Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal81,64CWN788
F.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This is a reference under proviso (ii) to Rule 1 of Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules and the point referred relates to extension of time under Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act. The point has arisen in connection with the setting aside of a sale under Section 174(3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act but the reference is much more comprehensive as the question has been framed in such a way as to include as well cases under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is a family likeness in the two classes of cases and so far as the present point is concerned, it is pre-eminently a matter which is better and more effectively dealt with at once, or, at one and the same time, in relation to the above two statutory provisions. 2. The instant case, out of which this reference arises, was one for setting aside a sale under Section 174(3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The application under the section was filed by one of the judgment-debtors. The trial court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal199,1961CriLJ472,64CWN899
Banerjee, J. 1. This is a reference made to a Special Division Bench, under the second proviso to Rule 1, Chapter II of the High Court Appellate Side Rules. The particular question of law referred for determination is :'Whether Rule 9 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Rules 1950 is ultra vires?'2. Rule 9 above referred to is quoted below : '9. In making inquiries under the Act, the Controller, the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, the District Judge or the Judicial Officer to whom the case may be transferred under the provision of Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 32 shall follow, as nearly as may be, the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 3,908, for the regular trial of suits, the substance only of the evidence being recorded as in unappealable cases and shall record in brief 'the reasons for his findings.'3. I need refer to the facts of the case briefly, so as to understand how this reference came to be made.4. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal48,[1962]32CompCas246(Cal),64CWN1032
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of J. P. Mitter, J. decreeing the plaintiff's suit with costs and interest for the sum of Rs. 93,628-8-0. The plaintiff claimed a decree for Rs. 1,43,628-8-0. The learned trial Judge recorded the fact that a sum of Rs. 50,000 had already been paid and therefore he decreed the suit for the balance of the sum of Rs. 93,628-8-0.2. The main point for decision in this appeal is the effect of an unstamped Protection Note under the law of insurance. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff on such an unstamped Protection Note which is also known as a Cover Note in respect of insurance against fire regarding plaintiff's stock of bidi leaves and tobacco. The decision depends on the construction of the provision for 'General Exemption' in Article 47 of Schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act.3. Schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act is introduced by Section 3 of the Statute providing for instruments chargeable with duty. The opening words of Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1960Cal619,65CWN61,[1962]44ITR315(Cal)
Bachawat, J.1. This is an appeal from an order dismissing a writ application challenging the validity of three notices issued to the- appellant under Section 34(1A) of the Indian Income Tax Act 1922 and the subsequent proceedings thereunder. The notices relate to the assessment years 1945-46, 1946-47 and 1947-48. The three notices were originally issued by the Income Tax Officer, Companies District III, on 18-12-1954. Subsequently, on 8-7-1955, three revised notices under Section 34(1A) were issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII. Consequential notices under Section 22(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, requiring the appellant to produce certain documents and books of account were issued on 25-7-1955 by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, and served upon the appellant. The appellant refuses to file its return of income or to produce its books and documents.2. The three notices under Section 34(1A) state that the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that income...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal422
A.N. Ray, J. 1. The defendant No. 2 New Beerbhum Coal Co. 'Ltd. instituted Suit No. 1024 of 1953 against the plaintiff, the Benaras Ice Factory Ltd. and the defendant No. 4, Jiban Krishna Mukherjee for the sum of Rs. 18,497-15-0. On December 5, 1955, there was a consent decree in favour of the defendant No. 2 against Benares Ice Factory Ltd. for the sum of Rs. 18,497-15-0 with interest thereon at 6 per Cent per annum from the date of the decree until realisation. Under the consent decree the decretal amount was payable in certain instalments. It was further provided in the decree that in default of payment of any one of the instalments the balance of the decretal amount would at once become payable and the defendant No. 2 would be entitled to put the decree in execution. Finally, by the consent decree a first charge was created upon the plans and machinery of the Ice Factory of the plaintiff lying and situate at Benares and the decree-holder was declared to be at liberty to execute the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal144,[1961]31CompCas45(Cal),64CWN828
ORDERG.K. Mitter, J.1. This is a petition to wind up a company which was registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, in the year 1945 under the name and style of Goenka Commercial Bank Ltd. The grounds of the application are that the substratum of thecompany is gone and in the events which have taken place and the situation in which the company is placed it is just and equitable to wind up the company. A further ground) is taken that the company had suspended business for more than a year before the presentation of the petition. Strictly speaking, the first ground is treated in text books as one of the various branches of the 'just and equitable' clause but there have been instances in which Courts have resorted to the 'just and equitable' ground apart from that of failure of the substratum of the company.2. The Memorandum of Association of thecompany shows that its name was the Goenka Commerical Bank Ltd. Clause 3 of the Memorandum enumerates the various objects of the company. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal359
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal by the propounder against the judgment and decree of P. G. Mallick, J. dismissing the propounder's application for probate of the will of one Gregory George Carapiet dated the 28th December 1955. The propounder is the wife of the testator.2. The terms of the will are simple. It first revokes previous testamentary writings and codicils and appoints his wife Anna Elda Gula Carapiet, the propounder and the Mercantile Bank of India as executors. Then follow the dispositions which are short and simple. It gives Rs. 65,000/-to the testator's sister Virginia Carapiet and the rest and residue to his wife the propounder with the wish that she does not remarry. A wish is also further added that after the death of the wife, the property she dies possessed of, be delivered to the Jerusalem Armenian Partriarchate for the education of orphans. It is a short will and these are its brief and only terms.3. It ends by saying that the testator had a recent stroke of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal112,64CWN722
Banerjee, J. 1. A single point of law arises for our consideration in both these appeals, namely, whether the Collector was right in valuing the compensation payable for certain plots of land acquired under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act (West Bengal Act II of 1948) in accordance with the provisions of the second proviso to Section 7(1) of the said Act and whether the Court below was wrong in treating the aforesaid provisions as ultra vires;2. West Bengal Act II of 1948 came into operation on March 11, 1948. Section 7(1) of. the Act, as it originally stood, is hereinbelow set out:'7(1) Wherever any land is acquired under Section 4 there shall be paid compensation the amount of which shall be determined by the Collector in the manner and in accordance with the principles set out in Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894: Provided that the market value referred to in clause first of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the said Act shall, in re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1960Cal768
A.N. Ray, J. 1. The plaintiff instituted this suit with leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent for a decree for Rs. 6,07,346/-. The plaintiff's claim arises out of an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants through defendant No. 2 in respect of supply of tea. There was an agreement in the month of December 1957. The quantity supplied under that agreement to the defendants had been paid for. In the month of March 1958 another agreement was entered into on behalf of the defendants through defendant No. 2. It was agreed that the defendants would accept and/or buy and/or purchase from the plaintiff 2,00 tons of tea. The goods were to be shipped from Calcutta during the months of May and June 1958. The plaintiff was to be paid by means of letter of credit at Calcutta. The other terms of the agreement contained, inter alia, a clause that no further order shall be placed in India by the defendant who would give to the plaintiff the first refusal of their future requirements a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1960Cal752
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal from the judgment and decree of P. G. Mallick J. dismissing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell premises No. 168, Bowbazar Street, Calcutta, for a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/-. 2. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit on the ground first that there was no concluded contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and secondly that the plaintiff as a purchaser was not acceptable to the defendant vendor. The appellant has attacked the judgment on both the grounds. 3. The case of the respective parties lies within a small compass. The plaintiff appellant's case is that on the 4th January, 1946, an agreement was concluded in Calcutta whereby the plaintiff agreed to buy and the defendant agreed to sell premises No. 168, Bowbazar Street, Calcutta, free from encumbrances and subject to the title being found good and marketable for the price of Rs. 1,30,000/-. The appellant's further case is that it was agreed th...
Tag this Judgment!