Kolkata Court June 1953 Judgments
The Angus Co. Ltd. Calcutta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Benga ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1953
Reported in: [1954]25ITR431(Cal)
CHAKRAVARTTI, C.J. - The question involved in this reference was described by both parties as a very short one, but both found it necessary to address to us a fairly long argument. At the end of that argument the point does appear to be free from intricacy, but in order to reach that comprehension of its simplicity, certain notions apt to mislead the mind had to be eliminated. In short the question is, when a company resolved to pay a dividend of a stated percentage less income-tax, what is the dividend declared Is it a dividend of the full amount required to make up the specified percentage of the relevant share capital, or is it only a dividend of the amount actually paid to the shareholders after deduction of tax The question has arisen in the following way. The assessee, the Angus Company Limited, is an Indian company, having a share capital of Rs. 37,50,000 divided into 15,000 preference shares and 22,500 ordinary shares, in each case of Rs.100 each. Under clause 5 of the Memorand...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Shaw Vs. Samarendrajit Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal797
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is the plaintiff decree-holder's application for leave to execute the decrees obtained by him against the Official Receiver in Rent Suits Nos. 546 of 1952, 548 of 1952, 549 of 1952, 654 of 1952 and 329 of 1950, all of the Second Munsif's Court, Howrah, by attachment and sale of the properties of Sri Birendrajit Saha, Sri Ranjit Saha and Sri SamarendrajitSaha, the tenants of the applicant, and which properties still continue to be in the possession of the Official Receiver. The applicant also asks that the costs of and incidental to this application be added to his decrees and be costs in the execution proceedings. 2. There is no opposition from the judgment-debtors to this application. But the Receiver has appeared through Mr. P. N. Ghose. Solicitor. The objection on behalf of the Receiver is that this application was not necessary because leave had already been granted to the applicant as plaintiff in those suits to sue the Receiver. It is contended that...
Tag this Judgment!Birdhi Chand Hansraj Vs. Assam Travels Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal170,57CWN911
ORDERK.C. Chunder, J.1. These are two Rules obtained by the plaintiff and the defendant in connection with a contract for carriage of goods. The learned Judges of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes disposed of the application under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act by remanding the matter to the trial Court because they were of opinion that there was a special exemption from liability of the carrier under the Carriage by Air Act, Act XX of 1934. The special exemption from liability given in Rule 36 is given to the carrier. Secondly, under Rule 9 he cannot get the Special Exemption unless he strictly complies with the particulars in the consignment noteas given in Rule 8 (a) to (1) and (q). In the present case the consignment note was by the forwarding agent and not the carrier and the second thing is that all the details necessary were not mentioned. Indeed it is not in the form as laid down in Rule 8. Therefore there can be no special exemption from liability even if...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Sri Iswar Lakshmi Janardan Thakur Jew
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal47,57CWN907
ORDERK.C. Chunder, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the Corporation of Calcutta against an order of the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta acquitting the accused opposite parties of an offence under Section 488 read with Section 396(1) (a), Calcutta Municipal Act.2. Briefly, the facts are that the opposite parties have been running a private market for which they had no license. They had applied for a license and it had been refused on 24-9-49. On 22-2-50 the present prosecution was launched. The objection taken was that in view of Section 534(1) (a) the prosecution was barred by limitation. The reply of the Corporation was that there was continuing offences and therefore they had a fresh starting point of limitation from each such offence. It is said in Section 488(2) that whoever after having been convicted of any offence referred to ..... continues to commit such offence shall be punished .....' This shows that a continuing offence is after a conviction for the original of...
Tag this Judgment!Hrisikesh Bhattacharjee and anr. Vs. Brojendra Mohan Bhattacharjee and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal731,58CWN262
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. These two Rules arise out of two election petitions filed in connection with the election of members of Wards Nos. III and IV of the Bondul Union Board in the district of Burdwan. The elections were held on September 9 and 10, 1951. The petitioners in these Rules and the opposite parties were the rival candidates. The petitioners were elected as the members from those two Wards and against their elections the opposite parties filed election petitions, out of which the present Rules have arisen. 2. The learned Additional District Magistrate of Burdwan who heard these election petitions came to the conclusion that the notification under R. 12 of the Rules under the Village Self-Government Act which admittedly applied to these elections was made in the case of both these Wards on 4-9-1951, and as, therefore, the said notification was not made at least one week before the dates fixed for the elections, namely, September 9 and 10, 1951, as required under the strict ter...
Tag this Judgment!Bikaner Trading Co., Calcutta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Ben ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1953
Reported in: [1953]24ITR419(Cal)
CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.-This reference has been attended with circumstances extremely unsatisfactory, both so far as the Tribunal is concerned and so far as the assessee who obtained the reference is concerned.The assessee is an unregistered firm, resident and ordinarily resident in India. The assessment years in question are 1947-48 and 1948-49. In the first of the two assessment years, the assessee showed a net dividend income of Rs. 69,275 and in the second of the two years it showed a dividend income of Rs. 74,042. As to the shares upon which the said dividend amounts had been received, the assessee company could establish the ownership of only a few which accounted for a net dividend of Rs. 117-3-0 out of the sum of Rs. 69,275 for the assessment year 1947-48 and a few more which accounted for a dividend income of Rs. 140-10-0 out of the sum of Rs. 74,042 for the assessment year 1948-49. The Income-tax Officer refused to gross up the rest of the dividend income on the ground that as th...
Tag this Judgment!Sadar Sheikh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal362,58CWN341
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of Shri S. C. Dutt, Additional Sessions Judge, Murshidabad, convicting the appellant Sader Sheikh under Sections 324, 324/149 and 147, Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years, three years and two years respectively under the charges; and convicting the other six appellants, Nader Sheikh, Rajabali Sheikh, Asraf Sheikh, Hamijuddin Sheikh 'alias' Kami Junal Molla 'alias' Hamai, Hakai Sheikh and Jamat Sheikh under Sections 324/149 and 147, Penal Code, and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years and one and a half years respectively under the charges, the sentences to run concurrently. The accused were tried with a jury of nine and the conviction and sentence was based on the unanimous verdict of the jury.2. The prosecution case was briefly as follows: Besai Sheikh, and Adalat Sheikh 'alias' Adai Sheikh who were brothers residing in Kagram, police station Bharatpur, went...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindra Nath Chakravarty Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal394,58CWN203
G.N. Das, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment of Bose J. dated 13-5-1952. The question which was agitated before Bose J. related to the validity or otherwise of an order for requisition dated 13-8-1951, made under the provisions of Section 3(1) of West Bengal Act 2 of 1948. The allegation of the appellant was that he had no notice of the proceeding under Act 2 of 1948 and later came to know on enquiry about the said order when steps were being taken by respondent No. 3 to take possession of the appellant's property.2. Bose J. dismissed the application principally on two grounds. In the first place he was of opinion that the title of the appellant (petitioner) was disputed and that there was no sufficient evidence before him in support of that title. It appears on a perusal of the papers that the settlement record of rights stands in the name of the vendor of the appellant (petitioner). Prima facie, therefore, the appellant (petitioner) had title. There was no clear denial t...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Kumar Das Vs. Pramatha Kumar Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal772,57CWN819
Guha Ray, J.1. This Rule obtained by Ajay Kumar Das on an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Senior Deputy Magistrate and Press Act Magistrate, Midnapore, refusing to re-consider an order cancelling the declaration filed by this applicant under Section 4, Press and Registration of Books Act as the keeper and printer of a press known as Vidyasagar Press at Tamluk.2. It appears that on 1-14-1950, the applicant filed a petition before the District Magistrate saying that his father Sri Pramatha Kumar Das had purchased a Press known as Vidyasagar Prass at Tamluk and asking for permission to file a declaration under the Press Act for starting printing works. The petition was enquired into by the police and under the orders of the District Magistrate Ajay Kumar Das was allowed to file a declaration under Sections 4 and 5 of the Press Act and Ajay Kumar Das actually filed the declaration on 10-12-1951. On 2-8-1952, Pramatha Kumar Das ...
Tag this Judgment!Gouripada Bandopadhya and ors. Vs. S. Banerjee, Secy. to the Govt. of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal704
G.N. Das, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Bose J. dated 26-11-1951.2. The facts are that a block of land was directed by a notification under section 4, West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948, to be a notified area in terms of that Section. The notification was duly published on 21-12-1950. Thereafter on 23-12-1950 a declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act read with Section 7 thereof whereby a, plot of land belonging to the appellant and lying within the notified area was declared to be needed for the purpose of settling immigrants from East Pakisthan. Before possession was taken by the Collector the appellant filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed further in the matter. Bose J. issued rule nisi on 21-2-1951.3. On a perusal of the affidavits filed in this case on behalf of the parties Bose J. discharged the Rule by his order dated 26-11-1951...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »