Kolkata Court May 1952 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.
Sachindra Nath Vs. Lilabati Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal580,57CWN522
Lahiri, J.1. On 12-4-1950, the French Court at Chandernagore passed a decree in favour of the petitioner Sachindra Nath Das against the opposite party Lilaboti Dass. This decree was notified to the opposite party presumably under Article 158, French Civil P.C., on 3-8-1950 and the opposite party filed her opposition to the decree on 30-8-1950, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chandernagore which succeeded the French Court. This opposition was registered as Suit No. 38 of 1950 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge. Chandernagore. As the result of the trial, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that there was no reason for setting aside the decree and dismissed the suit. Against that decree Lilaboti Das filed an appeal to the District Judge of Chandernagoro. The learned District Judge has held that Order 9, Rule 13, Indian Civil P.C., docs not apply to the case which should be governed by Article 158., French Civil P.C. He has accordingly allowed the appeal and rema...
Asit Kumar Ghose Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, West Ben ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1952
Reported in: [1952]22ITR177(Cal)
CHAKRAVARTTI, J. - The proceeding which has led to this Reference gave rise to an important and attractive question of law, but unfortunately it suffered such drastic pruning at the hands of the Tribunal in the course of their editing of it that it has reached this Court only in a very attenuated and even misleading form. The parties, however, agreed that the question might be reframed in order that its real basis and meaning might be brought out.The facts are as follows :- One Akshoy Kumar Ghose died in October, 1931, leaving a will under which three persons were to be executors and trustees. Of them two obtained a probate of the will and took upon themselves the administration of the estate. In May, 1933, one Asit Kumar Ghose, who is the assessee before us, was adopted to the testator. In 1947 Asit Kumar brought a suit against the executors on the Original Side of this Court for administration of the estate and accounts and in that suit he was appointed receiver by an order made on t...
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Molla Md. Abd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1952
Reported in: [1952]22ITR214(Cal)
CHAKRAVARTTI, J. - This is reference under Section 63(1) of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act by which the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, West Bengal, has submitted for the opinion of this Court at the instance of the Commissioner the following question of law :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the profits or any part thereof, derived from the lands given to the Halsanas in lieu of services and enjoyed by them as such should have been treated as the agricultural income of the landlord and assessed in his hand ?'The income concerned is the income supposed to have been derived from 60 acres of khas lands belonging to the assessee landlord but in the possession of the Halsanas during the accounting year. The accounting year Sraban 1351 B.S. to Ashar 1352 B.S. and the relative assessment year was 1946-47. The amount of the disputed income is stated to be Rs. 1,680.It is not easy to discover what the real facts of the case are. All that can be asc...
Gour Mohan Mullick Vs. Commr. of Agricultural Income-tax, West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Cal468,[1952]22ITR131(Cal)
Chakravartti, J.1. The question raised by this reference has often arisen under the Income-tax Act and has been answered by different High Courts, other than this Court, in different ways. So far as this Court is concerned, it does not appear that the question came up on any previous occasion, either under the Income-tax Act or under the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act under which it has now arisen.2. The present reference is by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and arises out of the following simple facts.In respect of his agricultural income for the accounting year, 1943-44, an assessment order was made on the assessee, Gour Mohan Mullick, on 5-1-1949. The notice of demand was received by him on the 1st of February next, but he did not prefer an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner till 30-5-1949. Since under Section 34(2) the period of limitation for riling an appeal is 'ordinarily' thirty days from the receipt of the notice of demand, the Assistant Commissioner issu...
United Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Kartar Singh Campbellpuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal37
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate Writ for quashing of an order of an Industrial Tribunal dated 19-5-1951 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay certain costs and expenses incurred by an employee of the petitioner in connection with certain proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal at Dehra-Dun.2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Delhi and its head office at 2 Royal Exchange Place, Calcutta. The respondent is the Chairman, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, having his office at 20/1, Gurusaday Dutt Boad, Ballygunge, Calcutta, within the jurisdiction of this Court.3. The case of the petitioner is that one A.C. Kakkar is an employee of the petitioner and Mr. Kakkar represented the employees of several other banks in certain proceedings in connection with industrial disputes between those banks and their employees before the responde...
PulIn Krishna Paul Vs. Sishupati Chakravarty and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Cal85,56CWN585
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Presidency Magistrate convicting the petitioner under Section 41 of the. West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 and sentencing him to one month's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment he was to undergo a further period of six weeks' rigorous imprisonment.2. The complainant was the tenant of a room used as a shop which he held from the petitioner. The case for the complainant was that as the tenant of the shop he had a right to use a certain privy and water from a tap. It is said that the petitioner had not for about six months allowed him access to the privy or allowed him to take water from the tap. Therefore, it is said, an offence under Section 41 of the Rent Control Act, 1950 had been committed.3. It is clear that proceedings had been taken earlier in the court of the Rent Controller under Section 34 of the Rent Control Act, 1950 and the petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›