Kolkata Court March 1961 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.
Ajit Kumar Ganguli Vs. Union of IndiA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR104(Cal)
SISIR KUMAR SEN J. - This revisional application under article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order passed in revision by the Board of Revenue, West Bengal, reviving Certificate Case No. 300 I.T. of 1948-49 against Messrs. H. and A.K. Ganguli, represented by the petitioner, Ajit Kumar Ganguli and his partners.The petitioner, Ajit Kumar Ganguli, was a partner of the firm styled 'Messrs. H. and A.K. Ganguli' which had its office at 17/19 R.G. Kar Road, Calcutta. According to the petitioner, the said partnership firm discontinued business with effect from 8th August, 1942, the assets and liabilities of the firm, with the right to use the firm name 'Messrs. H. and A.K. Ganguli' in respect of existing tenders and contracts being taken over by M/s. Ganguli and Sons Ltd., having its office at No. 17, R.G. Kar Road. On 23rd March, 1948, the Income-tax Officer District I(2), Calcutta, assessed the income of the firm 'Messrs. H. and A.K. Ganguli' for the assessment year 1943-44 R...
In Re: Provash Chandra Mallick, Advocate
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Cal495,1961CriLJ334
G.K. Mitter, J. 1. This matter arises out of a reference made by this Court for inquiry under Section 10(2) of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926. In consultation with the Bar Council the reference was made in March 1960 to the District Judge, Howrah, who after recording oral evidence, found the Advocate concerned to have used some words towards a Magistrate, constituting a contempt of Court.2. As there is a direct conflict of testimony between that of the Advocate and the Magistrate, it is necessary to refer in brief to the history of the litigation and the circumstances in which the words complained of arc alleged to have been uttered. As early as August 1955 there were disputes between one Suresh Chandra Bera and one Bejoy Kumar Mondal with regard to a cinema home in village Shyampur within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court of Uluberia in the district of Howrah, There were proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in theCourt of the Second Officer, Ulberia...
Kharkhari Coal Company (Private) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR383(Cal)
H.K. BOSE C.J. - This is an application for a certificate under article 133(1) of the Constitution in respect of an order of a division bench of this court passed upon an application made under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The petitioner company lent and advanced certain sums of money to a company known as Vishnu Industrial Co. (Private) Ltd., New Delhi, and the interest which the petitioner company received in respect of the loans was duly assessed by the income-tax authorities as interest on investment under section 10 of the Income-tax Act. The said Vishnu Industrial Co. (Private) Ltd. went into liquidation on September 29, 1954. At that time a sum of Rs. 2,85,792 was found due and payable by the said company to the petitioner company. In its return submitted to the income-tax authorities in respect of the assessment year 1955-56 (accounting year 1954-55) the said sum of Rs. 2,85,792 was sought to be written off as bad debt. The Income-tax Officer, Companies District I...
Kastur Chand JaIn Vs. Gift Tax Officer 'K' Ward, Dist. Iii (2) and Ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Cal649,65CWN706
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: On or about the 8th August, 1957 the petitioner, Kastur Chand Jain, made a gift of 250 shares of the face value of Rs. 100/- each, of R. McDill and Go. (Private) Ltd. and 100 shares of the face value of Rs. 100/- each, of Misrilall Dharamchand (Private) Ltd., belonging to him, to has daughter, Sm. Padmawati Debi. On or about the 28th July, 1959 the petitioner submitted a voluntary return of Rs. 35,000/- to the respondent No. 1, Gift Tax Officer 'K'--Ward, Dist. III(2) in respect of the aforesaid gift. The return was made on the basis of what the petitioner considered to be the face value of the said shares on the date of the gift. On the 24th February, 1960 the respondent No. 1 made an assessment order, whereby he has calculated the value of 250 shares of R. McDill and Co., (Private) Ltd. to be Rs. 1,83,781/- and the value of 100 shares of Misrilall Dharamchand (Private) Ltd. as Rs. 84,722/-. After granting the statut...
Kastur Chand JaIn Vs. Gift Tax Officer, K Ward, Dist. Iii (2), and Oth ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1961
Reported in: [1961]42ITR288(Cal)
SINHA, J. - The facts in this case are shortly as follows :On or about August 8, 1957, the petitioner, Kastur Chand Jain, made a gift of 250 shares of the face value of Rs. 100 each of R. McDill & Co. (Private) Ltd. and 100 shares of the face value of Rs. 100 each of Misrilall Dharamchand (Private) Ltd., belonging to him, to his daughter, Sm. Padmawati Debi. On or about July 28, 1959, the petitioner submitted a voluntary return of Rs. 35,000 to the respondent No. 1, Gift-tax Officer, 'K' Ward, Dist. III(2), in respect of the aforesaid gift. The return was made on the basis of what the petitioner considered to be the face value of the said shares on the date of the gift. On February 24, 1960, the respondent No. 1 made an assessment order, whereby he has calculated the value of 250 shares of R. McDill & Co. (Private) Ltd. to be Rs. 1,83,781 and the value of 100 shares of Misrilall Dharamchand (Private) Ltd. as Rs. 84,722. After granting the statutory exemption of Rs. 10,000 the taxable a...
Sailesh Chandra Chakraborty Vs. the State Overruled
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Cal309,1963CriLJ748
S.K. Sen, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the forfeiture of the bond executed by the petitioner Sailesh Chandra Chakravarty as the surety for producing certain accused in Court. The accused Salimuddin, Sultan and three others were arrested by the police, and on 16-7-59 under the provisions of Section 495 Cri. p. C. they were released on bail by the officer-in-Charge of Dinhata Police Station, who accepted a bail bond executed by the petitioner Sailesh Chandra Chakravarty as surety. Sailesh Chandra Chakraborty undertook to produce each of the accused In the Court of the S. D. O. at Dinhata and in default undertook to pay Rs. 200/- in respect of each accused. Two of the accused, namely, Sultan and Saiimuddin absconded, and the surety Sailesh Chandra Chakravarty was directed to produce them before the S. D. O., Dinhata, but failed to do so. Thereupon the S. D. O. Dinhata, called upon the petitioner to show cause why the bail bond should not be forfeited. After hearing...
Atul Chandra Lahiry Vs. Sonatan Daw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal78
Boss, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment brought by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-respondent in the court of the First Munsif at Asansol in the district of Burdwan. 2. The plaintiff-appellant is the owner and the defendant-respondent was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff according to the English calendar at a rent of Rs. 36/-per month. The grounds on which ejectment was sought were (1) that thedefendant-respondent failed to pay or to deposit in accordance with law rents for more than six months in course of 18 months and such arrears of rents fell due from April 1953 and (2) that the defendant contravened the provisions of Section 108 Clauses (m), (n) and (p) (clause (n) was subsequently amended as Clause (o)) of the Transfer of Property Act inasmuch as the defendant without the consent of the plaintiff had erected permanent structures on the property, namely, he had converted a verandah into a room by raising permanent brick wall on the grou...
Sagar Chandra Saha Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal85
Mitter, J.1. The appellant and several others were tried upon divers charges by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Burdwan sitting with a Jury. The Jury returned a majority verdict of guilty under Section 304, part II of the J.P.C. as against the appellant. By a similar verdict the Jury also found him guilty under Section 324 of the I. P. C. The learned Judge accepted these verdicts, convicted the appellant of the relative offences and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years in respect of the offence under Section 304, part II and to two years in respect of the offence under Sec, 324 of the I. P. C. The Jury returned verdicts of 'not guilty' as against the rest.2. According to the Prosecution, the genesis of the trouble was a rude remark which the appellant was said to have made to one Annakali, P. W. 9. The attack which appears to have been wanton resulted in the death of Radhapada. There is no doubt that there was a real not and that several others partici...
Belland and Another Vs. Smt. Banarasi Debi.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR28(Cal)
BOSE C.J. - This is an appeal from an order of Sinha J. directing issue of a write in the nature of mandamus forbidding the Income-tax Officer, Companies District IV, Calcutta, the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Union of India from giving effect to or acting upon a notice of reassessment issued under section 34(i)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act and further directing the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the said notice.The respondent No. 1, who is a Hindu lady, filed her return in respect of the assessment year 1947-48 before the Income-tax Officer, Companies District IV, Calcutta. The assessment was completed in 1948, but it was found that no tax was payable by her. On April 2, 1956, a notice dated March 19, 1956, issued under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, was served on the respondent. Under section 34(1)(a), the notice had to be served within eight years from the end of the assessment year, that is, by March 31, 1956. But it was actually served on April 2, ...
RoopnaraIn Ramchandra Private Ltd. Vs. Brahmapootra Tea Co. (India) Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal192,65CWN1060
ORDER1. This is an application for setting aside an ex parte decree passed on December 12, 1960. The application has been made by Brahmapootra Tea Co., (India) Ltd. The notice of Motion is addressed to Messrs. Roopnarain Ramchandra Private Ltd., the plaintiff.2. The petitioner company states that in the month of July, 1960 the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, presented a petition for winding up of Brahmapootra Tes Co. (India) Ltd., on the ground that the petitioner company had made default in delivering the Statutory Report. An order was made on November 15, 1960 for winding up the company. On November 19, 1960 it is alleged that the petitioner came to know of the said petition as well as the order for winding up. It is further alleged that the petitioner was not served with any notice and had no knowledge of the presentation of the winding up petition. On or about November 28, 1960 the petitioner made an application for setting aside the winding up order. On December 5, 1960 the w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »