Kolkata Court February 1961 Judgments
Ram Baran Prasad Vs. Ram Mohit Hazra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Cal537
Lahiri, C.J.1. This is an application for a certificate under Clauses (b) and (c) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution against a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated November 18, 1959 (reported in : AIR1961Cal152 ) affirming the judgment anddecree of the Subordinate Judge, 5th Court, Ali-pore. The petitioner before us is defendant No. 2. The suit out of which this application arises was one for a declaration that the plaintiffs respondents, who may be collectively called the Hazras, were entitled to pre-emption and that defendantNo. 2 was bound to convey the disputed property to the plaintiffs on payment of actual consideration and for a decree for pre-emption against the defendant calling upon him to execute a conveyance in favour of the plaintiffs on payment of consideration. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance and an appeal to this Court against that decree has failed. The defendant No. 2 now intends to take a further appeal to the SupremeCourt against t...
Tag this Judgment!P.J.P. Thomas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, CalcuttA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1961
Reported in: [1962]44ITR897(Cal)
P.B. MUKHARJI J. - This income-tax reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act raises the two following questions of law for our decision :'In the facts and circumstances of these cases, whether the dividends paid by J. Thomas and Co. Ltd. to Mrs. Judith Thomas, grossed up to the sums of Rs. 97,091, Rs. 78,272, Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 16,385 respectively for the four years in question could be included in the income of Mr. P.J.P. Thomas and be taxed in his hands under the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?In the facts and circumstances of these cases, whether the dividends referred to above could be included in the total income of Mr. P.J.P. Thomas under the provisions of section 16(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'The Tribunal held that the transfer of shares in question in this case was hit by section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act and also held that such transfer could be construed to be a revocable one within the meaning of section 16(1...
Tag this Judgment!Baidhyanath Ghosh Vs. Sm. Shefali Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ812
ORDERAmaresh Roy, J.1. This is a Rule issued at the instance of one Baidya Nath Ghose against an order under Section 488, Cri.P.C. by which he has been ordered by the learned Magistrate t0 pay maintenance of Rs. 30/- per month to the opposite party No. 1 Sbefali Ghose and Rs. 20/- per month to each of her four minor children opposite parties Nos. 2 to 5 with effect from 19th December, 1958.2. The allegation made lay opposite party No. 1 Shefali Ghose in her application under Section 488, Cri.P.C. was that she had lost her father in her infancy and lived in the house of her maternal uncle in a village at Tiperan, while her mother was working in the house of Baidya Nath Ghose at Calcutta as a cook at his residence in Mahesh Dutta Lane, Chetla. Her maternal uncle Surendra Nath Dey, (P.W. 2) brought her to his residence at Pathuriaghata in Calcutta when she was about 17 years old. While living there Sliefali used to go to the house of Baidya Nath Ghose to see her mother and an intimacy gre...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra Das Vs. Lakhan Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Cal518
P.C. Mallick, J. 1. (First nine paragraphs not containing any point of law are not reported as being unnecessary for purposes of this report --Ed.) 10. The first question to be considered is whether the testamentary instruments in suit are tainted with suspicion. I do not consider the provisions of the will and codicil to be unnatural in the facts of this case. Putting myself in the arm chair of the testatrix, I feel that it was very natural that the provisions of the will and codicil would be as they are. As indicated before, the testatarix had very great love and affection for her step brother Gopinath and his family Had the lady died intestate the house would have devolved on her heir-at-law Lakshman -- her husband's sister's son then alive. Gopinath and his family would in such event have been thrown out from the house where they have been living for more than half a century. What is more natural for the loving sister to prevent this eventuality? On the other hand, Lakshman and his...
Tag this Judgment!Manickchand Durgaprasad Vs. Pratabmull Rameswar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Cal483
Lahiri, C.J.1. The facts leading up to this Reference are as follows. The respondent, Pratabmull Rameswar, filed a suit against the petitioner for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 87,000/- as damages under the circumstances stated in the plaint. The suit was dismissed by a single Judge sitting on the Original Side by a Judgment dated January 25, 1957. Against that decree the respondent tiled an appeal which was heard by a Division Bench. By a judgment dated February 19, 1960, the Division Bench reversed the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance and decreed the respondent's suit. Against the decree of the Division Bench the petitioner filed an application for a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution, and by an order dated September 12, 1960, a certificate was granted in favour of the petitioner. Under Order XLV, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner was required to furnish security within a period of six weeks from the date of the certificate or within...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. B.C. Nawn (Bros) Pr. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Cal620
ORDERP.C. Mallick, J.1. This is an application under Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act disputing the existence of an arbitration agreement whereunder certain disputes between the parties can be adjudicated.2. There is a contract between the parties whereby the contractor being the above respondent is to fabricate and supply 11000 tents to the Government. The Government was to supply the stores or materials to be used by the contractor for the fabrication of these tents. The contract is evidenced by a tender submitted by the contractor and accepted by an officer of the Government for and on behalf of the Governor-General-in-Council. It will be necessary to refer later to some of the terms of the contract. In terms of the contract the Government supplied materials of considerable value to the contractor and the contractor gave a bank guarantee which at the material time stood at Rs. 30 lacs. This bank guarantee was given in terms of the contract. The contractor was to be responsib...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. B.M. Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Cal456
ORDERP.C. Mallick, J.1. This is an application challenging the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement and an award made thereunder.2. The Respondent is a Contractor who was entrusted with certain construction works to be done in Ghuskara, Bolepur, Rampurhat and Madhaiganj. The contract is evidenced by the acceptance of a tender in the usual term. All the works done under this contract were done sometime in the year 1944/45. The contract contains the usual arbitration clause whereby 'all disputes and differences between the parties under the contract shall be referred to the arbitration of the Superintending Engineer of the Circle for the time being .....'3. Disputes and differences arose between the parties in respect to and in connection with the contract and one C. S. Mathur, Chief Engineer, referred the disputes to the arbitration of Mr. B.K. Guha, Superintending Engineer, Delhi Aviation and Planning Circle, New Delhi. The latter ot reference is dated May 11, 1951. It ap...
Tag this Judgment!Suganchand Saraogi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, CalcuttA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1961
Reported in: [1962]44ITR870(Cal)
SINHA J. - The facts in this case are shortly as follows : The petitioner in this case is Messrs. Suganchand Saraogi stated to be a partnership firm. Since the assessment year 1950-51 it has been assessed to income-tax as an unregistered firm. In this case we are concerned with the assessment of the firm for the year 1953-54. On or about the 25th September, 1953, a notice under section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act was served upon the assessee. No return was filed. On the 4th March, 1957, a notice under section 22(4) of the said Act was issued and served on the assessee on the 6th March, 1957. No response was received from the assessee although reminders were issued on 25th June, 1957, and 4th July, 1957, requesting it to appear before the Income-tax Officer with the books of account. No response having been received, a final notice was served to the effect that if the party failed to appear, an ex parte assessment would be completed. In spite of the reminders the assessee failed to comp...
Tag this Judgment!Jhulan Singh Vs. D.C. Ghatak and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal386,[1962(4)FLR336],(1962)ILLJ731Cal
S.K. Sen, J.1. This Rule was issued on apposite party No. 1, D. C. Ghatak, Assistant Factory Manager, Messrs. Jay Shree Textiles Ltd., and opposite party No. 2 Shri Sohan Dutta Vashist, Labour Officer, Messrs. Jay Shree Textiles Ltd., to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt of Court. The petitioner Jhulan Singh was employed in the Spinning department of Jay Shree Textiles Ltd., as a Reeler. One Sambhunath Ghose, the Assistant Spinning master of Jay Shree Textiles Ltd., lodged a First Information Report on 27-6-1960, at the Serampore Police Station to the effect that on Saturday 25th June, 1960, he had taken the petitioner to task for neglecting his duty and the petitioner had replied at the time in a rude and unmannerly way and that when Sambhu Nath Ghose was leaving the mill premises in the evening to catch the train, the petitioner suddenly attacked him with a knife and it was only due to timely intervention by other people that the petitioner could not inflict an...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kashi Prosad Agawalla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal169
Banerjee, J.1. Civil Rule No. 2755 of 1957 arises out of an objection to attachment of a certain sum of money, said to form part of the Provident Fund money belonging to G. W. Browne, opposite party No. 2.2. It is admitted that Browne was a subscriber to the State Railway Provident Fund and elected to be governed by the Provident Fund Sterling Accounts Rules. Payment of his Provident Fund money, on his retirement, was required under the Rules to be made in Sterling.3. On August 26, 1947, the said G. W. Browne wrote the following letter to the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, East Indian Railway: 'Dear Sir, I request that my Provident Fund or/and Special Contribution/Gratuity moneys may be remitted to me by Bank Draft on District Bank to the following address: Water St. Liverpool. I clearly understand that the remittance is made at my sole risk and that the East India Railway accept no further responsibility for the money and I agree to the receipt granted by the Postal/ ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »