Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1959Cal296,[1959]37ITR277(Cal)
P. Chakravartti, C.J.1. This is a Reference under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the direction of this Court of two questions of law arising out of three assessments of the Cricket Association of Bengal, The question referred is practically a single question, but it has been split up into two separate questions, because by the time of the assessment for the third year, the law had been slightly changed.2. The Cricket Association of Bengal is an unregistered and unincorporated body. Its membership is open to clubs, District Associations, Universities, Indian States and, subject to certain conditions, individuals. There is no trust deed or other document vesting any property in the Association for any purpose connected with its activities. Its objects are set out in Rule 4 of its Rules under 13 heads, but they may be roughly summarised as promotion of the game of cricket played in accordance with the highest standard, though there are cer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1959Cal377
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. In this appeal two interesting questions have been raised and they arise under the Calcutta Municipal Act, or to be more precise, under Rule 5(4) of Schedule XVII thereof. The appeal is by the two defendants, the Corporation of Calcutta , and its Commissioner and it is directed against a decree of the court below declaring a certain order of the Commissioner bad and inoperative and declaring further that the notices, issued in connection with the carrying out of the order were inoperative and issuing also a permanent injunction to restrain the Corporation and its officers and men from giving effect to the said order and notices.2. The suit was filed under the following circumstances:That, on September 10, 1957, the defendant No, 2 Commissioner directed demolition of Premises No. 5 Tamsook Lane. Burrabazar, which is a partly one-storied, partly two-storied and partly three-storied building, under Rule 5(4) of Schedule XVII of the Calcutta Municipal Act. This was com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1958Cal682,1958CriLJ1469
P. Chakravartti, C.J.1. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta and four of his officials on one side and a firm called the Calcutta Motor and Cycle Company and its four partners on the other are both dissatisfied with anorder of Sinha J., dated the 9th August, 1955, whereby he quashed three notices issued by the Customs officials under Section 171-A(1) of the Sea Customs Act on the partners of the firm and at the same time held that a search of the premises of the firm and the seizure of certain prohibited goods thereat had been perfectly legal. The Collector and his co-appellants want the notices to stand, while the members of the firm want the search and seizure to be declared illegal and the goods seized to be returned to them. Against so much of the order as is adverse to them, the Customs officials have appealed, while the remainder of the order has been challenged by the members of the firm in a cross-objection.2. The facts are simple and may be shortly stated. According to the Custo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1959Cal219
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of the Municipal Market, College Street Branch under the Corporation of Calcutta, in the year 1938 In March 1945, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Conservancy Supervisor. In 1948, the Corporation was temporarily superseded and an Administrative Officer was appointed. On the 23th April 1952. an order was passed by the Administrative Officer dismissing the petitioner from service. The 1951 Act came into force on the 1st May 1912, and the supersession came to an end. The order of dismissal was served on the petitioner On the 3rd of May 1952. It appears that the Corporation became dissatisfied with various orders of appointment and discharge made by the Administrative Officer, and a Sub-Committee of 13 members was appointed under Section 98(1) of the Act, to examine and scrutinise such cases. The case of the petitioner amongst others was considered by the Special C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1960Cal278
S.P. Mitra, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff asks for a declaration that his alleged dismissal was ultra vires, invalid, void, inoperative and of no effect and that he is still the librarian of the WestBengal Secretariat Library of the defendant or an employee of the defendant; re-instatement in office and cancellation of the order of dismissal dated 2-6-1949, payment of salary amounting to Rupees 9,580/15/2; further payments of salary and costs.2. The plaintiffs case is briefly as follows: on 30-4-1921 the plaintiff was appointed a clerk in the Local Self Government and Education Department of the Bengal Government. The appointment was made by the Secretary to the Local Self Government and Education Department. On 4-5-1924, the plaintiff was appointed Assistant Librarian of the Bengal Secretariat Library. The appointment was made by the Secretary to the Education, Department. On 1-4-1943, the plaintiff was appointed Librarian of the Bengal Secretariat Library. This appointment was also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1959Cal348,63CWN139
P. Chakravartti, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act by the learned District Judge of Burdwan of a decree passed by himself on the 6th of March 1958, whereby he dissolved a marriage between one Myrtle Evelyn Mary Barrett and one Adrian James Benjamin Barrett. The decree has been submitted to this Court for confirmation.2. The parties are of the Roman Catholic faith and were married according to Christian rites on the 31st of December, 1949. They appear to have been rather young at the date of the marriage, the respondent being only 23 and the wife 22. After the marriage, they lived first at Sindri and then at Sitarampur till July, 1953, when, for the first time their married life began to crack up.3. The present proceeding was initiated by the wife. Her case was that in July, 1953, she found her husband and one Sheila Nichols sharing the same bed in the matrimonial home. This naturally led to an estrangement and the parties separated, each going to liv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1959Cal434
P. Chakravartti, C.J. 1. Three questions have been referred in this case and they arise out of the following facts. The assessee, Sri Provat Kumar Mitter, is the registered holder of 500 ordinary shares , of the Calcutta Agency Ltd. By a written instrument, dated the 19th of January, 1953, he settled on his wife, Sm. Ena Mitter, the right, title and interest to all dividends and .sums of money which might be declared or might become due on account or in respect of those shares for the term of her natural life. The material portion of the instrument is short, After reciting that the settlor was desirous of making a provision for his wife, the instrument proceeds as follows ; -- 'This Deed Witnesseth that for effecting the said desire and in consideration of the natural love and affection of the Settlor for the Beneficiary, the Settlor, as the beneficial owner, assigns unto the Beneficiary the right, title and interest to every dividend and sum of money which may be declared or become du...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1959Cal538
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. The question referred In this case is whether the sums, received by the assessee company as selami for granting sub-leases of coal-mining leases which it had itself obtained, were trading receipts in its hands and whether the profit contained therein, it any, is assessable under the Indian Income-tax Act. The question has arisen out of the income-tax assessment of the assessee for the years 1949-50 and 1950-51 and its business profits tax assessment for the chargeable accounting periods ending on 31-12-1948, and 31-3-1949, respectively. The single question referred is common to all the four cases and consequently a single Reference has been made.2. On an ultimate view, the facts of the case are fairly simple, but their history is somewhat long. It appears that on 26-3-1915, a firm of the name of Bird and Co., acquired from the Court of Wards, representing the proprietor of the Ramgarh Estate, a prospecting licence with respect to an area, called the Karanpura coal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1959Cal543,63CWN88
ORDERSinha, J.1. These are four applications which involve common questions of fact and law. In fact, there has been only one set of argument in all these matters and it is convenient to deal with them in one judgment.2. The facts in these cases are shortly as follows : There are two routes in Calcutta, namely, routes Nos. 10 and 10-A (Ballygunge Station to Howrah Station). In or about February, 1957, the said two routes were run by privately-owned stage carriages. 41 permits had been granted in respect of the said routes to different persons. All these permits were permanent permits renewed from time to time and at that stage the permits were valid upto 31-3-1957. Immediately before the expiry of the permits, applications were made for renewal for a further term. Thereupon, on or about 21-2-1957, notice of application was given, inviting representations against the renewal The only objection that was put forward was by the Director General of Transportation, on the ground that the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1959Cal620,64CWN103
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of P. B. Mukharji, J. dated the 27th of June, 1956, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appellant's application for setting aside the award made against it by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce. 2. The appellant was the seller of a certain quantity of jute under a contract dated the 3rd of September, 1954, and the respondent was the purchaser. Shipment or despatch by rail of the goods was to be between the 3rd of September and October 1954. The appellant's case is that there was a fire and that it was unable to despatch the jute within the stipulated time and that although it appealed to the respondent for some extension of the time within which the contract might be performed, no extension was granted. The respondent then made a claim for Rs. 24,500/- as the difference between the market price and the contract price of the jute concerned on the date of the breach, but the appellant refused to pay the same. A dispute hav...
Tag this Judgment!