Kolkata Court June 1951 Judgments

Lankeswar Haldar and anr. Vs. Ram Gopal Das Naskar and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1953Cal323

ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This rule raises an interesting point under Section 37A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors' Act. The proceedings originallystarted by a petition dated 4-9-1942 under Section 37A filed by Biju Haldar, opposite party 4. The Section itself had just come into force on 18-6-1942, The application was not made in Form XIXA as required by Rule 77A framed under the Act. Although, possibly, in substance, it contains all the necessary materials if read with the previous application under Section 8 of the Act which had been made by Biju Haldar, and which is referred to in his later application under Section 37A. Nothing much appears to have been done on this application but on 10-1-1944, Biju Haldar filed another application in proper form. The present petitioners, Lankeswar Haldar, and Sm. Promila Sundari Dasi are cosharers of Biju Haldar in the properties, the sale of which was sought to be set aside by these proceedings. Eventually, on 24-5-1945, they themselves filed an applicati...

The Equitable Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. Kashia MahatIn and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1952Cal877,56CWN189

Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, West Bengal, refusing the prayer for a refund of a sum of Rs. 540 which had been deposited in the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. 2. On 8-9-1948 the Workman fractured his leg as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and for the period from 16-9-1948 to 21-4-1950 he was paid a regular half monthly sum based on his average monthly wages as compensation. On 21-4-1950 the workman unfortunately died and it was conceded that his death was due to the accident which arose out of and in the course of the employment.3. The employers deposited in the Court of the Commissioner a sum of Rs. 1800 which was the amount payable on the death of a workman earning wages between its. 50 and its. 60 a month, as this workman was earning.4. On 29-8-1950 the employers made an application for a refund of Rs. 540 out of the sum of Rs. 1800 which th...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madan Gopal Bagla

Court: Kolkata

Chakravartti, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, in respect of a deduction of Rs. 55,030 from the business profits of the assessee on the ground that the amount constituted a bad debt. The relevant facts are as follows:2. The assessee is a timber merchant. On the 5th of February, 1930 he obtained a loan of Rupees one lakh from the Bank of India, Bom-bay, on the joint security of himself and another man called Mamraj Rambhagat. On the same day Mamraj Rambhagat obtained a loan of Rupees lakh from the Imperial Bank of India, Bombay, on the joint security of himself and the assessee. The assessee paid off his debt to the Bank of India in due time, but Mamraj Rambhagat failed to pay his. It appears that on the 24th of March, 1930, the Imperial Bank realised from the assessee the debt owing jointly by him and Mamraj Rambhagat the amount recovered being Rupees one lakh six thousand and twent...

Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Madan Gopal BaglA.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1952]21ITR142(Cal)

The Judgment of the Court was delivered byCHAKRAVARTTI, J. - This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instant of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, in respect of a deduction of Rs. 55,030 from the business profits of the assessee on the ground that the amount constituted a bad debt. The relevant facts are as follows :-The assessee is a timber merchant. On February 5, 1930, he obtained a loan of Rupees one lakh from the Bank of India, Bombay, on the joint security of himself and another man called Mamraj Rambhagat. On the same day Mamraj Rambhagat obtained a loan of Rupees one lakh from the Imperial Bank of India, Bombay, on the joint security of himself and the assessee. The assessee paid off his debt to the Bank of India in due time, but Mamraj Rambhagat failed to pay his. It appears that on March 24, 1930, the Imperial Bank realised from the assessee the debt owing jointly by him and Mamraj Rambhagat the amount recovered being Rupees one l...

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd., Calcutta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1953Cal368,[1952]21ITR38(Cal)

Chakravartti, J.1. The question involved in this Reference is whether in the computation of its taxapre profits for two successive accounting years, the assessee company was entitled in each case to a deduction of two sums of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- which it had paid to its lessor in each of those years under certain special terms of the lease. The deduction was claimed under Section 10(2) (xv), Income-tax Act & the dispute is as to whether the payments were of the nature of a business or capital expenditure.2. The facts are as follows. On 14-11-1938, the assesses company obtained from the Government of Assam a lease of certain limestone quarries, known as the Komorrah Quarries, which are situated in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills district and cover an area of 594.40 acres. The actual lessee under the deed of lease was the Eastern Corporation Limited, but we were informed that they were only the managing agents of the assessee company and had assigned the lease almost immediately to ...

Sm. Sakhisona Dasi Vs. Gour Hari Jana

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1952Cal567,56CWN174

S.N. Guha Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the appellate decree in her suit for recovery of a specified sum on a declaration that the defendant had fraudulently withdrawn that, amount and also for an injunction restraining the defendant from receiving payment of the said amount from his lawyer with whom it was lying. The facts are undisputed and may be briefly stated. The defendant took from the plaintiff an agricultural lease of three plots of land measuring about 10 bighas for a period of 5 years from Baisakh 1346 B. S. to Chaitra 1350 B. S. at an annual rent of Rs. 42/- only. During the currency of this lease, the three plots of land were requisitioned by the Government on behalf of the military authorities and they were taken possession of by the military authorities. The plots are still in the occupation of the military authorities even though the term of the lease has already expired. The compensation however, that was paid after the expiry of the period of the l...

Satkari Banerjee and ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar Mukherjee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1951Cal577

Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the heirs of the decree, holder against an order dated 31st March 1949 passed by Mr. A. B. Ganguly, learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Asansol, District Burdwan dismissing an execution proceeding started by them.2. The facts are as follows : Ram Kinkar Banerjee, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of royalty of a Colliery known as Chak Sultanpur, for the period 1330 to 1335 B. S. on the basis of a Kabuliyat dated 3rd June 1908 executed by Mr. J. C. Martin. Defendant 1, A K. Patel a firm carrying on business under that name was impleaded on the allegation that the firm had acquired Martin's interest in the leasehold. On 18th May 1923, A. K. Patel executed 2 mortgages respectively in favour of defendant 7 Satyacharan Srimani and the late Jogendra Nath Mukherji. Defendants 3 and 4, Sushil Kumar Mukherji and Sudhir Kumar Mukharji who are two of the sons of Jogendranath Mukharji, were made parties as administrators to t...

Aswini Kumar Pramanik Vs. Dominion of India, Through the Certificate O ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1952Cal251

Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order made by a learned District Judge refusing to grant an insolvent a protection order.2. The petitioner was adjudicated an insolvent. His only indebtedness was to the State in respect of Income-tax and the State were heard during the adjudication proceeding. Having been adjudged insolvent the petitioner was arrested as the State had taken certificate proceedings against him in respect of income-tax due.3. The petitioner then applied to the Court for protection under Section 31 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. Before the learned Judge it was contended that Section 31 had no application to Crown debts. But the learned Judge was of opinion that the section was so framed as to coyer all debts whether due to the State or to private persons. The learned Judge however was of opinion that he should not make a protection order because even after discharge the petitioner would still be liable for this debt. It was on that ground that the ...

Subal Chandra Kundu Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1952Cal255

Bose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to Withdraw the Order of Cancellation of the petitioner's Establishment for manufacture of Condensed Milk & to restore to the petitioner the benefits under Sugar Permit No. N/ME/8 (Sug) No. 37688.2. The petitioner carries on business under the name and style of National Milk Co. at 1/9 Nilmoney Mitra-Row within the municipal limits of Calcutta. It is alleged that prior to the introduction of Sugar Control the petitioner in his said business used to manufacture condensed milk and other preparations of sugar e.g. lozenges, sugar candy and toffee, and he has the necessary and complete equipments for the manufacture of sugar candy, lozenges and condensed milk at his said place of business. After the introduction of the Sugar Control the petitioner applied for and was granted an Establishment Sugar Permit for manufacture of condensed milk only. The petitioner ...

Narayan Chandra Baidya Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1951]20ITR287(Cal)

CHAKRAVARTTI, J. - The assessee in this case is one Narayan Chandra Baidya who is a dealer in paddy and rice and had in or about the year of account two places of business one at Diamond Harbour and another at Falta. In respect of the accounting year 1352 B. S., the assessment year 1946-47, a notice under Section 22 (2) of the Income-tax Act was served upon him but no return was submitted. The explanation offered by the assessee appears to have been that his business at Diamond Harbour had been closed down in 1350 B. S. and as the business at Falta was also being wound up, the staff was otherwise busy and had no time to spare for the preparation of the return. Thereafter a notice was served under Section 22 (4) of the Act, calling for accounts but there appears to be no definite finding as to whether the accounts were actually produced or not. In any event there was something like a profit and loss account which the assessee prepared and submitted at the suggestion of the Income-tax Of...