Kolkata Court December 1959 Judgments
Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal360,[1960]39ITR751(Cal)
Bachawat, J. 1. During the financial year 1947-48 the assesses was called upon to pay in advance a sum of Rs. 11,00,494/- as tax payable in respect of the assessment year 1948-49 under Section 18A(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act. The assessee submitted under Section 18A(6) its own estimate of the tax and on the basis of such estimate paid a sum of Rs. 4,47, 125/-. The assessment for the assessment year 1948-49 was made on 29-4-1950 and as the tax paid by the assessee on the basis of its own estimate was less than eighty per cent of the tax determined on such assessment, the assessee was charged with interest amounting to Rs. 92,301-12-0 under Section 18A(6). The assessee paid this amount on 7-7-1950, i.e. in the previous year corresponding to the assessment year 1951-52. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1951-52 the assessee claimed that the sum of Rs. 92,501-12-0 was an allowable deduction in arriving at its taxable profits. The Income-tax Officer disallowed th...
Tag this Judgment!Pratabmull Rameshwar Vs. K.C. Sethia (1944), Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal702,64CWN616
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of G. K. Mitter, J. dismissing the plaintiff's suit for a declaration that certain jute contracts and the relative Arbiration agreements contained therein are void and unenforceable, that the awards made thereupon are void and unenforceable, that such awards be taken off the file and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from enforcing the award or taking any steps thereunder.2. The plaintiff appellant is the seller and the defendant respondent is the buyer of certain jutes. The plaintiff is a partnership and the defendant is a limited company. Under four different contracts, two dated 28-7-1947 and the other two dated 5-9-1947, the plaintiff agreed to sell certain bales of jute to the defendant at rates and prices mentioned in such contracts; the Port of delivery was Genoa, Italy, and the stipulated time for shipment under the first two contracts was from September to November, 1947 and un...
Tag this Judgment!Debabrata Ghose Vs. Jnanendra N. Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal381
P.C. Mallick, J. 1. This is a suit in which the plaintiff seeks to reopen a previous partition effected in 1920. The properties in suit along with a number of other properties belonged to one Dwarkanath Ghose. Dwarkanath Ghose died in 1892 after having published a will. By his will Dwarkanath created an absolute debutter in respect of two of his properties, namely, premises No. 40/1 and No. 41 Grey Street and bequeath the rest to his two sons Rajendra and Jogendra in equal share. Rajendra predeceased his father after having published a will. By his will, Rajendra appointed his brother Jogendra as the executor and bequeathed his properties to his four sons in equal shares subject to the payment of an excess amount to his youngest son Nagendra. His other sons are, Sidheswar, Bhupendra and Jnanendra. Jogendra applied for and obtained probate both of the will of his father Dwarkanath and of the will of his elder brother Rajendra. On 4-9-1909, Bhupendra, Jnanendra and Nagendra the three son...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Radharani Mitra and ors. Vs. Sm. Kanaklata Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal533
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This appeal is by the defendants and it arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The suit property comprises four rooms in a house, known as Lalkuthi. The nature of the controversy between the parties in the suit and in this appeal will appear from the following statements of their respective cases:2. According to the plaintiffs, Lalkuthi belonged to their predecessor Ishan Chandra Mitra. Ishan died, leaving three sons, Bipin Behari, Lal Bihari and Charu Chandra. Charuchandra died, leaving a widow and a son Baidyanath and a daughter Umarani. Umarani was married to Anath Nath Roy, and they had two sons, Ashutosh and Ajit. Anath, in his turn, was a son of Jitendra Nath Roy and his elder brother was Nalini Nath Roy. The original plaintiffs in the present suit were Kanak Lata Roy, wife of Nalini Nath Roy, Umarani Roy, wife of Anath Nath Roy, and the two sons of Umarani, namely, Ashutosh and Ajit, as mentioned hereinbefore. According to...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Chandra Majumdar Vs. Akhil Chandra Majumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal551,64CWN576
P.B. Mukhabji, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of P.C. Mallick J., dismissing the propounder's petition for probate of a holograph will of the testator who outlived the will by about sixteen years, on the ground that the conscience of the Court had not been satisfied.2. The propounder Ajit Chandra Majumdar is the youngest son of the testator Adhar Chandra Majumdar. The testator had four sons, Akhil, Anil (the caveator), Ajit and one Arun who predeceased the testator. The predeceased son left a widow and four children, none of whom is contesting the will. The eldest son Akhil did not fife any affidavit In support of the caveat. The second son Anil, who is a doctor, is the caveator and he filed an affidavit in support of his caveat. Anil alone gave evidence at the trial of this contentious cause. Akhil neither filed any affidavit nor gave any evidence in Court and Anil's evidence in support of his caveat was ordered to be taken as the Written Statement of both Akhil an...
Tag this Judgment!Hanutmal Bhutoria Vs. Dominion of India and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Cal54
Bose, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mallick J, dismissing the appellant's suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7155/- on account of short delivery in respect of certain goods which were sold at an auction sale on the 3rd February 1947. The appellant's case is that on the 3rd February 1947 at an auction sale held by Mackenzie Lyall and Co. on the instructions of the Chief Commercial Manager, Bengal and Assam Railway, the appellant in his business of Neemchand Himatmull was declared the highest bidder and purchaser of certain quantities of jute and hemp, the particulars whereof are set out in the plaint. It appears that the appellant was declared a purchaser in respect of six lots, five of which were sold together and Lot No. 7 was soldseparately. Lot No. 1 of the first five lots was alleged to consist of 272 bales of jute in bundles and 50 bales jute; Lot No. 2--60 halt bales jute in bundles and 30 half bales jute; Lot No. 3 had 70 drums jute; Lot No. 4, had 9 drums hemp; Lot...
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Kumar Datta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal323,[1961]42ITR661(Cal)
Bachawat, J. 1. Reference No. 45 of 1954 relates to the assessment year 1945-46. Reference No. 106 of 1954 relates to the assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49. Both references arise out of the assessments of one Birendra Kumar Datta in respect of income from house properties under Section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act.2. By a Trust Deed dated 5-2-1944, Birendra conveyed to himself and his mother Sudhamukhi as Trustees the house and premises Nos. 8/3 and 8/10 Alipore Park Road and 37 Syed Ameer Ali Avenue within the municipal limits of the town of Calcutta. The several beneficiaries mentioned in the Trust Deed are Birendra and his brothers Suprovat Jyotsna and Indrajit, his mother Sudhamukhi and his father Kiran Chandra Datta. Clause 1 of the Trust Deed is as follows;'The Trustees shall realise the rents of the said Trust Properties and pay the rates, taxes and other impositions in respect thereof and the balance after such payments shall be received by the said Birendra Kumar Datta fo...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Kanta Sen Vs. Sovana Sen and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal438
ORDERS. Datta, J.1. On or about the 17th August 1959 this application was made by Sovana Sen inter alia for an order that the permanent maintenance at A sum of Rs. 350/- or any sum which this Hon'ble Court may think proper be directed to be paid to her by the respondent Mr. Amar Kanta Sen.2. This application arises out of a judgment delivered by me on 10-7-1959 whereby the marriage between her and Amar Kanta Sen was dissolved. She stated in her petition that she came of a very respectable family and was married to a respectable person and was throughout accustomed to a decent way of living. She cannot marry nor does she intend to marry in her life over again and wants to lead a very chaste and decent life dedicating herself to the welfare of her son and to her musical pursuit and painting for which she has special aptitude. She further stated that she was not in good health and was unable to support herself and that she was now practically without means and had no friends or relations ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramlal Roshanlal and Co. Vs. B.C. Paul and Sons (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal547
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an application for setting aside an award. The petitioner's case is that there was an agreement for reference of disputes arising on or out of the contract to arbitration under the rules of the Calcutta Grain Oilseed and Rice Association. Rule 13 is as follows :'If the Court have allowed the time or extended time to expire without making any award and without having signified to the Committee that they cannot agree, the Committee shall constitute in manner aforesaid another court which shall proceed with the arbitration and shall be at liberty to act upon the record of the proceedings as then existing and on the evidence, if any, then taken in the arbitration de novo.'2. One of the grounds for challenging the award is that the Secretary, Calcutta Grain Oilseed and Rice Association had no power and authority to constitute a court of arbitration under the rules and therefore the court had no jurisdiction to make the award. By a letter dated December 6, 1958 address...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal Vs. Jiwanmall Babu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Cal673
Renupada Mukherjee, J. 1 The State of West Bengal is appellant in this appeal, and the two respondents are the two plaintiffs of the Trial Court who have sued both in their personal capacity and also as Kartas of a joint Hindu family consisting of themselves and their sons. The suit was instituted by the respondents in the Trial Court for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6535/8/6 pies as damages on a certain contract to which we shall presently refer.2. The suit was contested by the appellant State on the ground that the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure purporting to have been served upon the Government was not a legal and valid notice and the suit was barred by limitation. A further plea was taken that the amount claimed by way of damages was excessive.3. The Trial Court overruled the legal objections taken on behalf of the State and decreed the claim of the plaintiff in part for Rs. 5901/6as, with corresponding costs. This appeal has been preferred by the State of West ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »