Kolkata Court December 1960 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.
Saurendra Mohan Basu Vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal461,1961CriLJ204
Sen, J.1. These two Revisional applications are directed against an order passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Sri Bijayesh Mukherji issuing process under Sections 467/109 and 471 read with Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners S.M. Basil and P.N. Talukdar. Revision Case No. 681 of 1959 has been filed by S.M. Basu and Revision Case No. 1049 of 1959 has been filed by P.N. Talukdar.2. The petition of Complaint by the present complainant Saroj Ranjan Sarkar who is the youngest brother of the late Nalini Ranjan Sarkar, was filed on 3-4-59. But before the present complaint filed by Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, a previous complaint on the same facts was filed by Promode Ranjan Sarkar, second brother of the late Nalini Ranjan Sarkar. That complaint was filed on 17-3-54 and was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the then Chief Presidency Magistrate Sri N.C. Chakravarti on 6-8-54. Thereafter, a Revisional application (Revision Case No. 1059 of ...
Mercantile Express Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-1960
Reported in: [1963]47ITR125(Cal)
P. B. MUKHARJI J. - We do not feel inclined to issue a rule in this case. We are satisfied that no question of law arises in this application under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act. The questions, as framed in paragraph 8 of the petition, in our view, are really and essentially questions of fact in this case.The question proposed by the assessee relates to a claim for remuneration to a director as a permissible deduction. The petitioner claimed a certain amount and the income-tax authority has reduced that amount. It turns on the newly amended section 10(4A) of the Income-tax Act introduced by section 7 of the Finance Act of 1956 with effect from April 1, 1956. By the opening expression 'nothing in sub-section (2) shall, in the computation of profits and gains of a company', this newly amended sub-section gets rid of the effect of the legal decisions on section 10(2) prior to the amendment. The material portion of the language now is :'If in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, an...
Grosvenor Place Estates Ltd. Vs. Roberts (inspector of Taxes).
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1960
Reported in: [1963]49ITR408(Cal)
December 20. The following judgments were read.LORD EVERSHED M.R. In this case I have had the advantage of reading in advance the judgment to be delivered by Donovan L. J. I agree with my brothers conclusions and with his reasons for them. Out of respect, however, for the opposite conclusion which Harman L. J. has reached, and for the argument of the counsel for the appellants, I state shortly my own reasons for thinking that this appeal should be dismissed.The case is, indeed, a remarkable one. The appellants granted to the National Coal Board a long lease (as that phrase is defined by section 172 of the Income-tax Act, 1952) of premises known as Hobart House, the lease being for a term of 81 years from March 25, 1955, at an annual rent of Pounds 96,177. The National Coal Board proceeded to pay to the appellants, in respect of each of the first six quarters under their lease, the rent in full, i.e., sums on each occasion of Pounds 24,044 5s., without any deduction in respect of income...
Ranjit Kumar Maitra Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ218
S.K. Sen, J.1. The appellant Ranjit Kumar Maitra who was a laboratory technician ofi Kanchrapara T. B. Hospital has been convicted in respect of three counts uuder Section 420 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years in respect of each count, the sentences being made to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is briefly as follows: As a laboratory technician of Kanchrapara T. B. Hospital it was the duty of the appellant Ranjit Kumar Maitra to purchase blood from the Blood Bank, Medical College, Calcutta for the use of patients of Kanchrapara T. B. Hospital for the purpose of transfusion, as advised by the medical attendant of the Hospital, and for this purpose the appellant used to go to Calcutta Medical College frequently. One Prativa Rani Chandra, wife of Kanai Lal Chandra, was a patient of the Kanchrapara T. B. Hospital and the medical attendant advised blood transfusion, and for this purpose about the middle of December, 1954, Kanai Lal Chandra paid Rs. 5...
Marcel Rodrick Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ468
S.C. Lahiri, C.J.1. The petitioner who has been convicted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. 1946, for infringement of paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, by the Presidency Magistrate, Seventh Court, Calcutta, and whose application for revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been summarily dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court asks for a certificate under Article 134(l)(c7 of the Constitution for a further appeal to the Supreme Court.2. The facts as found by the Trying Magistrate which are not in dispute are that the petitioner entered India on September 2, 1957, on a passport issued from Dacca on May 30, 1957, and 'C' category visa valid for a period of three months. On June 13, 1959, a complaint was lodged by the Special Branch of Police to the Officer in Charge of Taltola Police Station within the jurisdiction of which the petitioner was residing that the petitioner's stay in India was unauthorised and was in contravention of paragraph 7 of...
Wilkins (inspector of Taxes) Vs. Rogerson.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1960
Reported in: [1963]49ITR395(Cal)
LORD EVERSHED M. R. The point involved in this appeal falls indeed within the narrowest compass; but it is, or appears to be, novel in the sense that no strictly comparable case seems to have come before the court before.Mr. Rogerson, the respondent, at the relevant date in 1955-56 was in the service of a company known as the Anglo-Oriental & General Investment Trust Limited. As the season of goodwill approached in the year, 1955, the company, of which he was the servant, wrote to him, and to some twenty or twenty-one fellow servants, a letter which, so far as material, was as follows : 'The Board have decided to make a Christmas present to all male members of the staff of clothes suitable for wear at the office up to the value of Pounds 15. Arrangements have been made with Messrs. Montague Burton Ltd., 112, Cheapside, E. C. 2, for you to be able to acquire from them a choice from or combination of the following : Suit, overcoat raincoat. The bill will be sent to the Trust, and it is s...
Biswanath Sinha and ors. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Banerji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal389,65CWN339
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J. 1. This application appears to be a sequel to a matter recently disposed of by me, being matter No. 183 of 1959, Sudhir Kumar Banerjee v. Commr., Corporation of Calcutta, in which, the rule has been made absolute by my judgment dated November 17, 1960, and a writ in the nature of mandamus has been issued directing the Commissioner to the Corporation of Calcutta and the Corporation of Calcutta to remove or cause to be removed, the unauthorised constructions on the footways and footpaths On Rash Behari Avenue, abutting the premises no. 195, Rash Behavi Avenue, in the Suburbs of Calcutta, and to exercise all the powers conferred upon them by the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 or the bye-laws in force, for that purpose. A writ was, issued in the nature of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Police, the respondent No. 3 to render adequate help and assist the said Commissioner to the Corporation and the Corporation of Calcutta in carrying out their statutory duties in th...
Shree Gopal Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Surendra K. Ganeshdas Malhotra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Cal61
A.N. Ray, J. 1. This is a suit for an injunction restraining the defendant during the continuance of the agreement of employment dated November 22, 1957 from giving his services or advice to any person or company whatsoever other than the plaintiff or from becoming interested or engaged in any enterprise or undertaking either alone or jointly with other or any other in any business or trade Other than the plaintiff's business or trade. The plaintiff is a limited company and carries on business mainly of manufacture of paper. The plaintiff runs a scheme to train up graduates fresh from the Universities, inter alia, in the manufacture of paper on their agreeing to serve the plaintiff and/or the companies under the management of the managing agents and/or their allied concerns for 17 years after completion of an apprenticeship period of 3 years. In pursuance of the scheme the plaintiff issued advertisements for recruitment of apprentices and the defendant, who had graduated from the Bomba...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›