J. 1. The question involved in this Reference under Section 63(1) of the Bengal Agricultural Income-Tax Act relates to three sums of money which, according to the contention of the Respondent Commr. & the finding of the Appellate Tribunal, are agricultural income of the assessee but according to the assessee himself, not income at all. For reasons presently to be stated he has not sought to argue further that even if the sums concerned be income receipts, they are still not agricultural income within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act. 2. Although there is a single reference, it covers three assessments made for three consecutive assessment years, viz. 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1948-47. As the monies received by the assessee in the three relevant accounting years were derived from transactions of an identical character, a common question of law has been referred, although the amounts involved naturally differ. 3. The facts are as follows. The assessee, the Maharaja of Dhar...

Kapil Charan Nayak Vs. Gitanjali and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1951Cal509

ORDER1. This rule was obtained by the pltf. against an order of the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Midnapur, determining a question of C.F. The pltf. instituted a suit for a declaration that the properties described in Schedule Ka of the plaint which stood in the names of his two sons, the deceased husband of opposite party No. 1 & oppt. party No. 2, were really his own properties & purchased with his own money & that the deceased husband of opposite party No. 1 & opposite party No. 2 were the pltf's Benamdars. It is admitted that the properties which are included in Schedule Ka of the plaint were purchased by 65 documents. The pltf. filed the plaint with a single C.-F. stamp of Rs. 20 & on behalf of the defts. an objection was raised to the effect that as the properties were purchased by 65 documents the pltf. was required under the Court-Fees Act to pay a separate C.-F. of Rs. 20 in respect of each of those 65 documents. By a judgment dated 8-7-1950, the learned Subordinate Judge uphe...

Carlsbad Mineral Water Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. P.K. Sarkar and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1952Cal6,(1952)ILLJ488Cal

Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of Banerjee J. dated December 19, 1949 dismissing an application for a 'mandamus' or a writ of 'certiorari'.2. The appellants are a limited company who manufacture soda water and on January 3, 1947 they entered into an agreement with the Governor-General in Council acting through the Chief Commercial Manager of the East Indian Railway Administration in Calcutta by which they secured the catering rights of providing mineral waters on the East Indian Railway system. By the agreement, they acquired a right to sell their mineral waters on the stations of the East Indian Railway and on the trains running on that railway and under the contract the Government had a right to fix maximum prices and to control to some extent the work of the appellants.3. A trade dispute occurred between the appellants and their workmen and the Government of West Bengal by its order dated December 28, 1948 referred this dispute for adjudication by Mr. P....

Bharadwaj Singh Vs. State, on the Complaint Of, Harimati Dasi

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1952Cal616

ORDERHarries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of orders of the Courts below convicting the petitioner of an offence under Section 411, I. P. C., and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of the said fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The charge against the petitioner was that he was in possession of a cow knowing the same to be stolen or having reasonable grounds for believing that the same was stolen. A learned Magistrate found him guilty and sentenced him as I have indicated. On appeal the conviction and sentence were affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Ali-pore.3. At the outset I should like to point out that if this man was guilty of receiving a stolen cow, then a fine of Rs. 200/- was quite inadequate. Life in,villages in Bengal and elsewhere would become quite impossible if theft of cattle and the crime of receiving stolen cattle were dealt with leniently. Stealing a villager's cow is a very serious off...

Amarendra Nath Chowdhury and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1951Cal517

1. The petnrs. who obtained this Rule are owners of a house in Ekbalpore Road which is in the possession of the State of West Bengal on the strength of a requisition order under the Defence of India Rules. The petnrs. applied for the grant of a certificate stating the standard rent & also for fixing the standard rent under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1948. The petnrs.' appln. was rejected by the Rent Controller by an order dated 6-12-1949, on the ground that as the house was in the possession of the State under a requisition order, there was no relationship of landlord & tenant & as such the appln. was not maintainable. An appeal against the order was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, 1st Ct. Alipore, by an order dated 20-7-1950, & against that order the petnrs. have obtained the present Rule.2. On behalf of the petnrs. Mr. Mallik has argued that although the State of West Bengal is rot a tenant under the petnrs., the petnrs. ...