Kolkata Court September 1954 Judgments
Sandersons and Morgans, Solicitors (In the Matter of Bill of Costs) Vs ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal319
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This summons raises a point of universal importance to the litigant public and the profession of solicitors in India. The cardinal question on this application is how far, if at all, an attorney's private agreement with client to charge higher fees and remuneration than those obtainable under the Rules of this High Court can prevail. The clear issue in this application is whether such a private agreement supersedes the scale of fees permitted by the High Court. In short the point is if such private agreement gives the attorney immunity from taxation of his fees according to the Rules of this Court. The attorney in this case has charged and obtained from his client fees amounting to Rs. 1,73,033-6-0 under an alleged private agreement. The client considers such fees to be excessive or exorbitant and wants them to be taxed according to the scale laid down by the High Court. The attorney resists on the ground of this private agreement, and claims by virtue thereof...
Tag this Judgment!Kaniram Hazarimull Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1954
Reported in: [1955]27ITR294(Cal)
CHAKRAVARTTI, C.J. - We have felt some difficulty in dealing with this reference because of the form in which the question was referred or caused to be referred and because of the meaning which was sought to be attributed to it on behalf of the assessee.The assessee is a Hindu undivided family, called Kaniram Hazarimull and one Indra Chand Kejriwal is its karta. On the 18th April, 1933, Indra Chand entered into a partnership with eight other persons for the purpose of floating and obtaining the managing agency of a proposed mill to be called the Shankar Sugar Mills Limited. Clause 4 of the deed of partnership provided that the partnership capital was to be Rs. 12,00,000 to be contributed by the partners in accordance with their shares, that it would be applied by each partner to the purchasing or getting to be purchase shares of the proposed mill according to his share specified in the deed and that one-third of the share money was to be paid within a month and the remaining two-thirds...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Chandra Bose Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal398,59CWN727
1. For the establishment of a Livestock Research Station at Haringhatta a large number of plots Lad been compulsorily acquired. Notification and Declaration were published in October and November, 1945. Separate Land Acquisition Cases were started for settling the market value of the lands acquired as also the claims by diverse parties for apportionment.2. These four appeals arise out of as many References made by the landlord for increased valuation and also questioning the Collector's direction for apportionment. The same landlord is the appellant in each of the cases but the Respondents are other claimants as holders of subordinate interests and they are different ones.3. These appeals were heard one after another. The transactions on which the learned Judge relies upon are the same in all these cases. The nature of the other evidence adduced is of the same type and character. In view of the order WP intend to pass, this order will govern all of them.4. The special facts relating to...
Tag this Judgment!Province of West Bengal Vs. Raja of Jhargram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal392
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The principal question for decision in the present appeal is whether the principle of reinstatement -would be attracted in. assessing the compensation payable for damages done to a Forest during requisition.2. During the last War portions of two khas Jungles known as Bandhi Jungle and Chua Jungle belonging to the Raja of Jhargram were requisitioned under Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules for the Jhargram Air-field. The properly remained under requisition from 15-5-1944 to 3-5-1945 when it was derequisitioned. On such derequisition it transpired that during the period of occupation Government had removed standing trees from a large portion of area. Correspondence ensued and the District Magistrate of Midnapore offered by his letter dared 31-1-1946 a total compensation for Rs. 1,21,449/2/-. One year later by a letter dated 12-2-1947 the District Magistrate modified the offer and reduced the same to Rs. 38,377/1/-. It was stated that out of the amount offered Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Beng ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1954
Reported in: AIR1956Cal242,[1955]28ITR510(Cal)
Chakravartti, C.J.1. The main question involved in this Reference is a simple one, but certain facts of history bound up with it tend it an appearance of difficulty and at the same time make it interesting.2. The assessee is the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad and the Reference is concerned with his assessment for the four assessment years 1944-45 to 1947-48. For each of those years the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad has been assessed on a certain amount as his income from property, on a second amount as his income from a certain Imambara and on a third amount as his income from forest produce.As regards his income from other sources, he has been allowed collection charges at the rate of 12 1/2 per cent. His contention is that he is not liable to be assessed on any income from property at all, because he is not the owner of the properties which have been taken into account, that the Imambara is held under a trust wholly for religious purposes and, therefore, the income derived from it is ex...
Tag this Judgment!Bibhuti Bhusan Biswas Vs. Puspalata Sil and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1954
Reported in: AIR1956Cal172
Bose, J.1. This is a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff has become a tenant holding directly under defendants 1 and 2 in respect of 2 rooms and a bathroom on the 1st floor and a Kitchen on the 2nd floor in premises No. 18 Gour Mohan Mukherjee Street, Calcutta, at a rent of Rs. 21/- per month inclusive of the charges for electricity, for an injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 and their servants and agents from executing the decree or order for possession dated 10-1-1950 passed in Small Cause Court, Suit No. 1117 of 1949 and other reliefs.2. The case of the plaintiff is that defendants 1 and 2 are the landlords of premises No. 18 Gour Mohan Mukherjee Street, Calcutta. Defendant 3 was the tenant under defendant 1 of the said entire premises No. 18, Clour Mohan Mukherjee Street, at a rent of Rs. 40/- per month. On 10-1-1943 defendant 3 lawfully sublet 2 rooms and a bathroom on the 1st floor and a kitchen on the 2nd floor, being a portion of the said premises at a rent of Rs. 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›