Kolkata Court August 1955 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.
Ganguli Engineering Ltd. Vs. Sm. Sushila Bala Dasi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Cal103,60CWN289
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal from ex , parte order passed by Sri G. S. Chatterjee, Subordinate Judge, 6th Court, 24-Parganas allowing an objection under Section 47 of the- Code of Civil Procedure and dismissing Money .Execution Case No. 1 of 1953 as not maintainable. The facts are briefly as follows. The appellant Ganguly Engineering Ltd. obtained a money decree for Rs. 10462 7/- including costs in Money Suit No. 1 of 1940 of the 2nd Additional Court of Subordinate Judge, Alipore. The decree was obtained on 31-5-1941 and after obtaining the decree the appellant started Money Execution Case No. 10 of 1941. This execution case was stayed under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act on 28-8-1944, the debtor having made an application before the Debt Settlement Board at Jhenidah in the district of Jessore for settlement of the debt comprising the decretal amount. The money execution ease was still stayed under Section 34 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act on the date of the partiti...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. on the Death of Sm. Rajlakshmi Debi Her He ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal269
Guha Ray, J.1. This is an appeal at the instance of the Corporation of Calcutta under Section 142(3), Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 from an order by the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, setting aside on appealunder Section 141(2) of the same Act an order of assessment in respect of premises No. 24, Jatindra Mohan Avenue for the period of general revaluation beginning from the third quarter of 1950-51 The area of the premises is admittedly 3 Cottas 11 Chhattaks 40 sq. ft. As to the valuation of the building which stands thereon there is no dispute between the parties.The only question is as to the valuation of the land. The assessment during the previous period of valuation was Rs. 2,968/-. The valuation before that period was Rs. 2778/-. The valuation from which the assessee appealed to the Court of Small Causes was fixed at Rs. 4608/- on the basis of the land being valued at Rs. 14,000/-per Katta. It was the case for the assessee that the land was over-valued. During the hearing of the...
Bhajahari Mandal Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal385,1956CriLJ991
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of Sri A. B. Ganguly, Judge, Special Court, Burdwan, convicting the appellant, Bhajahari Mandal, under Section 165-A, Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The prosecution case was briefly as follows:2. Two men, Istipada Ghosh and Gopiraman Ghosh, were being tried before an Assistant Sessions Judge, Sri D. N. Chakravarty, at Burdwan for offences under Sections 304/324, Penal Code. The trial commenced on 2-9-1952 and Baidyanath Mukherjee was one of the jurors. Dharanidhar Misra was the- foreman and Gangadhar Dawn was another juror in the same case. The appellant Bhajahari Mandal was a tadbirkar for the accused before the Assistant Sessions Judge, namely, Istipada Ghosh and Gopiraman Ghosh. The appellant Bhajahari approached the juror Baidyanath from the 2nd day of the trial for showing favour to the accused by returning a verdict of not guilty, on taking a bribe or illegal gratification from him on behal...
Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta Vs. Malchand Surana, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal537,[1955]28ITR684(Cal)
Chakravartti, C.J.1. I confess I do not feel altogether happy aboutthe way in which the facts have been found in this case or the manner, in. which the case has been stated. Not that it is impossiole to answer the question, as framed, but since the question touches only a fringe of the real controversy between the parties, it is not possible to feel sure that should the answer be against the assessee, his contention will be fairly laid to rest.2. The facts are as follows. On 23-1-1949, a notice under Section 34, Income-tax Act, was served on the assessee, Malchand Surana, with respect to the assessment year 1945-46. The notice was sent under registered post and it is not disputed that it was correctly addressed. The assessee, however, was not present at his shop at the time the postal peon took the letter there for delivery -- in fact, he was not even in Calcutta -- and the delivery of the letter was taken by a brother of the assessee, named Chaganlal. It has been found that Cha-ganlal...
Balai Chandra Pal and ors. Vs. RaisuddIn Naskar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal58,60CWN270
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for rent and the dispute relates to the shares of the plaintiffs and co-plaintiffs. The latter have not appeared in this Court and the tenants-defendants who were represented at the hearing of this appeal by Mr. Bakshi have not really contested the appeal, although they are certainly interested in its result.2. Under the plaintiffs appellants and their co-sharers, four of whom are respondents 3-6 in this Court, and were the co-plaintiffs in the trial Court there was an occupancy raiyati holding held by one Dayal Krishna Naskar. That holding was sold in a rent sale in R. Ex. Case No. 879/41 and some of the landlords, namely, the plaintiffs-appellants and the co-piaintiffs-res-pondents 3-6 became the auction purchasers. The sale price was Rs. 393/1/- out of which Rs. 234/-and odd annas were paid by the plaintiffs and Rs. 158/- and odd annas were paid by the co-plain tiffs.This roughly works out to the proportion of 9 1/2 as. a...
Sm. Kamalini Ghose Choudhurani and anr. Vs. Himangshu Bhushan Ghose an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal211
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. Six brothers Manmatha Nath Ghose, Promotha Nath Ghose, Sitikantha Ghose, Sudhangsu Bhusan Ghose, Himangshu Bhusan Ghose and Haridas Ghose owned in equal shares, each having an undivided one-sixth, several properties (including their residential house) at Barnia.In course of time, Pramatha, Sitikantha, Manmatha and Sudhangsu died, leaving respectively widow Charubala, widow Mrinalini, son Kaliprasanna and widow Unmadini and sons Biswanath, Debabrata, Subrata and Satinath, as their heirs and legal representatives, who, along with the two surviving co-sharers, Himangshu & Haridas, became entitled to the said properties, each branch having an undivided one-sixth share.2. On 18th Sraban 1351 B.S., corresponding to 3-8-1944 the abovenamed heirs of Pramatha, Sitikantha, Manmatha and Sudhangshu sold their undivided one-sixth shares, totalling four-sixths or two-thirds, in the several properties, described in Schedule (Ka) of the present plaint and belonging to the above fa...
JahiruddIn Biswas Vs. Lilamoy Roy Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal241,60CWN631
P.N. Mookherjee, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of a certain amount of money, under the following circumstances:2. The Respondent's predecessor Puma Chandra Choudhury, claiming to be a co-sharer of the properties, mentioned in the schedule to the present plaint, applied for pre-empting the sale made by his brother Sarat Chandra Chou-dhury in favour o'f the present Appellant. That Bale was made on 5th Pous 1351 B. S., correspond--ing to 20-12-1944, and the pre-emption application was filed In or about June 1945.At that time, the title of Purna and his two brothers, Panchanan and Sarat, had been declared by the Trial Court in T. S. 1 of 1941 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore but an appeal (P. A. No. 126 of 1943) was pending in this Court against the said decision, Purna'spre-emption application was entirely allowed on 25-1-1947 and the present appellant withdrew the pre-emption money in or about April, 1943. In the meantime, however, the High ...
Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Beng ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1955
Reported in: [1956]30ITR16(Cal)
.CHAKRAVARTTI, C.J. - The question referred in this case is the following :-'Whether the Income-tax Officer dealing with the assessments for the years 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1950-51 was entitled in law to go behind the original cost which was accepted by his predecessors in the assessments for 1939-40 to 1945-4 ?'The reference was made at the instance of the assessees. The learned advocate has prayed that her clients may be allowed to withdraw the application for a reference inasmuch as, although the point was covered by the decision of this Court in Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, the reference was caused to be made in order that the question might be finally determined by the Supreme Court. She says further that the application to the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal from the case of Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, has since been dismissed. In the circumstances, she says that her clients do not wa...
Naresh Chandra Bose Vs. Sachindra Nath Deb and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal222,60CWN802
Guha Ray, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtor from an order dismissing his application under Section 47, Civil P. C. objecting to the execution of a decree obtained by the respondents against him as far back as 4-4-1938, for arrears of putni rent in a court of Jessore, now in East Pakistan. The decree was transmitted by the Jessore Court to an Alipore Court on 31-10-1946, and on 1-3-1947, the decree-holders applied for execution there against certain properties of the judgment-debtor in Calcutta.The first objection under Section 47, Civil P. C. was filed on 3-4-1947, and the decree-holders supplied for the appointment of a receiver in respect of the properties against which they wanted to proceed in execution. On 24-5-1947, the objection of the appellant to the execution, was dismissed and the petition for appointment of a receiver was allowed and the judgment-debtor himself was selected for such appointment.But as he neither took out the writ nor intimated his will...
Bhuban Mohan Banerjee Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Cal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1955
Reported in: [1956]29ITR229(Cal)
CHAKRAVARTTI. C.J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, of a question of law arising under section 7 of the Act. Broadly stated, the question is whether when a person employed by a company is allowed a commission under the terms of his employment, but he actually draws the commission not in the year when it is earned and is credited in the employers books but in a subsequent year, such commission is assessable as the income of the year in which it becomes due or whether such amounts as are actually drawn are assessable as the income of the years when they are drawn. The question has arisen out of the following facts.The assessee, Sri Bhuban Mohan Banerjee, is employed under G.D. Banerjee & Co. Ltd., Calcutta, as the manager of its Kanpur branch. He draws a monthly salary with free board and lodging and is also entitled to a commission of ten per cent. of the companys net profits from the Kanpur Branch. It would appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »