Kolkata Court March 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.
Sm. Jabarani GunIn and Others Vs. Union of India and Another.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1960
Reported in: [1961]42ITR104(Cal)
RENUPADA MUKHERJEE, J. - The subject matter of this appeal lies within a very narrow compass. A house property bearing premises No. 36/1, Gorachand Road, Calcutta, has been attached in connection with some certificate proceedings. The certificate debtor is one Kumudmoni Dassi who is the mother-in-law of the four plaintiffs who are appellants in this appeal. The four plaintiffs who are appellants in this appeal. The four plaintiffs and the Wives of the four sons of Kumudmoni A certificate was issued against Kumudmoni f or recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,062-15-0 on account of income-tax. The premises mentioned above were attached for realisation of income-tax for the year 1945-46. After the property in question was attached and an order for sale was passed, the present plaintiffs filed a claim before the certificate officer on the strength of a deed of transfer. The claim was disallowed and the certificate officer made an order that the property should be sold in auction. The present suit w...
Duple Motor Bodies Ltd. Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners. Duple Motor ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1960
Reported in: [1961]43ITR65(Cal)
LORD EVERSHED M.R. The question for the decision of this court may be taken as it was formulated by the special Commissioners at the end of the case stated. It is as follows : 'Whether, on the evidence, and in view of our findings, our decision that the on-cost method should be applied in arriving at the cost of work in progress for the purpose of computing the companys Case I profits was erroneous in law.' The question as formulated did not (and I will assume deliberately did not) limit the subject-matter to the companys Case 1 profits for particular years; but I wish to say at the beginning that the problem before the special Commissioners and before us should be treated as so limited. At the beginning of the case three years are referred to (though, for the purposes of this judgment and of the argument, one particularly has been mentioned), namely, the year 1951-52 and the two succeeding years. I repeat that I shall treat the question posed as relating to those three years. The spec...
Brojendra Kumar Saha Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal217,65CWN670
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of Mr. Justice G. K. Mitter, dismissing the plaintiff's suit against the Union of India for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,415-10- as refund of salt duty paid by the plaintiff to the Government before the 1st April, 1957. The learned trial Judge dismissed thesuit on a preliminary ground on which alone the only issue in the suit was framed in the following terms:'Are the Notifications being Nos. 1/Customs/47, l/Salt/47 and 2/Salt/47 dated the 28th February, 1947 and published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) on the 1st March, 1947, binding on the defendant? '2. Following a decision of Kapur, J. in Union of India v. F. Gianchand Kasturi Lal, , the learned Judge came to the conclusion that these Notifications were not made under any of the sections of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and were, therefore, not binding on the Government itself which issued that Notification.3. There were other pleas taken in the...
Abinash Chandra Mondal Vs. Matilal Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal172
Niyogi, J.1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 34/1949 of the First Court of the Munsif at Howrah, against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Additional Court, Howrah, dismissing the appeal preferred by him against the judgment and decree of the said learned Munsif, dismissing the above suit. The facts of this case lie within a narrow compass and may be stated as follows:2. Respondents Nos. 12 and 13 used to hold a Jama of Rs. 20/7/- and odd under the co-sharer landlords, Respondents Nos. 1 to 11. The plaintiff-appellant auction-purchased the said holding in the sale held on 18-11-46 in Rent Execution case No. 73/1946, started by some of the co-sharer landlords, namely, Respondent No. 1 and Late Bejoy Krishna Mookerjee, predecessor of Respondents Nos. 2 to 4, in execution of the decree obtained by them on 11-6-43 in Rent Suit No. 142/1942. The said sale was confirmed on 19-12-46. But it appears that another co-sharer landlord,...
M. M. Ispahani Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1960
Reported in: [1961]43ITR58(Cal)
LAHIRI C.J. - Three points have been raised by Dr. Pal in this appeal against the order of P. B. Mukherji J. dated January 16, 1958, by which his Lordship has discharged a rule obtained by the appellant under article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant filed an application under article 226 of the Constitution for various reliefs including a mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw, cancel and revoke eight notices issued by the respondents under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act and also for a direction to give inspection of the materials in the possession of the respondents and the reasons recorded by the the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, for taking action under the aforesaid section. The facts which are undisputed are that the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, issued eight several notices against the appellant under section 34(1A) of the Income-tax Act on June 15, 1955, in respect of assessment proceedings from the year 1940-41 to 1947-48 both inc...
inland Revenue Commissioners Vs. Collco Dealings Ltd. Inland Revenue C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1960
Reported in: [1961]43ITR125(Cal)
LORD EVERSHED M.R. - stated the facts and continued : Apart from legislation passed in 1955 the Irish company would either certainly or in all probability have been able to recover from the English Revenue not, as we were informed, the actual tax which had been paid in respect of the accumulated profits, but a sum of income-tax (which might even have been larger) claculated by grossing up this vast dividend; but the right so to recover such a sum must - and I put this early in my judgment and in the forefront of it - depend upon some statutory right to be found in English legislation.A series of agreements had been made between representatives of the Governments, on the one side, of the United Kingdom, and on the other side of what was formerly the Irish Free State and later became the Irish Republic. Those agreements were confirmed in both countries by appropriate legislation. So far as this case is concerned, it will only be necessary to pay regard, except in passing, to the English ...
Workmen Represented by West Bengal Metal Workers Union Vs. Jeewanlal ( ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal556,64CWN708,[1960(1)FLR487],(1961)IILLJ23Cal
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by the West Bengal Metal Workers Union under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal made on the 3rd December, 1957 and published in the Calcutta Gazette of the 26th December, 1957.2. The only point for decision is whether Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act is retrospective or not. There is no decision on this particular section although there are decisions on the other sections in Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act containing Sections 25A to 25J.3. The workmen in this case were retrenched between the 15th and 23rd of July, 1952, when Section 25-H was not in operation. The counter-part of Section 25-H appears first in an ordinance dated the 24th February, 1953 and was subsequently embodied in this Section 25-H of the Act on 24-10-1953. The point now is that from January 1954, the Company started taking some of these retrenched people and the question arises w...
Rajendra Collieries Ltd. Vs. Coal Controller and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal736
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows : The petitioner, Rajendra Colliery Ltd., is a sub-lessee of approximately 1570 bighas of coal-bearing land in village Chordhara Thana Ramgarh, District Hazaribagh, in the State of Bihar. The petitioner company obtained a sub-lease from the lessee Messrs, Karanpura Development Co. Ltd., by an instrument of sub-lease dated September 1946. On or about 29th May, 1947 the petitioner made an application for a permit to open a coal mine in the said area as is required under, the Colliery Control Order, 1944. This order was subsequently replaced by the Colliery Control Order, 1945 and paragraph 14 of the said order runs as follows :'No colliery shall be opened and no colliery, the working whereof has been discontinued for a period exceeding two months, shall be re-opened except with the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with such directions as the Central Government may at the time of granting the pe...
Borakar Engineering and Foundry Works Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal513,64CWN744
A.N. Ray, J. 1. This is a suit for the recovery of Rs. 13,176.69 nP. consisting of a sum of Rs. 11,096.69 nP. as and by way of refund and sum of Rs. 2080/- being interest from 24-9-1955 till 24-11-1958. The plaintiffs case is that the plaintiff was purported to be assessed to pay sales tax to the extent of Rs. 2803-2-0, Rs. 3670-5-0 and Rs. 4623-6-0 for the assessment periods 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 respectively under the Sales Tax Registration No. DH/2383. The orders for assessment were passed by the Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax Dhanbad in the State ot Bihar by orders dated 25-9-1954. The plaintitt states that under a bona fide mistake that it was liable to pay sales tax for the said periods and that the defendant had a right to demand and receive such taxes from the plaintiff, the plaintitt paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the defendant on account of such taxes. The payment was made by cheque, being cheque No. 041203 dated 14-12-1953 for Rs. 10,000/- drawn on the Oriental ...
Saradindu Chanda Vs. Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal570,1960CriLJ1198
ORDERSinha, J. 1. The petitioner before me is Saradindu Chanda who served as a clerk in the Sales Tax Directorate, West Bengal. On or about January 23, 1957 two persons were produced before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta in connection with the theft of sales tax declaration book in the name of one Ramswarup Mamchand. They were released on bail. On January 24, 1957 two other persons were produced under arrest before the Chief Presidency Magistrate in connection with the same case on the charge that they were in possession of certain sales tax declaration forms, both used and unused. These persons were also granted bail. On April 5, 1957 one Mahal Chand Sethia was arrested in connection with the said case on a charge of theft of 100 pages of sales tax declaration forms. There were further charges that upon a search of his residence and guddi various other forms, chemicals, forged seals of the Commercial Tax Directorate etc., were found and seized. On or about February 26, 1959...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »