Kolkata Court December 1957 Judgments
Palriwala Brothers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal232,1958CriLJ628
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is an application by Palriwala Brothers Ltd., for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Collector of Customs, the Additional Collector of Customs, and the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta, to recall, revoke & cancel the Notice to Show Cause No. 537-2 55/53P (part) 'Alca' dated 8th February, 1956 and all other notices and directions or orders issued or passed in connection therewith and also calling upon them to forbear from proceeding under Section 167(3) and (8) of the Sea Customs Act read with Section 3(2) of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947 or under Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act read with Sections 12(1) and 23-A of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act and from in any way giving effect to or enforcing the order of 28th June, 1956 in connection therewith. 2. The petition is full of repetitions and is unnecessarily prolix. It runs into 56 paragraphs where some paragraphs are almost verbatim repetitions of previous paragraphs. 3. Althoug...
Tag this Judgment!Tapesh Kumar Majhi Vs. Birbal Majhi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal698
Renupada Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned District Judge of Birbhum refusing to grant letters of administration with a copy of the Will annexed in respect of a Will which purports to have been executed by one Nafar Chandra Das as early as on 12th Falgun, 1334 B. S. corresponding to 25-2-1928, Nafar died in February, 1929. The application for letters of administration was at first filed in the Court of the District Delegate on 22-12-1952 by the present appellant Tapesh Kumar Majhi. The respondent entered caveat and the proceeding having become contentious the application was subsequently refiled in the Court of the learned District Judge on 23-4-1953.2. The respondent challenged the genuineness and validity of the Will on several grounds. It was urged by him in the first place that the alleged Will was never executed by Nafar Chandra Das and it was not also attested by attesting witnesses in accordance with the provisions of Section 63(c) of the I...
Tag this Judgment!Hriday Kanta Koyal Vs. Jogesh Chandra Mandal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Cal150,63CWN201
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. This appeal is against an order granting an application for review in a partition suit after the judgment had been delivered and preliminary decree had been, made on the 27th September, 1955. The application for review was made on the 13th October, 1955. The ground urged was that the applicants, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit, had discovered an entry in a birth register showing the birth of a son of Nishikanta Purkait on the 1st of August, 1924 and that this was new and important evidence which was not, after exercise of due diligence, within their knowledge and, therefore, could not be produced by them at the time when the judgment was passed.2. One of the main questions in the partition suit was whether on the 24th March, 1952, when Saralabala executed a deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff as guardian of Kaniala Kanta Purkait, described in the deed as her minor son, Kamala Kanta was really a minor. It appears that thereafter on the 7th May, 1952, Kamala ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Suprova Sundari Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal641,62CWN426
ORDERSinha, J.1. The facts in this case arc shortly as follows. There was a certificate proceeding, being Certificate Case No. 555 (Income-tax) of 1951-52 against one Tarak Nath Bagchi for arrears of income-tax amounting to Rs. 24,949-9-0. Notice under Section 7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act was served on the certificate debtor on 22-4-1952. He thereafter filed an objection under section 9 of the said Act, denying liability. That objection was dismissed sometime on 17-11-1952. A distress warrant was issued, and on 12-3-1953 in execution of the distress warrant, the furniture at premises No. 38/1, Masjid Rari Street was attached. This is the residential dwelling house and was the address given by TarakNath Bagchi in his return. It is stated that in his return, he treated this property as his own. Be that as it may, on 14-3-1953 the petitioner Sm. Suprava Sundari Devi, wife of Tarak Nath Bagchi, preferred an objection. This was an objection in accordance with Rule 39, Schedule II of...
Tag this Judgment!Subodh Kumar Banerjee Vs. Soshi Kumar Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Cal668,63CWN197
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. On 14-2-1950, an application was made by the plaintiff in his partition suit against his brothers and sons of deceased brothers praying for issue of an order of temporary injunction restraining his brothers, defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from building or raising any structure or construction on any part of premises Nos. 16, 17 and 15 with their sub-numbers 15A, 15B and 15C. Hazra Road or otherwise altering the character or features of the land comprised in the said premises. An interim order of injunction as prayed for was granted by the Court on that very date, 14-2-1950. Ultimately, on 14-9-1950, after hearing both parties and after consideration of the affidavits filed on their behalf and several documents, The Court came to the conclusion that the matters in dispute were matters which concerned a vital question, namely, whether the leases and kabalas of defendants 1 to 3 were genuine and valid documents, that it was neither desirable nor possible to decide such a ...
Tag this Judgment!Darshanlal Agarwalla Vs. Happy Valley Tea Company Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal691,62CWN523
K.C. Das Gupta, J. 1. It is possible, in these cases to sympathise with the decree-holder but we find it impossible to give him any relief. The suit was brought by Shiva Prosad, son of Gokul Chand Vaish Agarwal as Karta of a Hindu joint family carrying on business' under the name and style of Shiva Prosad Darshan-lal at Dehra Dun. When the suit was pending,. Shiva Prosad died. This was on 14-3-1949. Shortly thereafter, on 1-4-1949, an application was made by Darshanlal Agarwalla for substitution in place of Shiva Prosad claiming to have become the karta of the joint family on the death of Shiva Prosad. Before, however, any order granting this prayer for substitution was made, a petition of compromise appears to have been filed before the court purporting to have been, filed by Darshanlal as the plaintiff and by the defendants. The compromise was recorded and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. The decree provided for payment by instalments. Some instalments were paid, but a...
Tag this Judgment!Shoilesh Chandra Mustafi Vs. Amal Chandra Mustafi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal701
Renupada Mukherjee, J. 1. The present dispute is an offshoot of an application for probate originally filed by one Amal Chandra Mustafi in the Court of the District Judge of 24-Per-gannas. Subsequently one Guruprosad Mustafi also joined as a co-applicant for the probate. The will in question purports to have been executed by one Hem Nalini Devi in October, 1950. Hemnalini had three sons, Profulla, Nirmal and Shoilesh of whom the first two are dead. Amal is son of Nirmal and Guruprosad is son of Profulla. As the application for grant of probate had become contentious, the application was subsequently registered as a plaint. Summons was duly served on Shoilesh and he appeared and contested the proceedings. 2. During the pendency of the suit in the Court of the District Judge an application for appointment of an administrator pendente lite in respect of the properties covered by the will was filed by the plaintiffs on the allegation that defendant Shoilesh had taken possession of the grou...
Tag this Judgment!P.H. Avari Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal203,62CWN278
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The applicant is P. H. Avari carrying on business at No. 5, Dharamtolla Street, Calcutta. He seeks for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Collector of Excise, Calcutta, dated the 30th July, 1954, the order of the Commissioner of Excise, West Bengal, dated the 25th August, 1954 and the order of the Government of West Bengal, dated the 4th October, 1956.2. The order of the Collector of Excise, dated the 30th July, 1954 is the original basic order against which the present complaint is made in the petition. That order stated:--'Under Rule 3 (b) of the rules published with the Notification No. 918(A). Ex. dated 11-9-42, you are liable to pay gallonage fees amounting to Rs. 11,989/8/- in respect of foreign liquors mentioned in the passes as noted below: (Pass numbers and dates were given in the order) issued by you in favour of the Ramdas-ram Ramphalram of Gangtok (Sikkim) not a licensee withi...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhlall Chandanmull Vs. A.C. JaIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Cal669
ORDER1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Messrs. Seth Sukhlall Chandanmull, described as a Hindu undivided family governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, and of which Indra Kumar Karnani is pleaded AS the Karta. In this application the petitioner asks for a Writ of Certiorari upon the Income-tax Officer, Companies District II, Calcutta, and the Union of India, represented by the Commissioner of Income-lux to quash the assessment proceedings.2. The Income-tax Officer by his order dated 17-2-1956 assessed the income at Rs. 1,59,248/-, and it is alleged that he ignored the claim of the petitioner for the sum of Rs. 4,000/- as deductible allowance for earned income and disallowed a sum of Rs. 26,195-0-0 which was interest supposed to have been paid to Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd., for the overdraft taken by the petitioner from the Rank against security of property and that he is also supposed to have disallowed bad debts claimed by the petitioner as permi...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Sukhlall Chandanmull Vs. A. C. Jain, Income-tax Officer, and Anot ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1957
Reported in: [1958]34ITR82(Cal)
P. B. MUKHARJI J. - This is and application under article 226 of the Constitution by Messrs. Seth Sukhlall Chandanmull, described as a Hindu undivided family governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, and of which Indra Kumar Karnani is pleaded as the karta. In this application the petitioner asks for a writ of certiorari upon the Income-tax Officer, Companies District II, Calcutta, and the Union of India, represented by the Commissioner of Income-tax, to quash the assessment proceedings.The Income-tax Officer by his order dated the 17th February, 1956, assessed the income at Rs. 1,59,248 and it is alleged that he ignored the claim of the petitioner for the sum of Rs. 4,000 as deductible allowance for earned income and disallowed a sum of Rs. 26,195 which was interest supposed to have been paid to Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd., for the overdraft taken by the petitioner from the bank against security of property and that he is also supposed to have disallowed bad debts claimed by th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »